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

391–400 of 420 posts

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#391

Post by Azek »

CallMeJim wrote: post #302
Azek wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're asking a personal question like I think you are: for me the courtesy of non-violence extends to all beings capable of suffering and with a preference to live. For a good read on the ethics of eating animals I'd recommend Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation'

You're aware that plants fill both those criteria: (a) capable of suffering, and (b) a preference to live? What do you eat?

Interesting, could you share your sources showing plants are capable of suffering and can indicate preference?

I eat many things, but nothing from animals :)

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#392

Post by Azek »

parkingrift wrote: post #313
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.

It’s not an issue to the animals. They aren’t made aware of their impending death and made to ponder what more of a life they could have lived. From their perspective they are alive and then suddenly, not.

I wish I could still believe that.

If you have the time and stomach I'd recommend search up slaughterhouse footage. I'll let you judge for yourself what they're feeling in those moment.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#393

Post by Azek »

teddyh wrote: post #259
Azek wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just because we're omnivorous and capable of eating animals, that justifies it? Most humans are also fully capable and arguably evolved to do things like steal and murder each other, are those also justified simply because we're capable? And on the second point, the existence of OPs article and the comments around this one indicate that some people do care.

The killing and eating of animals are not acts which belong to the category of acts needing justification. Stealing and murdering other people affects human society, so those require justification by the justice system. But many acts are not part of the human society, in that the acts don’t affect it. For example, if I sit backwards on a chair, that not a threat to human society, so it does not need justification. So…

Kicking my dog would also not affect human society, does that mean I can kick my dog without justification? For fun?

My point here to be more clear is that we simply don't need to consume animals, and that the taste pleasure of eating them doesn't justify their death. Humans are animals too, and the success of our species doesn't require intense suffering of another.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#394

Post by TaylorAlexander »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #383
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why I specified “enough healthy calories”. What I meant was that as long as you have access to enough produce. Basically some people need to eat meat because it’s the only way to get enough nutrition. But if you live in California near a well stocked grocery store for example, then you just need to learn what a healthy vegan diet is and most people will do better on a vegan diet. At least according to Nutriti…

OK, thanks for explaining what you meant, I didn't understand you at first. To be honest, I don't know what NutritionFacts.org is, exactly. I agree that most Californians, like most Americans (North and South) would do well to cut down on their meat consumption a bit, because it certainly looks like they eat way too much. But I don't think that needs to mean going vegan. Traditional diets from places like the Mediter…

You’re right that the American diet has gone way too far to meat, and eating a more Mediterranean or South-East Asian diet would be a big health improvement.

NutritionFacts.org is a non profit run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who runs a YouTube channel full of health advice. He looks at the latest scientific data and shares it on his channel. Based on his interpretation of the best available data a fully vegan diet seems to have a lot of health benefits. I became vegan for moral reasons so I haven’t researched what a more mixed diet would be like, but I’m glad my choice is a healthy one.

Here’s one of his full talks: https://youtu.be/7rNY7xKyGCQ

And here’s his channel: https://youtube.com/c/NutritionfactsOrgMD

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#395

Post by teddyh »

Azek wrote: post #393
teddyh wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The killing and eating of animals are not acts which belong to the category of acts needing justification. Stealing and murdering other people affects human society, so those require justification by the justice system. But many acts are not part of the human society, in that the acts don’t affect it. For example, if I sit backwards on a chair, that not a threat to human society, so it does not need justification. So…

Kicking my dog would also not affect human society, does that mean I can kick my dog without justification? For fun? My point here to be more clear is that we simply don't need to consume animals, and that the taste pleasure of eating them doesn't justify their death. Humans are animals too, and the success of our species doesn't require intense suffering of another.

> Kicking my dog would also not affect human society,

But it would. At least we have, as a society, decided that it would. But this is rather flexible, since in older times, as well as in some cultures, wanton animal cruelty is accepted. I guess that the argument for prohibiting cruelty to animals is that it is good to prohibit behavior which we believe to be detrimental to the person doing it. I.e. it’s not prohibited to protect the dog, it’s prohibited to protect you from becoming a cruel bastard and turning around and being toxic in human society. Whether this actually is a valid argument is, of course, subjective and debatable, which is why cultures differ on this point.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#396

Post by joe5150 »

undersuit wrote: post #380
joe5150 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's well understood that when vegans or vegetarians say they don't eat "animals" they are generally talking about, at minimum, macrobiota and not tardigrades, etc.

Well then they aren't not eating any animal. It's pretty simple. I'm not attacking them for the oversight just pointing it out. It should be forgivable for swallowing a fly but vegan and vegetarian food production still harms animals(example: insects are animals) and they still eat some animals accidentally. It's an improvement but it's not perfect.

I’m genuinely not sure what you think matters about this fact.

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#397

Post by undersuit »

joe5150 wrote: post #396
undersuit wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then they aren't not eating any animal. It's pretty simple. I'm not attacking them for the oversight just pointing it out. It should be forgivable for swallowing a fly but vegan and vegetarian food production still harms animals(example: insects are animals) and they still eat some animals accidentally. It's an improvement but it's not perfect.

I’m genuinely not sure what you think matters about this fact.

I'm just defending the statement "Of course, we can't stop eating every animal".

Why are you here?

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#398

Post by undersuit »

hackernewds wrote: post #251
FiberBundle wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although it certainly isn’t a consensus opinion there is a real possibility that (given that the nervous system specialises what normal tissues can also do) plants are considerably more “conscious” than we give them credit for. Yes, that is a possibility, but it's also an entirely ridiculous argument to make to argue against veganism. If you want to argue that the nervous system is just a more specialized version o…

one could argue the need to displace grazing landmass, that could support free-range animals, with endless fields of low-throughput vegetables that need more land and water per capita-calorie/nutrient is far more damaging to the planet. https://www.paesta.psu.edu/podcast/how-much-water-does-it-re...

What do the humans eat in the first world?

Re: World’s first octopus farm stirs ethical debate

#400

Post by philipswood »

FiberBundle wrote: post #268
dayglo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I gave you a live chicken, a head of broccoli, what would happen when you tried to cut up each one with a carving knife? You instinctively know what fear and pain are, and minimising those things is the point of veganism. If plants feel their fear and pain far slower, then much less of it is happening.

It's also entirely implausible, from an evolutionary perspective, that plants should have developed the capacity to feel pain on a scale similar to other organisms given that they haven't developed the ability to move away from situations that might cause them pain (pain being a proxy for survival risk).

Keep in mind that instead of fight or flight plants have a range of internal chemical responses available to minimise damage and that this does make pain plausible:

Videos of plants calcium signalling response to damage:

https://news.wisc.edu/blazes-of-light-reveal-how-plants-sign...

Plants responding to sounds of herbivore (dare we say “predator”) insects:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00442-014-2995-6

Even plant “vision” is becoming more plausible:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggies-with-visi...

You can find a lot more material in this vein. My point is that we are “animalists” and not very well predisposed to recognising the true nature of plants given how different they are to us.

Post reply on HN