Octopuses, crabs and lobsters recognised as sentient beings under UK law (2021)

Cows are sentient, does that mean the guy who artificially inseminates them is raping them?

I don't know why I bother asking these questions. The next meaningful attempt I see to answer them will be the first, but who knows, maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me. I won't lie, I could use that a lot these days.

The employment industry in our prevailing economic structure demands punctuality, often through crowded, uncomfortable and frankly, degrading means of transportation. This perceived "choice" is not a luxury but an enforced necessity, much like the bovine passenger being shipped off to slaughter, with the only distinction being, we humans "chose" this.

One could argue that the transportation network isn't able to offer comfortable and safe transit, yet it is more a matter of priorities than abilities. The ability to provide such transport exists, but the political and economic will, sadly is not in abundance.

Is it not curious that a society which can show empathy for the transportation of its livestock struggles to extend the same basic courtesy to its own kind? After all, are we not more than just cattle to the abattoir of capitalism?

So for dogs and wolves, starting to eat as soon as possible takes precedence over making sure the prey is really dead.

Also, canines are not as strong as felines like the Tiger and the Leopard, so, it is not as easy for them to kill big prey by crushing the windpipe with their jaws like the cats do.

On the other side, they may be weaker than the cats but have far more endurance, so, a maimed prey escaping is not much of a big deal, as they are able to pursue the escaping prey for as long as they need without having to stop to rest.

Lions are somewhat of a muddy middle ground. Usually, their prey is dead when they start eating, but when the prey is really big, like elephants, they start eating it alive as it is not as easy to kill such big prey.

Crocodiles on the other hand will either swallow their prey at once or eat big chunks. It is not really a choice for them.

Of course, we must remember that animals don't really have this concept of their prey suffering. They need to eat, and that's all that matters to them.

There'll probably also be some weirdos campaigning the idea of not harming humans unnecessarily, but that's probably too extreme.

Hey, I guess if I was going to be boiled alive, I'd rather be knocked unconscious first too.

It's possible that vested interests will try to twist the narrative once it begins to turn against them: "Do your part to sort plastics into bins, not the trash! Pay no attention to the single-use packaging manufacturers generating all that difficult-to-sort, difficult-to-process waste." "Freshwater is a resource that needs to be conserved! Turn the 1 gpm tap off while brushing your teeth. Ignore the 1000 gpm center-pivot industrial farm growing alfalfa in the California desert." etc. but that's risky.

I think that recognizing that invertebrates on the ocean floor can be victims of animal cruelty is step 1 in reducing trawling, pollution, and global warming that harms those animals.

Implementing radical change overnight without the mechanism to enforce it will guarantee failure.

Stops grocery stores from selling live crabs to home cooks. That is one.

Stops kitchens from boiling lobsters alive without stunning. That is two.

Stops the practice of destroying the eyestalks of female shrimp. That is three.

If you belive that they can experience pain any of these is terrible.

Some of those animals you would need to force to leave.

I had a dog growing up and like you can leave the front door open and occasionally she'd go out it but come meal time she was going back in that door.

If we stop breeding pigs and cows we won't have the huge amount we do now. The pigs and cows don't care if their species go extinct.

Letting them go into the wild would be cruel since they aren't prepared to exist out there, but letting them die in the wild vs die in a factory farm isn't much worse of a fate.

In reality, we should stop breeding them, send existing aninals to sanctuarys (which we should fund) and be done with it. Within 20 years, all of the existing farm animals will die out from natural causes.

The real moral question is: how do we support the farmers?

We should ensure that they get their wages replaced and get assistance in moving to a less cruel industry than animal farming. There are already groups that help with this, but they'd need funds to scale their work.

IMHO, not my field.

Most of the wild animals that live a time in captivity needs to learn again with human help where obtain again food before to completely return to the wild.

If domesticated species were going to be released, by extrapolation I deduce the matter would be to know to what extent did they lost their instincts (due human selection), and how they could be guided along N generations to recover it (this plant smell is poisonous), or if the above is to much to learn at least were to find the food, for what an habitat would be needed first, in companion of a high number of animals for to keep a high genetic diversity, with migration paths (climate, group mixing, etc).

This lobbies simply hide or ignore that they don't have alternatives to the problems that are creating and will soon hit hard.

thus, the logical end of the sentence "So if the AI thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on DFW's lobster points..." is "then we can make no conclusions solely based on that AI output, because of the aforementioned reasons"

points only to your post for me.

I'd also hasten to add that Nussbaum and Singer aren't exactly known for doing philosophy for philosophers. They're both public intellectuals with political axes to grind.

And then we try to get an animal half that age to prove to us the same thing, for our own inconsequential hubris

It is pretty ridiculous

I did not know (maybe I didn't want to) the ineffable amount of suffering we subject animals in vastly useless "scientific" experiments (see Singer, Animal Liberation, Chapter 2: Tools for research).

Experimentation on animals should quite simply not happen. When you torture something that you have absolute power over, this is ethically similar to torturing a child in my opinion. They have the same amount of proximate agency, and are similarly helpless.

This is an excellent article on the subject, written by somebody who worked in a testing lab.

https://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1676-5-horrifyi...

Most animals eat other animals in such cruel ways because they don't have better means available to them and because if they didn't use the teeth and claws they have to catch prey they'd starve. Humans don't have to be needlessly cruel in order to eat an animal. For us, it's a choice.

I'd prefer that every hamburger I eat comes from a cow who lived a long happy cow life then died suddenly and without pain. There's no section in the meat department at my grocery store for "happy cows that died painlessly" though, so I'm left with what's available. I can accept that, but there's zero reason for me to torture a live cow and excuses like "well, a lion would have ripped it apart while it was alive" wouldn't justify my actions if I did.

By all means, eat animals! They're delicious! At a minimum though, we shouldn't go out of our way to make a living thing suffer.

That tells us little on our moral obligations towards them and, for that matter, towards our fellow humans. Animals also murder other members of their own species, is murder hence ok?

Meanwhile, humans have a huge empathy problem in regard to animals (and other types of species) - perhaps its most categorical failing, and the driver for the most pressing crises of our time, in fact.

'Man at top of heap says situation basically acceptable'

Don't mistake this for moralizing, I just think your position is weak.

Err some of us.

Vegan moral arguments almost entirely rely on empathy. "The animal suffers therefore it's wrong".

And they miss the mark almost every time because they're literally thinking emotionally instead of logically. Human suffering has actual consequences and we're basically always worse of if we don't reduce it. Where that isn't true such as in times of war we happy promote it.

Those arguments are far weaker than you would expect because empathy doesn't actually weigh as heavily as you would expect on real social level decision making. Instead, practicality always wins and animal products are far far more valuable than the nearly non-existent harms of animal suffering.

Those with "animal rights" fetishes never made any sense to me, and the discussion here is just more of the same nonsense.

Anything with a spine is sentient by this law. Can you rephrase your answer while keeping that in mind?

I also agree that minimizing that pain is a reasonable goal, and worth taking steps to do at most every point we can afford to (and realistically - we are fairly rich as a species, we could be doing better).

I don't particularly agree that forgoing meat consumption entirely is the right call - although reducing it likely is (especially if you live in the US).

I also don't think that just because you happen to be eating a plant, you're off the hook - I think monoculture production and certain farming practices (see: palm oil) are causing suffering on similar scales.

In my opinion - we should be trusting large conglomerates less with our foods (whether they're plant or animal) and doing more production locally. Acknowledging and respecting where the food you eat comes from is a huge step up from where many folks are right now.

Define suffer?

This is especially important in developing children.

It isn't at all evident that forcing kids onto a meat-free diet is the best path forward for society as a whole.

Bio-engineering is one route (KloraDerm), but I could see alternative routes that are essentially just chemical/material sciences.

I think it's probably an incredibly complicated supply chain we'd have to really work through to make sure you can synthesize all the required components without going through something living, but we know that producers exist - so there's hope.

E-fuel plants do this for synthetic aviation fuel.

You can also do it slightly more indirectly via acetate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf

I guess this is why it's so complicated (and you can't get off the scale). From the perspective of the fruiting plant - I agree with you, it doesn't mind if you eat some fruit. From the perspective of each seed, they'd probably rather you didn't.

And interestingly - if we're willing to go multi-body (since we're admitting that eating fruit is bad for some seeds, but possible advantageous to the species as a whole) I think you'd have to make the same argument for herd animals: It might be bad for a single deer to be eaten, but it's pretty good for the herd if someone happens to remove the weakest single member every now and then.

Anyways... I'm rambling at this point. Not sure why you're getting downvoted but long story short: I hope people acknowledge and respect the things they eat (plants, animals, or other), I'd love to see us move back a step from the automated and industrial production methods we're using right now (Both animals and plants - monoculture crops are a real ecosystem killer) and work to make food something that is local and folks can connect with.

>As an aside: this is a gotcha question and doesn't fundamentally address the position that animal slaughter is cruel.

I don't think so. If you think killing animals is cruel in itself, then you have only two logically consistent options: you either a) change your lifestyle to ensure you don't kill any animals whatsoever, or b) accept that some cruelty is inevitable and set some standard of acceptable cruelty for yourself. Anything else is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

How do you grow crops without killing insects?

    Amino Acid Profile: Proteins are composed of amino acids, and the composition of amino acids can vary between animal and plant sources. Animal proteins tend to be "complete proteins" because they contain all the essential amino acids that the body cannot produce on its own. Plant proteins, on the other hand, may be "incomplete proteins" as they may lack or have lower levels of certain essential amino acids. However, by combining different plant protein sources (e.g., legumes with grains or seeds), vegans and vegetarians can achieve a complete amino acid profile.

    Digestibility: Animal proteins are generally more easily digested and absorbed by the body compared to plant proteins. This is primarily because animal proteins have a higher biological value, meaning they contain all the essential amino acids in the proportions needed by the human body. Plant proteins, especially those from whole food sources, may be slightly less digestible, but this can be improved by cooking, soaking, fermenting, or sprouting certain plant foods.

    Fat Content: Animal proteins often come with varying amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol, depending on the source. Plant proteins, on the other hand, are typically lower in saturated fats and devoid of cholesterol. Plant-based protein sources, such as legumes, tofu, tempeh, and certain nuts and seeds, can be particularly beneficial for individuals seeking lower fat and cholesterol intake.

    Fiber and Phytonutrients: Plant proteins are often accompanied by dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients present in the whole plant foods. These components offer additional health benefits and can help support digestive health, cardiovascular health, and overall well-being. Animal proteins, particularly those from lean sources, tend to have less fiber and fewer plant-based nutrients.

    Health Implications: Research suggests that the source of protein, whether from animal or plant sources, can have varying effects on health outcomes. High intake of animal protein, especially from processed or red meats, has been associated with increased risks of certain diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Plant protein, when part of a well-balanced diet, has been linked to lower risks of chronic diseases and overall improved health outcomes.

But LLMs (today) don't fulfill criterion #7: After training is completed, the model is fixed, so there is no more learning going on. #6 would also be hard to map to an LLM.