Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 420 posts

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#201

Post by ComputerGuru »

WaxProlix wrote: post #48
pranith wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even cows are extremely intelligent and emotional animals. Did you stop eating them?

For me, the answer was yes. I stopped eating pigs first, and then cows and other mammals, and then octopi (octopodes?). I've been cutting back further on chicken and fish, too, though I eat a lot of eggs and some dairy still. I don't know that it's morally right or something, but it doesn't cost much and the potential upside seems high enough to do it.

> though I eat a lot of eggs and some dairy still.

See, I feel like this just erodes from your argument. There’s not necessarily any trauma at all to the chickens or the cows involved in the production of eggs or milk. Trying to group that with the consumption of meat feels just very irrational.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#202

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bane wrote: post #197
pc86 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the Midwest US for years and this doesn't track with anyone I've ever met.

Meet more people? The gross statistics back it up. The average American eats about as much seafood as the average Russian, which is surprising considering one has ample fisheries and coastal areas and the other doesn't. Both countries are about mid-line per capita globally at something like 20-30 lbs (9-13 kg) per person per year (vs 60-80 pounds (27-36 kg) for countries like Korea, Japan, etc.) More detail, if you l…

> The thing is, modern logistics make it possible to eat fresh Sushi in the middle of Kansas. Being away from the coasts isn't really an excuse as the availability is or can be approximately the same.

Flash freezing is relatively new technology (I assume that’s what you mean by “fresh”). It is not surprising midwesterners go all out on sushi (the real kind, not Californian roles) just because the logistics are easier now. Food is local because it has been that way for the last hundred or so years.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#203

Post by WaxProlix »

philipswood wrote: post #198
throwaway5752 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It helps the planet, is good for my health, reduces deaths of sentient beings to feed me, has greater trophic efficiency... and the big thing is that vegetarian food and vegan food tastes good. I still eat meat periodically, but I feel much better and happier since I've reduced my meat consumption greatly.

At some stage my son was wilfully damaging plants. As part of the discipline to make him stop I showed him videos of plants sped up. It becomes a bit harder to deny that they aren’t the inanimate objects we perceive them to be because they are slow when you see them react to stimuli and they show what seems to be intent. Although it certainly isn’t a consensus opinion there is a real possibility that (given that the…

This is a lot of very commonly repeated speculative talking point soup when people are trying to rile up vegans. I'm not a vegan, and I'm not saying you're being disingenuous here, but if you use these lines to try and engage vegans at some point and don't get the level of engagement you're looking for, it's because this kind of both-sides moral equivalence between meat eating and plant eating is pretty common in the needling-vegans scene :)

That said, if we think there's a continuum with humans, dolphins, apes, and maybe octopuses on one side, and fungi & prokaryotes or something on the other, then plants (and maybe shellfish?) are certainly 'better' to kill and eat than cats, eg.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#204

Post by fmakunbound »

AngryData wrote: post #116

To me the most important questions are, does living a farm style life cause them undue distress and harm, and will they realize they are on a farm instead of just some weird octopus community. For example, the cows I own I can keep on my land and they are perfectly content to munch grass around the different pastures throughout the year as they are rotated, and have free clean shelter in the barn and free hay in the…

Does that work for, for example, veal or lamb?

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#205

Post by puchatek »

cjonas wrote: post #188
Azek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-obvious issue here is that often these animals are sent to slaughter around 12-24 months when they can live happily up to 25 years.

without farming they cease to exist at all...

So 0 bad days.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#206

Post by prteja11 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #201
WaxProlix wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the answer was yes. I stopped eating pigs first, and then cows and other mammals, and then octopi (octopodes?). I've been cutting back further on chicken and fish, too, though I eat a lot of eggs and some dairy still. I don't know that it's morally right or something, but it doesn't cost much and the potential upside seems high enough to do it.

> though I eat a lot of eggs and some dairy still. See, I feel like this just erodes from your argument. There’s not necessarily any trauma at all to the chickens or the cows involved in the production of eggs or milk. Trying to group that with the consumption of meat feels just very irrational.

Do you believe that there’s no trauma involved in the dairy and egg industry? Spend a few minutes watching this about dairy. https://youtu.be/roIWg4ntj9k

Earthling Ed also has videos about egg industry, but the gist is make chicks are crushed in a meat grinder alive.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#207

Post by puchatek »

AngryData wrote: post #116

To me the most important questions are, does living a farm style life cause them undue distress and harm, and will they realize they are on a farm instead of just some weird octopus community. For example, the cows I own I can keep on my land and they are perfectly content to munch grass around the different pastures throughout the year as they are rotated, and have free clean shelter in the barn and free hay in the…

Don't they mind having their kids taken away from them though?

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#208

Post by puchatek »

tengbretson wrote: post #192
jeswin wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we did finally realize that other races aren't inferior. And that women are equals. So I have hope, that some day we would stop taking their lives just for having a good time. Killing them isn't essential for our survival, or even health.

Who are you speaking on behalf of when you say "our"?

The species, obviously

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#209

Post by nefitty »

rectang wrote: post #135
nefitty wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a novel idea. Isn't it just a fatalistic coloring of ethical relativism? I personally subscribe to the idea that moral truths can be discovered from principals we can derive on inspecting our own preferences and experiences. We can than radiate that practice out to uncover more, and it historically happens by dint of physical/genetic proximity, eg prioritizing the wellbeing of family and friends and so on. A…

> Isn't it just a fatalistic coloring of ethical relativism? To me, "the universe is indifferent" is ethical relativism but not at all fatalistic. If there is no deliberate outside guidance, then we are free to construct an ethics by "inspecting our own preferences and experiences", as you put it. Isn't that liberating and wonderful? Doesn't it allow for creativity and constant rejuvenation? However, I distrust your…

I agree in regards to the universe's indifference! Cradling that understanding had a big part in my conclusion of moral objectivity. The freedom I gained from that is what allowed me to discover what I know now.

My basic formula for moral truth is: starting from a non-maladaptive state of mind, would I prefer to have or recoil from 'X' experience? With that in mind, could I reasonably conclude that sentient others around me would arrive at the same conclusion as me? How about strangers? Other animals? An extraterrestrial? A synthetic being? Humans in a million years?

If my chain of reasoning doesn't break at any point as I expand the set of sentient beings to check against, then it is likely that I now have clear guidance on engaging in actions that produce experience 'X'.

Here is an example: Should I break my friend's arm against his will? I would not want that to happen to me. Most people I know prefer not to have their arms broken. My dog would not want that. A cow would not want that. A fish would not want his tail snapped off. People in the future won't want their arms broken if it feels how I imagine it feels. I don't imagine that a sentient robot would like its gripping mechanism broken. Whatever sorts of appendages extraterrestrials have, they probably don't want to lose the ability to use them.

I can then extract the generalizable term from "I shouldn't break my friend's arm against his will" to, "I shouldn't hurt sentient beings when it's counter to their overriding preferences."

It now follows that if I were able to poll every sentient creature through all time (sentient according to a rubric), I would expect the majority to share the uncovered preference or aversion in question. I now have a positive statement about morality that is universalizable, apparently akin to Kantian philosophy, which I have some bare surface knowledge of.

The exercise seems pretty robust to me insofar as language and idea-derived conclusions hold up. For example, culturally dependent preferences, idiosyncrasies, aesthetic preferences, etc, fail the test easily.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#210

Post by deutschewelle »

Tomis02 wrote: post #171
deutschewelle wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually believe that you would be able to enjoy the same level of human relationships with an octopus? How about a cow? Or a coackroach? You can attach romantic feelings towards anything since if you were so traumatized by having destroyed an sentient thing for your own benefit you would simply not allow yourself to exist. I did not engage with your comment further since it signaled the same amount of moral d…

> Do you actually believe that you would be able to enjoy the same level of human relationships with an octopus? How about a cow? Or a coackroach? My enjoyment levels have nothing to do with the discussion. You're essentially using the same "we're superior to X" argument that has been regularly used for the entirety of human history to try justify what is morally unjustifiable. > I did not engage with your comment fu…

> My enjoyment levels have nothing to do with the discussion.

When plants are usually cut, it emits a certain chemical as a warning stressor to communicate to other plants, who on a very slow time frame are just as capable of perceiving stressors and able to adjust their exposure to nutrients and sunlight in a matter very similar to animals.

Yet because it is difficult to attach anthropomorphic qualities to it you are free to farm, destroy and eat, whom by all definition just as sentient as the mammals you describe.

> To me it seems you alternate between the "might is right" approach and "everything is the same, nothing matters" pseudo-nihilism. Funny you should talk about moral depth. I'm not trying to offend you but come on.

As I suspected there's nothing really to be gained here, if you do not understand the spirit of what is meant, that you were simply trying to bate me into an endless argument in an endless circle.

Poignantly r/european I might add

Post reply on HN