Live data from Hacker News

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

lse.ac.uk

341–350 of 704 posts

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

#341
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Buddha, one should not kill any sentient being, sentient being defined as made up of the five skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. I had a very easy time following this rule until my houseplants were attacked by spider mites and almost simultaneously my rats attacked by a different species of mites. How does one watch the beings (I don't apply "being" to the p…

I admire the jainist (?) philosophy of not killing, but it does seem incredibly impractical, to the point of being stupid even. How do you avoid killing mites on the ground when you go out for a walk?

They sweep the ground in front of them with a broom.

To be precise, the monks do this, and the laity work as jewelers in Manhattan and support the monks financially.

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

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Buddha, one should not kill any sentient being, sentient being defined as made up of the five skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. I had a very easy time following this rule until my houseplants were attacked by spider mites and almost simultaneously my rats attacked by a different species of mites. How does one watch the beings (I don't apply "being" to the p…

Isn't the teaching of Buddhism that one should learn to let go of attachments such as love, because they will bring you pain?

Not a Buddhist, but I think it's the desire to attach to things which is the root of suffering, not that you can't love someone.

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

#343

Even as a meat eater I’m pretty shocked that this recognises them as sentient and yet does not ban their slaughter (aside from boiling them alive etc). Maybe I’ve read too much science fiction, but eating sentient beings seems Bad.

I disagree. So long as we don’t torture them I see no problem in consuming other creatures. “One bad day” is a good guideline for how animals should be harvested for food. So long as they aren’t in physical pain during their life, I don’t think animals really care or even understand their situation. For instance, a bunch of cattle don’t wonder about how their lives would be better if they were free range. They just l…

It simply boils down to this:

We don’t need these animals to survive. Human beings can live long, happy, healthy lives without meat and cheese. Literally all nutrients we need to live and be healthy can be found in plants, or manufactured and added to foods (which is how livestock end up with B12, actually)

So, with that in mind, really any amount of harm or violence done to these animals is unnecessary, and done for pleasure (taste) only.

People who disagree tend to think that we somehow need to consume animals, but that has been debunked many times. Or, folks often convince themselves that violence and suffering of a sentient being for the reason of pleasure is somehow not simply evil.

That’s generally the viewpoint of folks who oppose eating and hurting animals.

Even the “one bad day” argument doesn’t hold up well, because folks would still raise hell if I painlessly killed my dog as soon as it became inconvenient to have one, no? Or they’d still raise hell if someone was unknowingly molested in their sleep.

There is more to deciding if we are treating a sentient being well beyond simply “did I treat it okay before I killed it?”, and the only reason that’s hard to see is because most people on this planet grow up being told that for some reason, some animals are different. For some reason, we can bludgeon a pig to death with a hammer (thumping), or boil a living lobster alive, but we can’t do the same to a dog or a cat.

We have been lied to. Doing any of these things to animals is wrong because we don’t need to eat them, except in very rare cases.

If you’re ever on a desert island, we can have a different conversation.

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

#344
post #149

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…

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

The “hypercorrection” being to use the same long plural e from axis/axes with process/processes?

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the teaching of Buddhism that one should learn to let go of attachments such as love, because they will bring you pain?

All attachments, yes. But I am neither a Bodhisattva or fully enlightened. In addition, the core crisis I am experiencing is whether it is ok to watch a being suffer greatly in its torment by other beings without intervention. If the only act which may stop the other being from their act of torment is an act that results in their death (medicine to the afflicted), is it blameworthy?

There are definitely tiers to experience. I would expect that a rat can suffer far more significantly than a mite, or even a thousand mites.

Beyond that, your rat depends on you as a pet. I’m afraid that, if you can’t adequately look after your pets because of your beliefs, then you shouldn’t have pets.

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

#347

Context: I'm not a hypocrite. I eat a lot of meat. I would put very strong money down that by the time most people reading these comments are in an old folks home with their grandchildren, the vast majority of the population will consider consumption of all meat unethical. I don't think it will be illegal yet (just extremely regulated, and expensive - not the least bit because the carbon footprint of meat production…

You should go vegan. I can help if, if you’re interested and want to try it, or don’t know where to start.

Because you’re right, about everything you said. And you obviously wrestle with a lot of the ethical inconsistencies with eating animals.

Let me just say this, though: you lose nothing by trying to be vegan for a month or two. If you hate it, you hate it. But if you find you enjoy it, it could change your life!

When I was wrestling with the same questions and feelings as you, I ended up trying to be vegan so I could sleep easier at night and haven’t looked back 6 years later, healthier and happier than ever, with no real special access to food or crazy changes to my life.

Just food for thought.

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

#348

Context: I'm not a hypocrite. I eat a lot of meat. I would put very strong money down that by the time most people reading these comments are in an old folks home with their grandchildren, the vast majority of the population will consider consumption of all meat unethical. I don't think it will be illegal yet (just extremely regulated, and expensive - not the least bit because the carbon footprint of meat production…

>>>And they'll ask us uncomfortable questions we won't have good answers for. Didn't you know about the health risks at the amounts you were consuming? Yup. Didn't care. Bacon-wrapped filet mignon tastes THAT good. Some things are worth the risk. Like driving too fast, riding motorcycles, or skydiving. >>>Didn't you know about the carbon footprint? Same answer here... >>>Most importantly, didn't you have ample eviden…

You know the argument is good when every response is “I don’t care”.

So many horrific things have continued in this world because of people saying exactly that.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans (as a species) are destroying their ecosystem past the point of no return, putting their very existence in question. I strongly disagree. We have more food than ever before. More clean water than ever before. More safety and prosperity than ever before. More innovation than ever before. As for our ecosystem, humanity has solved any and every calamity ever before. And we will solve this one as well. Don't get…

> I don't understand this sentence. Can you clarify? You’d be pretty dumb to saw off the branch you’re sitting on. Yet that’s what we’re doing. On the surface, we seem to be lacking any kind of self preservation instincts or « hive mind » to preserve our species. If, say, a bee was looking at humans trying to determine if we’re intelligent or not and they applied bee intelligence metrics, we’d miserably fail because…

according to animal metrics for intelligence, sure we are stupid. But we have strong evidence why our metrics are more effective than animal metrics : 1) human death rate is lowest among almost all species 2) human comfort + happiness rate is highest among all species 3) our accomplishments and understanding of the world is a million times that of any other species 4) all other species survive because we allow them to. We can (and have) eradicated entire species. etc. etc.

We don't need a hive mind, we have intelligence. Bees act the way they do because they are genetically programmed to act that way, and they don't have the ability to think or reason for themselves. We do. We protect our species when we need to. Not out of genetics (maybe a little bec of evolution), but out of intelligence.

Post reply on HN