Just how smart is an octopus?

Post by prodmerc » Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #71

howlin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pigs have personality too. But most people would never know it given how livestock are treated.

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for tens of thousands of years, and demonstrate traits and behaviors that makes it much easier for humans to empathize and socialize with them. For example, you can tell when a dog is happy because their facial expressions resemble a human smile. Not so with livestock. Sure, you can figure it out after spending time with them, but it's inarguably not the same thing.

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

itp wrote: post #152

logfromblammo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Octopus has three acceptable pluralizations in English. Octopuses is correct by English rules. Octopodes is correct by strict etymological Greek-origin rules. Octopi is correct by English's pseudo-Latin cognate rules. The latter means that any singular noun ending in a consonant and "-us" can be pluralized by chopping off the "-us" and appending an "-i" or "-ii", like alumnus, hippopotamus, virus, bacillus, hummus, l…

Except there is no single authority of the English language (as seen in other language academies). As I mentioned in another comment, you may fall into a prescriptivist or descriptivist camp, but there's no authority to which one can appeal for a single answer. Generally speaking, octopuses is preferred by most if not all well known dictionaries in modern usage, and the pseudo-Latin cognate has fallen out of favor. I…

Post by gm-conspiracy » Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

pacaro wrote: post #78

enugu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from cognitive skills, an important factor is the capacity of suffering. So even dumb animals might be able to feel intense pain. In humans, while forms of suffering like loneliness, depression can be bad, pure physical pain can itself a terrible thing. For instance severe torture for 10 minutes can be worse than months of depression. Now even if cognitive aspects are diminished in animals, the physical senses…

In her book "Animals make is human" - Temple Grandin makes the argument (among many others, this is not the main thesis of the book) that we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals, wherein we provide secure food supply, protection from predation and the associated stress, etc. and in return we eat the animal. Factory farming, by contrast has more in common with a parasitic relationship.

Post by Chos89 » Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #119

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet there are other mammals you 'don't' eat - at least, that you'd refuse to eat. Man is the obvious one, but what about other primates, elephants, giraffes, etc.? I bet there are more animals that you don't eat than you do , and maybe there are even more that you would not be prepared to eat than you would .

Not really.. I would consider heating human. I have nothing against another mammal. However, I would require humane treatment of said human (or any animal or byproduct I eat). I'm not going to pretend I'm some morally superior being. But I'd like to at least reduce suffering of beings. After all, something else must die for me to eat (and I can't live on milk and honey).

Post by Falling3 » Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #189

Falling3 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is that a meaningful distinction?

It's a betrayal of trust. You know how Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has a pig that has been genetically bred to want to be eaten? Like that is it's greatest desire in the world. Dogs have been selectively bred over thousands of years to want to be our friends - to trust us, and to work together as companions. To deliberately kill and eat an animal like that is worse than eating any other.