Live data from Hacker News

A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

npr.org

131–140 of 212 posts

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#131
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older I get, the more I have the sense (both intuitively and through evidence) that I'm far more like the animals I've eaten than I am unlike them. That sense has become more and more attuned, and it has gotten to the point that I don't see animals as food anymore. They're just a different kind of people trying to survive. Since I don't actually need to eat them to survive, it seems akin to murder to consume them…

I also have grown more attuned to the fact that humans are just another animal, but in practice this has put me more at ease with eating meat as we are omnivorous predators in the food chain. I am much more aligned, however, with sustainable harvesting (hunting) than industrial farming these days. There is nothing natural about the modern slaughterhouse.

> sustainable harvesting (hunting)

I think I almost could be if the biomass of harvestable prey hadn't reduced so dramatically while the number of potential hunters has increased proportionately, if not more. Spearfishing is actually what lead me to give up the pursuit of sustainable hunting. No matter how ethically and fairly I try to harvest, I will only be contributing to the toll which is already countless orders of magnitude beyond something sustainable. In a sense, I was viewing my contribution to the problem too much as my own contribution rather than as part of a whole which is already far too excessive.

It's a tragedy of the commons. Wild land is too disrupted, oceans polluted and over-fished, and yet farming is too disgusting to contemplate supporting either. The best contribution I can make is to relieve pressure on the system and encourage others to consider doing the same (if they appear interested in listening, that is).

Even so, I'm grateful there are people out there who are willing to consider hunting as an alternative to farming. There are opportunities to hunt over-populated species which are harming ecosystems, for example, which at least has something of a positive impact on the places where the hunting occurs. Wild pigs and deer are common examples in North America. I can't bring myself to do it though, as I'm an invasive species not much unlike the pigs or deer.

> this has put me more at ease with eating meat as we are omnivorous predators in the food chain

I contemplate this at times too. It's not irrational at all. We are omnivores and we are part of the food chain, and there's nothing special about us in that regard.

However, since we're so dramatically over-populated compared to the species we eat (outside of farming, at least), it seems wise not to eat animals so often given that we don't need to and our impact on the food chain is significantly outsized compared to other species. It could be argued that we have something like a practical, moral, and ethical impetus to preserve the food chain such that we can now and in the future continue to sustain the food web we have such immense impacts on. Not only for the lives of the animals we eat and share the world with, but for the future humans of the earth as well.

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smarter then dogs. The criteria for edibility is mainly ugliness vs. Cuteness. Octopuses are recently getting more media attention with that movie about the diver that made friends with one so they are getting cuter. Try farm raising and eating baby penguins you'll get the same reaction even though penguins are dumb AF. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

My only rationale for why it's OK for me to eat pigs is that the pigs would definitely eat me if the opportunity arose, and in this respect they are different from say, cows, or indeed octopuses, which show no inclination to consume human meat. If you (as sometimes happens to farmers) drop dead in a pig sty after not long the pigs will eat you because you're food and they're hungry.

You still have to finish connecting the dots here: How does that morally justify breeding them by the billions for slaughter?

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#133
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have grown more attuned to the fact that humans are just another animal, but in practice this has put me more at ease with eating meat as we are omnivorous predators in the food chain. I am much more aligned, however, with sustainable harvesting (hunting) than industrial farming these days. There is nothing natural about the modern slaughterhouse.

> sustainable harvesting (hunting) I think I almost could be if the biomass of harvestable prey hadn't reduced so dramatically while the number of potential hunters has increased proportionately, if not more. Spearfishing is actually what lead me to give up the pursuit of sustainable hunting. No matter how ethically and fairly I try to harvest, I will only be contributing to the toll which is already countless orders…

This comment is very compelling. Thank-you for opening my mind a bit.

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#134
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have grown more attuned to the fact that humans are just another animal, but in practice this has put me more at ease with eating meat as we are omnivorous predators in the food chain. I am much more aligned, however, with sustainable harvesting (hunting) than industrial farming these days. There is nothing natural about the modern slaughterhouse.

I'm not ready for the leap to meatlessness, but my halfway house is to use meat as a flavoring, a sort of spice, rather than as a centerpiece.

For what it's worth, I was once a serious meat-eater and couldn't imagine life without it. In a way it was part of my identity. I was the one people wanted to cook meats for holidays, I liked curing meats and making sausages for charcuteries, always smoking things, making elaborate broths and other animal-based preparations, fishing, hunting. Now I couldn't care much less. Something I was certain was true turned out to be patently false, and being on the other side now it's hard to imagine having the same belief again.

I'm not trying to overtly convince or coerce you here. I wish I'd more seriously considered the possibility of changing sooner, though. I suppose I maintained my status quo a little lazily for quite a long time despite caring about the possibility of change.

Having said that, the change you've already made makes an enormous difference in the scheme of things. Christ, I remember having meals where I would eat almost exclusively meat. Like an entire chicken after lifting weights or running particularly far. Totally excessive and bizarre in retrospect. Anyone eating moderately as you described has already shifted towards something resembling sustainability; it isn't really a problem in the scheme of things.

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I don't want to eat them. As an animal, yes, I can identify that they are in fact like other animals; they are like me, for instance. I don't want to eat things like me, because I don't want to be eaten. That's why it's not possible to put a cat on my plate. That logic goes both ways, and the variables in the equation are values-based.

Funny because those cats and dogs would happily eat you. Not in a "cats eat their dead owners sense" but in the sense that dogs and cats are pretty un-discerning when they are hungry. The real reason to not eat cats and dogs is that they are mediocre food

This reads like an appeal to nature which isn't a compelling reason to change my behaviour.

There are people in this world who might steal from me or try to hurt me, too. My response wouldn't be to do the same to them; especially not proactively. I also know that a bear would eat me. Why would this mean I should want to eat it? It may not be discerning, but I certainly am.

My take is that the real reason to not eat cats and dogs is that they appear to have a relatable, sentient experience of the world — just as we do — and ending that for the sake of a meal lasting mere moments is an unthinkably awful thing to do.

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up a good point about penguins. They and chickens are both birds, so why are we finally eating chickens but not penguins? Cuteness definitely plays a role.

Because penguins can't be kept where most humans live due to temperature.

Not true for all species. The African penguin can be found along the south western coastline of Africa.

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Octopus' sapience is absolutely not beyond a reasonable doubt: many consider passing the turning test, or an even stronger form thereof to be required for sapience

> Octopus' sapience is absolutely not beyond a reasonable doubt: I mean, for the standard definition of sapience it is. > many consider passing the turning test, or an even stronger form thereof to be required for sapience Those many are wrong. There is nothing in the definition of sapience that would tie to to something as specific to humans as the Turing test.

The question the turning test was posed to solve is when does a sufficiently smart computer become sapient. What on earth is your "standard" definition of sapience?

Re: A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Octopus' sapience is absolutely not beyond a reasonable doubt: I mean, for the standard definition of sapience it is. > many consider passing the turning test, or an even stronger form thereof to be required for sapience Those many are wrong. There is nothing in the definition of sapience that would tie to to something as specific to humans as the Turing test.

The question the turning test was posed to solve is when does a sufficiently smart computer become sapient. What on earth is your "standard" definition of sapience?

> The question the turning test was posed to solve is when does a sufficiently smart computer become sapient.

Yes, but it's a test for humans to interpret and judge. What kind of nonsense is it to think it should be used for an animal? A possibly sentient computer is going to be programmed to communicate in one of the human languages for obvious reasons, and animals don't have that luxury. I can't see why you would think a Turing test would be relevant to a discussion of animal sapience at all.

> What on earth is your "standard" definition of sapience?

Whatever Merriam-Webster or Oxford give.

Post reply on HN