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

Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 704 posts

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#481

Post by sweetheart »

markstos wrote: post #41
adamcharnock wrote: post #4

Even as a meat eater I’m pretty shocked that this recognises them as sentient and yet does not ban their slaughter (aside from boiling them alive etc). Maybe I’ve read too much science fiction, but eating sentient beings seems Bad.

Some pigs register test for higher intelligence than dogs, but yet we eat those. Cows and chickens seem to feel pain as well. Where should we draw the line about which animals we eat and which we don't?

Millions of people draw the line at animals in general: vegans.

We don't need to gerrymander the tree of life into edible and non-edible animals and pretend we have rational for the delineations if we just stop eating animals. Folks in developed countries don't need to eat animals to survive, so why bother? In the best case it allows us to eat some foods that taste unique and different, worst case it propagates unbelievable suffering amongst those we choose to eat.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#482

Post by blitzar »

swebs wrote: post #450
blitzar wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I have just discovered are like opiates on steroids when it comes to addictive properties.

I don't really understand what you mean by that. They're completely different families of drugs used to treat different diseases, and have different side effect profiles. Opioids are typically used to treat pain, while Benzodiazepines treat anxiety disorders.

Addictive profiles was my meaning, Benzodiazepines (apparently using the abreviated form is offensive for some) making opiates look like a walk in the park when it comes to addiction.

Additionally there is a large boxy of work for prescribing Benzodiazepines to treat pain, as well as pairing the two for chronic pain, which seems to be an absolute recipie for disaster if used for anything but the shortest periods of time.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#483

Post by mytailorisrich »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #404
jjcon wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobsters have essentially the same number of neurons in their entire nervous system (including the “brian”) as a fruit fly does. Complex yes? Interestingly complex? Not even close. A cockroach has 10x more.

It’s still enough to feel being boiled alive.

Maybe.

More broadly the issue here is that crabs and lobsters (and in East Asia often fish and all seafood) are sold alive because of freshness and quality considerations.

So, IMHO the only way to enforce a ban on boiling lobsters alive is to ban selling lobsters alive and to create a whole raft of requirements similar to the slaughter of animals. In the article that's the proposal:

"It recommends against ... the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers"

Interestingly, and maybe I'm wrong, I don't think that the sale of live animals to random people is currently banned in the UK (i.e. I can buy a live sheep if I want to, as far as I know). It's the slaughter that is controlled. If so this proposal goes further.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#487

Post by Chris2048 »

ArchD wrote: post #474
lelanthran wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't needlessly torturing them? Seriously, you cannot see the difference between a person who delivers a single killing blow and then eats the animal and one who watches it boil to death over 20m or so? "Getting joy from inflicting pain" is very different to "killing for food".

Lobsters & crabs are risky to eat unless they are very fresh (i.e. they have not been dead for too long). If you buy a dead lobster and then cook it, you have much less assurance about when it died hence the freshness than with a live lobster. If you buy a live lobster, how are you going to practically kill it before boiling it? Try to penetrate the hard shell to impale the brain using a layperson's skills and equipm…

I would have though chopping off the head would do it?

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#488

Post by wander_homer »

imgabe wrote: post #434
jacquesm wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fallacy of thinking that many people suffer from: because you are taking care of one bad thing doesn't mean you are immediately responsible for taking all bad things, conversely, that you are not able to take care of all bad things does not mean that you can ignore the one bad thing that you can take care of. I'm surprised this is so persistent, it seems pretty obvious. If five houses are on fire and you de…

It's not a fallacy at all, it's a concept called opportunity cost. Resources are not infinite, so we should spend them where they can have the most and best impact. If five houses are on fire, and you decide to go organize your sock drawer... Hey, you're doing something . An organized sock drawer is surely better than a disorganized one. But you could still be rightly criticized for wasting time on something unimport…

> It's not a fallacy at all, it's a concept called opportunity cost. Resources are not infinite, so we should spend them where they can have the most and best impact.

By this logic we should for example stop most of the medical treatment in highly developed countries, where only a minority of humanity lives. For every dollar we spend there on helping a single cancer patient etc. we could probably safe dozens of people elsewhere from dying or suffering due to lack of clean water, food, shelter, drugs, ...

So I wonder, what's the list of issues you think should be tackled exclusively to get the most out of our limited resources?

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#489

Post by netizen-936824 »

blitzar wrote: post #444
youarealiar wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not get addicted to opiates, he had a bad reaction to prescribed benzodiazepines (anxiety medication) when his wife had cancer. Take your lies and complete lack of compassion and get bent.

My mistake he was hooked on benzodiazepines (lie corrected for you). Which I have just discovered are like opiates on steroids. I am shocked that as a clinical psychologist, he was unaware that it was such powerful medication. That said I think he has done some great work.

Benzodiazepines work on entirely different receptors than opioids. They work on GABA receptors which opioida mostly act on mu-opioid receptors. Please do not lie on the internet in order to attack people, it makes you a bad person.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#490

Post by jacquesm »

imgabe wrote: post #434
jacquesm wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fallacy of thinking that many people suffer from: because you are taking care of one bad thing doesn't mean you are immediately responsible for taking all bad things, conversely, that you are not able to take care of all bad things does not mean that you can ignore the one bad thing that you can take care of. I'm surprised this is so persistent, it seems pretty obvious. If five houses are on fire and you de…

It's not a fallacy at all, it's a concept called opportunity cost. Resources are not infinite, so we should spend them where they can have the most and best impact. If five houses are on fire, and you decide to go organize your sock drawer... Hey, you're doing something . An organized sock drawer is surely better than a disorganized one. But you could still be rightly criticized for wasting time on something unimport…

Sure, but 'lobster or no lobster' and 'boiling the lobster alive or not' is an ethical question that stands on its own, there is no need to point out that there are bigger problems than that to be able to arrive at the right answer.

Usually when people make the arguments that you make it is because they are trying to justify something in their lives, not because they are so busy to solve things that are more important. In other words: unless you are working on a plan to solve world hunger/disease/whatever you probably have no excuse to also spend some cycles on the decision of whether you want your food killed in the most cruel way that you can think of or something at least a little bit more humane.

Post reply on HN