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

271–280 of 704 posts

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

#271

Post by froh »

monkeybutton wrote: post #128
dragonwriter wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopi is not the most common plural, true. > Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Octopus entered English from scientific Latin. In which the Greek plural was not used. (Lots of words in English fron languages other than their language of origin and have irregular English forms from their immediate source rather than their remote origin.) “Octopi” appears to be the earliest Engl…

This is fascinating and instead of replying I've been reading about this and looking up words like cacti. For what it's worth, both plural forms for Octopus are in my phone's autocomplete dictionary.

> phone's autocomplete dictionary.

Snicker ... The new Webster or Oxfords ...

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

#272

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

imgabe wrote: post #262
jacquesm wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Lions lack - for want of a better term - options, whereas we humans have plenty of options. We decide to boil living creatures alive, their feelings be damned because we like their taste better that way. But that's a very conscious choice to inflict harm. In the court of ethics the Lion was just eating, the human being was inflicting unnecessary pain.

Who decides what's necessary? It's not really "necessary" to eat a lobster at all. Maybe we should just live in mud huts, eating the bare minimum amount of soybeans and rice to keep us just alive. That would inflict the minimal amount of "unnecessary" suffering. But then, why is it even necessary that we should be alive? All living things suffer at one point or another, whether it was necessary or not. There is no gr…

We don't need to live in mud huts, I'm pretty sure houses can be vegan. Also it doesn't need to be all or nothing, we can simply reduce suffering. I don't understand the logic of "we can't eliminate suffering, so might as well maximize suffering by boiling animals to death."

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

#273

Post by LouisSayers »

phonypc wrote: post #77
1270018080 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandma lived on a farm and loved playing with the cows. Once she was old enough to connect the dots on what happened to them, and later saw the butchering process, she became vegetarian for life. The layer of separation 99% of the population has between the dark evils of the mass livestock industry and eating meat is an issue.

Nearly everyone has recent ancestors that lived on a farm and loved playing with the animals. Once they were old enough to connect the dots and later saw the butchering process, they remained omnivores for the rest of their lives.

Like my Gran tells us, when she was a girl her mother asked her if she'd like some chicken for dinner. "Oh yes" my gran said enthusiastically; she pointed out the window and said "which one"?

"Then I went and wrung its neck".

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

#274

Post by rblatz »

donatj wrote: post #261
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…

I find the idea that pain is something profound and not just the reception of a signal strange and based in non-scientific beliefs. Your CPU has a temperature sensor, does that mean if you hold a flame to it and it can detect its own impending destruction, it deserves protection under the law? Just because something has sensors somehow makes it our contemporary?

That’s actually an interesting thought experiment, and with modern processors you’ll see them throttle down and adjust trying to preserve themselves.

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

#275

Post by grose »

twhb wrote: post #225
colechristensen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is English, not Latin or Greek. There’s no such thing as “correct” in language as long as you can be understood, especially for silly details like how to make a plural. You’ll find octopi in the dictionary because it is commonly used. Remember all words are made up anyway. If you’re not the editor of a publication making local standards for how you want to use language, it’s better not to correct people when the…

Personally I don’t believe in “plural”. If there’s more than one of something I just say it: “I went to the aquarium and saw octopus octopus octopus. I’d tell you what I saw around the anthill outside, but I’m not sure you have the time.” :)

I know this is a joke, but this is an actual thing in linguistics called reduplication. For example, hito (人) in Japanese means person, and hitobito (人人) means people, more or less. Japanese isn't the best example since they don't have "real" plurals but I think it's a fascinating phenomenon.

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

#276

Post by colordrops »

donatj wrote: post #261
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…

I find the idea that pain is something profound and not just the reception of a signal strange and based in non-scientific beliefs. Your CPU has a temperature sensor, does that mean if you hold a flame to it and it can detect its own impending destruction, it deserves protection under the law? Just because something has sensors somehow makes it our contemporary?

If your criteria is sentience and not ability to feel pain, then what are your thoughts on a newborn baby? Or someone with severe brain trauma? Is euthenasia ok for those born with the brain capacity of a cow or lobster? Or are you just being speciesist?

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

#277

Post by colordrops »

margalabargala wrote: post #270
tekromancr wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So according to your philosophy; you wouldn't object to being tortured, after all, it's just signals being registered by a biological computer in your head.

That's not their philosophy, it's the opposite of it. Their point is more in line with something like "the ability to sense pain is not related to sentience and is not special", not "if something can sense pain, it is therefore not sentient and is not special".

Are you suggesting that sentience is required to suffer from pain? Or that suffering isn't a problem unless you are sentient?

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

#278

Post by enriquto »

Sebb767 wrote: post #53
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…

> The fact this is somehow just dawning on modern society is a sad indictment of our blinkered and callous disregard for other species Well, lobsters eat fish and fish, as any child could explain to you, can experience distress and probably also pain. As far as animals go, both humans and lobsters are quite actually quite nice - there are species out there that poison their prey and eat it alive [0]. So this is not r…

> no more than it's disregard of a fox to eat a deer

Does this happen? It would seem that a fox that attacks a deer has a disregard for its own life

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

#279

Post by plorkyeran »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #159
bardworx wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: i don’t have a dog in the fight…or a branch on a tree, in this context. Sentient is defined as able to perceive or feel things. The paper linked discusses how trees can “communicate” and “feel” based on release of specific chemicals. An exert from the introduction: “Recent research has revealed that plants can sense their neighbours without direct physical contact; mechanisms for this include detection of…

I feel like Star Trek handled the question much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. Calling trees sentient is just nonsense. And I mean that literally. I try not to dismiss people's work out of hand, b…

It is very common for Science Fiction to use "sentient" where "sapient" is the correct word. Star Trek is no exception. Calling trees sentient isn't nonsense; your understanding of what the word means is simply incorrect.

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

#280

Post by donatj »

colordrops wrote: post #276
donatj wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the idea that pain is something profound and not just the reception of a signal strange and based in non-scientific beliefs. Your CPU has a temperature sensor, does that mean if you hold a flame to it and it can detect its own impending destruction, it deserves protection under the law? Just because something has sensors somehow makes it our contemporary?

If your criteria is sentience and not ability to feel pain, then what are your thoughts on a newborn baby? Or someone with severe brain trauma? Is euthenasia ok for those born with the brain capacity of a cow or lobster? Or are you just being speciesist?

I didn’t propose criteria, and certainly not those criteria. I don’t see sentience as anything more than highly evolved self preservation software. It’s not magic.
Post reply on HN