Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 704 posts

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#251

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

Taywee wrote: post #214
onion2k wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of life isn't the whole story though. Longevity matters too. When I was a child if someone had asked me "Would you like to live a life of opulent luxury but be killed when you're 20?" I'd have said no. There is no doubt that a good farm is better than a bad farm, but neither is particularly great if you're a cow.

I think it really depends what the alternative is. If it's that vs living in the wilderness in a small family and no other support against the elements or vicious predators, that's not such as easy decision. Cows don't have a support system, society, government, or social welfare in their non-farm state. They just try to survive the elements and the environment.

> If it's that vs living in the wilderness

That seems like a false dichotomy considering farmers aren't going out and rescuing cows from the wilderness and giving them the roof and food they didn't have on their own. An alternative is to not breed them in the first place.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#252

Post by Godel_unicode »

lanevorockz wrote: post #221
adriand wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that Dr Jonathan Birch, Associate Professor at LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, and his team of scientists didn’t encounter this insightful perspective when they reviewed “over 300 scientific studies” in order to arrive at their conclusions… In seriousness though, this comment is a prime example of speciesism. Even if it were true that these crustaceans were “basically bugs” how doe…

At this point, I find it remarkable that people use the term “found studies” as anything but self selection. You can prove anything including that the earth is flat and that video footage in the moon landing is fake. Don’t forget that the ancient alien theory is a phd research with published papers

Ah yes, the theory that since bad papers exist all papers are bad. Reading one study is not the same as reading (and then citing) many studies. Common sense is frequently wrong, for a lot of well-studied reasons.

There's also a large difference between one lone study which finds a thing using dubious methods and a cohort of studies which independently replicate the same results.

There is no shortcut for actually reading and understanding studies if you want to learn what a study does and doesn't show, but discounting science because some history is paper are bad is... tenuous.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#253

Post by shagie »

glenstein wrote: post #98
TehCorwiz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the above definition even amoeba and flatworms are sentient.

Amoeba can feel sensations? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely want to know.

I've enjoyed the Journey into the Microcosmos Youtube channel - This one is Titled "Making Decisions Without a Brain" (subtitled poking protists) https://youtu.be/1LyeWQZ7ZR0

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#254

Post by forty »

traverseda wrote: post #46
adamcharnock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I didn’t know that either. I should probably read into this in more detail…

You're probably thinking of "sapient" which generally implies higher reasoning. "Sentient" means able to feel things, and it's pretty obvious that animals can feel pain.

It's not obvious at all. Actually it's not obvious at all that anything else than yourself can feel pain :)

I agree that it's a reasonable extrapolation though :)

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#255

Post by rat87 »

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #85
monkeybutton wrote: post #6

Octopi I understand, but lobsters? They have less than half the nervous system of an ant [1]. Are individual ants sentient and worthy of legislating over? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of...

Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Thus, its greek plural is octopodes. And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english, the other proper plural is octopuses. Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection. "A hypercorrection is non-standard use of language that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer wh…

all 3 are correct

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2voh0q (Octopus - Merriam-Webster Ask the Editor)

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#256

Post by stordoff »

onemiketwelve wrote: post #182
doctor_eval wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. A dictionary doesn't tell you how to use words, it tells you how words are used.

dic·tion·ar·y /ˈdikSHəˌnerē/ noun a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

Many dictionaries aim to be descriptive, not prescriptive, as doctor_eval said. That definition doesn't change that:

OED: "The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage 'dos' and 'don'ts'. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as 'incorrect'."[1]

Merriam-Webster: "Merriam-Webster is a descriptive dictionary in that it aims to describe and indicate how words are actually used by English speakers and writers. Generally, the descriptive approach to lexicography does not dictate how words should be used or set forth rules of "correctness," unlike the prescriptive approach."[2]

OUP: "All of Oxford Languages' content aims to describe, rather than prescribe, the way languages are used by people around the world."[3]

I believe your definition comes from one of the Oxford dictionaries - iOS lists it as coming from the Oxford Dictionary of English, and Lexico (a partnership with Oxford, whose About page links to [3]) includes it[4].

[1] https://www.oed.com/public/oed3guide/guide-to-the-third-edit...

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...

[3] https://languages.oup.com/about-us/how-we-create-language-co...

[4] https://www.lexico.com/definition/dictionary

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#257

Post by rat87 »

thelibrarian wrote: post #94
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Thus, its greek plural is octopodes. And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english, the other proper plural is octopuses. Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection. "A hypercorrection is non-standard use of language that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer wh…

I have a friend who says using the word “octopi” displays ignorance of three languages at once - English, Latin, and (ancient) Greek.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-many-plura...

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#258

Post by shkkmo »

Thorrez wrote: post #163
shkkmo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human fetuses become sentient sometime between 8-30 weeks (depending on who you ask and how they define sentience).

>depending on who you ask and how they define sentience Natsu was assuming for the sake of argument that the definition of sentience is the one moeris gave, namely "that one is capable of feeling sensations".

That is the well established definition; no need to assume it for the sake of argument.

However, "capable of feeling sensations" is defined in different ways and thus leads to the large differences in when people say a fetus is capable of feeling pain.

Is it when the nerve cells responsible for emitting pain signals develop? When a fetus is capable of responding to pain? Is it when the circuits develop to route those pain sigbals to the part of the brain associated with conscious perception of pain?

All of those thresholds are crossed at different stages of fetal development so which threshold you use will change the answer you give for "when does a fetus become sentient?"

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#259

Post by talaketu »

Izkata wrote: post #194
cfcfcf wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the American pronunciation of “processes” (as in, rhymes with bees) also a hypercorrection?

> American pronunciation ..since when? I don't think I've ever heard "processees" before...

listen to the sentence Psaki utters at about 66s in: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1448740969726156800

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#260

Post by pell »

Gwarzo wrote: post #237
adriand wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not because we are humans and therefore more valuable to each other I value my children more than I value your children, but you will likely disagree with my assessment, even though it isn’t unexpected. And I would have to admit my assessment is not objective. > Never mind the fact that we have consciousness and ego and complex nervous systems, whereas lobsters do not. That’s how speciesism works: we try to find so…

"I honestly believe that at some point, the majority of humans will look at our system of factory farming and “harvesting” of wildlife in much the same way that today we view slavery, colonialism and other egregious examples of human disregard for other lives. I am not saying they are the same thing, but I do think that they are in the same category.' Do you believe that in our current world state we have some magica…

Animals are by far the most unsustainable food source. If you wish to feed 8 billion people you'd be foolish to rely on animals.
Post reply on HN