A Cephalopod Has Passed a Cognitive Test Designed for Human Children • Hacker News Board

Re: A Cephalopod Has Passed a Cognitive Test Designed for Human Children

#101

Post by steve_adams_86 » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #54

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I underestimated animal intelligence, and as an extension of that, animal consciousness. I have no proof that animals are intelligent or sentient or whatever. I do however have no reason to assume otherwise. As a result I’ve stopped eating meat almost entirely, and I suspect I’ll eliminate it entirely eventually. I still eat fish and shellfish. I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for dec…

It's a very hard realization to have. I applaud you. I was vegan for a couple years, until I devleped tooth problems for the first time in my life, which spooked me and I quit. Now I just try to moderate my meat intake, consume the less-in-demand parts like tongue (nobody raises a cow for its tongue), and buy from sources that impose less, albeit clearly still substantial, suffering. But that said, there's so much gr…

That reminds me of something, which I suppose goes against what I've been commenting here. The rest of my family still eats meat and rather than throw out bones I will freeze them, let them accumulate, then make a broth and drink it. It seems immoral to waste the bones, sort of like how it seems more moral to only seek out that which might otherwise be wasted. It's a grey area for sure. In that regard though I suppose I do still eat animals? I certainly wouldn't make the broth if my family wasn't eating meat, though.

And you're right, most of the world has amazing vegetarian food. It's daunting to take on learning all of it. Indian and Thai foods especially have been incredibly appealing to me lately. So much flavour and nutrition is possible and these people seem to have figured it out a long time ago.

Re: A Cephalopod Has Passed a Cognitive Test Designed for Human Children

#102

Post by imoverclocked » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 6:26 AM UTC

wcarss wrote: post #96

imoverclocked wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Death is a form of suffering. I don't think this blanket statement is true. eg: people often live long past the point that they enjoy being alive. > Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs? What's "natural" in your opinion? Do you mean old-age, disease, natural predators or something else? Humans are natural predators. Death from old age/disease is…

Thanks for taking the time. It's an interesting argument that many people live past the point that they enjoy life, but I doubt you are really suggesting we would be right to kill those people without their direct consent. Euthanasia, where it is at all accepted as moral, typically requires consent. If you think you can get the consent of an animal to kill it, well... let's cross that bridge when we come to it! Regar…

> Thanks for taking the time.

likewise :)

In terms of practicality, a wolf needs to eat too. Without wolves (or predators) we find over-population which leads to food scarcity which leads to suffering (queue yoda reference.)

I think there is a big difference between slavery (a dark human endeavor) and the natural order of the world. Humans didn't invent predators. At best, we conquered them and at worst, we became them while growing to become the second most dominant (and largely unchecked) biomass on the planet.

Given that plants have been shown to have feelings, I'm not sure where our idea that eating plants is morally superior to eating animals comes from. Some plants poison animals in order to fertilize their soil. Some people poison plants in order to have a somewhat pleasant looking front-yard. Many plants have developed obvious defenses against being eaten, much like animals. By eating fruit that has dropped to the ground, you are denying the plant its intent to reproduce.

I think that most humans are more capable of empathizing with other animals than with plants and that's the root of the sense of morality here. The hard truth is that no living thing wants to be eaten to death but every living thing needs to eat. The circle of life is a real thing, the carbon cycle relies on plants recycling decayed organic matter including animals.

Re: A Cephalopod Has Passed a Cognitive Test Designed for Human Children

#103

Post by RamRodification » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #92

graindcafe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm somehow in the same situation, trying to avoid industrial farming in benefit of local, small farming. I can know for sure (for some of them) that the animal was well treated from the beginning of its life to the very end. I am asking myself if it is better for the animal to live a decent life even if it is to be killed and ate at the end or not to live at all.

My hang up is basically this: If I want the animal to have a good life, why do I/should I get to (or even want to) decide when and why that life should end? It seems very contradictory to me and necessitates a need for the taking of the thing I’m apparently attaching value to. Also I know I don’t physically kill these animals on a stop watch, but I vote for their death with my wallet. I don’t see a significant differ…

I don't see why your reasoning shouldn't also apply to fish and shellfish as it does to other animals?

> would it justify killing someone’s dog if I thought dogs were delicious?

That's a bit silly. Regardless of the ethics of eating meat, there are a whole bunch of other reasons why you wouldn't kill someone's pet. Just like you don't dive into people's fish tanks for your seafood :)