28 ms·

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisd

by sarreph 11y ago

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

adamnemecek 11y ago
I agree, it's disgusting but this goes for most animals though.
Aelinsaar 11y ago
This won't be seriously entertained by most people until their standard of living is better than the octopus. Hungry people don't have the time or energy to worry about how smart their meal is. Only religion ever seems to make a dent in dietary habits in the 3rd world.
- chc 11y ago
  Japan is not the third world.
- ralmidani 11y ago
  How does hunger necessitate eating live animals? And isn't octopus relatively expensive, anyways?
  - Aelinsaar 11y ago
    I'm not talking specifically about eating them while alive, which is a relatively rare practice anyway. Their torment as by-catch and just in general seems more ubiquitous to me. Eating them alive is gruesome, but frankly a lot closer to what an octopus can expect in nature. Being put in solitary in a tiny box though? Being held in a tank in terrible conditions, and then brutally dispatched? That's all too common.
- pera 11y ago
  Isn't eating live animals a luxurious thing in some regions of Asia?
  - jjtheblunt 11y ago
    If so, that's seriously fucked up subcultural brainwashing.
  - Aelinsaar 11y ago
    I'm not really worried about rare luxuries. You're talking about a ubiquitous foodstuff the world over, and we treat it like it's no smarter than a clam. It's variously treated as bycatch to suffer and die in nets, trapped as 'pets' or exhibits (and I think long-term confinement has to be hell for intelligent beings), and eaten the good old fashioned way, by sticking them in a pot. Focusing on a particular way of killing them that strikes humans as gruesome doesn't interest me as much as the global treatment of them.
  - mentalpiracy 11y ago
    This is a practice with sushi and certain fish, I don't know if it occurs with octopus though. I say this merely to confirm a fact, I am qualifying no judgement here.
  - hkmurakami 11y ago
    I actually I don't think eating a live octopus is done (at least a fully grown one) since the suction force of its cups(?) continues quite some time after it's death and can be quite dangerous if it sticks to your throat. Eating live shrimp is a thing though.
vixen99 11y ago
I agree but cheer up. One day you and I will provide sustenance for a whole range of lower order organisms - one way or another.
- adamnemecek 11y ago
  That will not involve a whole lot of suffering that can be prevented.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    ...you must not expect to die in the US healthcare system.~
ajmurmann 11y ago
I really enjoy reading octopus, but will not do so any longer.
hellbanner 11y ago
So are you saying each lifeform should only eat what is dumber than it?
- baddox 11y ago
  I doubt the commenter means that, since the word "should" implies ethical reasoning which is presumably not a capability of most non-humans.
- Falling3 11y ago
  As the sibling comment points out, we're getting into ethics which obviously only applies to those who are capable to ethical reasoning. Personally, I see far better attributes as being measures of whether we should harm other individuals (sentience should be the qualifier), but I can see how intelligence may make its way into these conversations.
- prawn 11y ago
  That would at least make camping a lot safer...
Cpoll 11y ago
Ten minutes of animal cruelty involved in eating a live octopus doesn't phase me compared to the life-long animal cruelty most farm animals suffer. The only reason it's more outrageous is because it's 'obvious,' I imagine. In the West, we like our animal cruelty to be kept strictly behind closed doors.
- pera 11y ago
  I believe in the West most people don't even want to think about it.
  - hackbinary 11y ago
    Seriously? I think people in the west generally care more about animal welfare than in the far east. The UK has the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Sure there are people, farmers and pet keepers that do not obey the law, but in the main animals are very well taken care of.
    - vadym909 11y ago
      A large majority of Indians are vegetarians and the rest only eat fish, chicken or goat. Cows are holy and worshiped!
      - hackbinary 11y ago
        Euthanasing animals in India, or at least some parts, is illegal because they believe they can not kill animals, therefore many, if not most animals in India die terrible deaths in old age. I am not confident that chickens, goats, nor many other animals in India are well treated and have good quality of lives. It certainly is not that case that just because you do not consume animals means you keep them in humane conditions.
  - blakeyrat 11y ago
    Compared to whom? China? Where they kill endangered pangolins so they can grind-up their scales and sprinkle it on their dicks because some moron centuries ago said it was an aphrodisiac? Get real.
nxzero 11y ago
Idea that intellect should be a measure of if is okay to kill or other use a species is extremely flawed in my opinion.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  What else do you want to use?
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Impact, contribution, etc. to an ecosystem.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    The current bar is just anything not in the genus Homo and would likely extend to any 'humanoid' species. A wolf doesn't really care about the relative intelligence of the rabbits it kills, but has a natural kinship between other wolves or wolf-like creatures which more-or-less extends to, "I wont kill you for food unless I'm starving."
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Wolves are extremely opportunistic carnivores, and will, given the opportunity, eat another wolf. That aside, unclear how wolves relate to the topic. Generally speaking, most life on Earth doesn't even eat other living organisms, but the naturally left remains of living organisms.
      - mjevans 11y ago
        We all know what you meant to say, but plants are living organisms. This is why using selective terms for the type of dietary intake is scientifically useful. Carnivores that eat other carnivores (on a preferential basis) are rare. Typically herbivores are eaten by omnivores or carnivores. The only real moralities involved in these distinctions relate to energy efficiency and likelihood of diseases being a concern. Of course self awareness (sentience) is an additional layer of consideration on top of the evolutionary pressures.
codyb 11y ago
According to seafood watch, market squid are at the very least sustainable [0]. Squid and octopus are different I believe, but calamari is squid if I'm not mistaken. As for Octopus, it appears a bit more iffy [1]. As for intelligence, that's secondary to sustainability for my eating habits at this point. [0] - http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/sustainable_fisheries/celebrate_seafood/ocean-friendly_seafood/species/market_squid.php http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/fishe... [1] - http://seafood.edf.org/octopus#bmb=1 http://seafood.edf.org/octopus#bmb=1
- nyolfen 11y ago
  there's good reason to suspect that a lot of calamari is pig asshole: http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/npr-claims-pig-rectum-is-a-suitable-substitute-for-calamari-in-a-pinch-7043151 http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/npr-claims-pig-rec...
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    Considering the article is only a few paragraphs, and right in the middle of the article it states "dining on pork bung at your favorite Italian restaurant is improbable (most hog bung is exported to Asia)". I don't see how you have any factual support for the statement "a lot". In fact, there isn't even anecdotal evidence listed.
    - nyolfen 11y ago
      Apologies, the correct link is the This American Life episode linked in the story I linked, but that episode appears to have been pulled offline. Here's a transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/484/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/484/t...
koolba 11y ago
Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (delicious) former.
- Falling3 11y ago
  Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living.
  - koolba 11y ago
    > Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living. I didn't say it wouldn't be worth living. I said that, given the choice, I'd rather live in a world with ham, bacon, and baby back ribs.
    - Tempest1981 11y ago
      What if you could get the same delicious flavors artificially?
- kristopolous 11y ago
  Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat, where it comes from, and the ecological footprints their choices implicate, then have at it, eat whatever.
cloudjacker 11y ago
Relatively speaking? I think Cephalopods are smarter than humans, with their life span of 3 - 5 years their cognitive intelligence I think meets or exceeds most toddlers. They decide to die by starvation after laying eggs and the majority of the babies are killed while they are defenseless. With any organization and cognition that they don't have to die at this point in their life, they could perhaps take over the ocean.
bduerst 11y ago
Many countries ban certain types of research (e.g. pain-inducing) on cephalopods because of their intelligence.
Xcelerate 11y ago
If I started thinking about it too much, I'd probably become a vegetarian. So I refrain from thinking about the topic, which probably isn't a great idea, because then I remember all of the moral atrocities committed in the 1800s under the name of "not thinking about it too much" or "that's just the way it is".
- ashitlerferad 11y ago
  Think about vegetable rights before you become a vegetarian.
  - akerro 11y ago
    What will my bunny eat when you eat all the carrots?
ekianjo 11y ago
Actually, most of the animals we eat are intelligent and certainly share similar traits of self-consciousness as humans. Mammals certainly, but even fishes. EDIT: And I know this does not justify anything, but "intelligent" animals in the wilderness also eat each others all the time. If we were to find out that they "get" that the other species they eat are also intelligent and have feelings, then why wouldn't it be acceptable for humans to do the same?
- zematis 11y ago
  > ... I know this does not justify anything > ... wouldn't it be acceptable for humans to do the same? Edit: Re-reading your comment, I think this isn't a charitable interpretation. I'll assume that you don't think cruelty in nature justifies human cruelty unless the animals are knowingly cruel. I still don't agree with you however. I don't think it's acceptable to wrong someone/an animal just because they knowingly wronged someone else/a different animal.
threatofrain 11y ago
To me, morality is based upon a goal and the causal means by which we may have relation to that goal. For many, the goal is approximately similar, i.e., for humanity to prosper. I also think that morality becomes productive when consensus is achieved, even if it's approximate consensus. I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respect to ecological reasons. If the argument is about sustainability, then I think a lot of people can get into that discussion. But if the argument stems from the idea that we should simply feel bad for killing smart cows and pigs, then I don't understand. I would also say that under my definition of morality, goals are more important than means. Therefore, just as I would think it bad to let a human starve or be eaten in a forest, by extension, if we were to regard "smart animal" prosperity as the goal, then we would also think it morally negligent to simply throw up our hands and say "the wild took its course with that one!". So what is your moral premise? (killing smart animals like cows or pigs) => (mediating factors) => (? moral outcome you're attempting to build consensus on ?)
- Zeeem 11y ago
  How about these premises: 1. Happiness/pleasure ought to be increased. 2. Suffering ought to be decreased. 3. The type of being experiencing these is immaterial. Why stop at humans?
  - bitL 11y ago
    That is nice until you observe what actually happens in the raw nature itself - I had a "joy" observing two crows killing a sparrow with the utmost cruelty, prolonging its suffering as much as they could, and then leaving it there without "eating" it. We simply have to transcend nature if we want to feel good about ourselves. Maybe once we master technology, we can reprogram the mess of this Universe (at some point we will be dealing with pure computer science instead of physics, which will be just a consequence of some mathematical structures and algorithms running on top of them). I never understood why so many humans worship nature - nature is broken, it's like a fairly balanced pathological system, showing some wonders (Moon-Earth distance allowing total eclipses) as well as atrocities (basically all what is nasty about life itself).
bitL 11y ago
Unfortunately nature sucks. One of the main philosophical questions of the past was why humans' internal moral code goes against what happens in the nature? We need to eat to survive. Animals/plants/bacteria etc. need to eat as well. Why is killing/damaging plants more acceptable than killing/damaging animals? Why do we want to kill viruses that are eating our bodies? How many insects did you kill on the way to work today and didn't even notice? Simply no good answers :-( Hence cyberspace vs meatspace etc.
Mz 11y ago
I am totally okay with you being not happy with eating things live. But I will suggest that you be careful with basing it on intelligence. That framing opens up weird things like "Maybe it is okay to eat mentally retarded humans."
Joof 11y ago
Octopi also eat octopus. Probably because they are delicious. They are still brilliant.

by sarreph 11y ago

adamnemecek 11y ago

I agree, it's disgusting but this goes for most animals though.

Aelinsaar 11y ago

This won't be seriously entertained by most people until their standard of living is better than the octopus. Hungry people don't have the time or energy to worry about how smart their meal is. Only religion ever seems to make a dent in dietary habits in the 3rd world.

chc 11y ago
Japan is not the third world.
ralmidani 11y ago
How does hunger necessitate eating live animals? And isn't octopus relatively expensive, anyways?
- Aelinsaar 11y ago
  I'm not talking specifically about eating them while alive, which is a relatively rare practice anyway. Their torment as by-catch and just in general seems more ubiquitous to me. Eating them alive is gruesome, but frankly a lot closer to what an octopus can expect in nature. Being put in solitary in a tiny box though? Being held in a tank in terrible conditions, and then brutally dispatched? That's all too common.
pera 11y ago
Isn't eating live animals a luxurious thing in some regions of Asia?
- jjtheblunt 11y ago
  If so, that's seriously fucked up subcultural brainwashing.
- Aelinsaar 11y ago
  I'm not really worried about rare luxuries. You're talking about a ubiquitous foodstuff the world over, and we treat it like it's no smarter than a clam. It's variously treated as bycatch to suffer and die in nets, trapped as 'pets' or exhibits (and I think long-term confinement has to be hell for intelligent beings), and eaten the good old fashioned way, by sticking them in a pot. Focusing on a particular way of killing them that strikes humans as gruesome doesn't interest me as much as the global treatment of them.
- mentalpiracy 11y ago
  This is a practice with sushi and certain fish, I don't know if it occurs with octopus though. I say this merely to confirm a fact, I am qualifying no judgement here.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  I actually I don't think eating a live octopus is done (at least a fully grown one) since the suction force of its cups(?) continues quite some time after it's death and can be quite dangerous if it sticks to your throat. Eating live shrimp is a thing though.

vixen99 11y ago

I agree but cheer up. One day you and I will provide sustenance for a whole range of lower order organisms - one way or another.

adamnemecek 11y ago
That will not involve a whole lot of suffering that can be prevented.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  ...you must not expect to die in the US healthcare system.~

ajmurmann 11y ago

I really enjoy reading octopus, but will not do so any longer.

hellbanner 11y ago

So are you saying each lifeform should only eat what is dumber than it?

baddox 11y ago
I doubt the commenter means that, since the word "should" implies ethical reasoning which is presumably not a capability of most non-humans.
Falling3 11y ago
As the sibling comment points out, we're getting into ethics which obviously only applies to those who are capable to ethical reasoning. Personally, I see far better attributes as being measures of whether we should harm other individuals (sentience should be the qualifier), but I can see how intelligence may make its way into these conversations.
prawn 11y ago
That would at least make camping a lot safer...

Cpoll 11y ago

Ten minutes of animal cruelty involved in eating a live octopus doesn't phase me compared to the life-long animal cruelty most farm animals suffer. The only reason it's more outrageous is because it's 'obvious,' I imagine. In the West, we like our animal cruelty to be kept strictly behind closed doors.

pera 11y ago
I believe in the West most people don't even want to think about it.
- hackbinary 11y ago
  Seriously? I think people in the west generally care more about animal welfare than in the far east. The UK has the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Sure there are people, farmers and pet keepers that do not obey the law, but in the main animals are very well taken care of.
  - vadym909 11y ago
    A large majority of Indians are vegetarians and the rest only eat fish, chicken or goat. Cows are holy and worshiped!
    - hackbinary 11y ago
      Euthanasing animals in India, or at least some parts, is illegal because they believe they can not kill animals, therefore many, if not most animals in India die terrible deaths in old age. I am not confident that chickens, goats, nor many other animals in India are well treated and have good quality of lives. It certainly is not that case that just because you do not consume animals means you keep them in humane conditions.
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  Compared to whom? China? Where they kill endangered pangolins so they can grind-up their scales and sprinkle it on their dicks because some moron centuries ago said it was an aphrodisiac? Get real.

nxzero 11y ago

Idea that intellect should be a measure of if is okay to kill or other use a species is extremely flawed in my opinion.

maxxxxx 11y ago
What else do you want to use?
- nxzero 11y ago
  Impact, contribution, etc. to an ecosystem.
- Spivak 11y ago
  The current bar is just anything not in the genus Homo and would likely extend to any 'humanoid' species. A wolf doesn't really care about the relative intelligence of the rabbits it kills, but has a natural kinship between other wolves or wolf-like creatures which more-or-less extends to, "I wont kill you for food unless I'm starving."
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Wolves are extremely opportunistic carnivores, and will, given the opportunity, eat another wolf. That aside, unclear how wolves relate to the topic. Generally speaking, most life on Earth doesn't even eat other living organisms, but the naturally left remains of living organisms.
    - mjevans 11y ago
      We all know what you meant to say, but plants are living organisms. This is why using selective terms for the type of dietary intake is scientifically useful. Carnivores that eat other carnivores (on a preferential basis) are rare. Typically herbivores are eaten by omnivores or carnivores. The only real moralities involved in these distinctions relate to energy efficiency and likelihood of diseases being a concern. Of course self awareness (sentience) is an additional layer of consideration on top of the evolutionary pressures.

codyb 11y ago

According to seafood watch, market squid are at the very least sustainable [0]. Squid and octopus are different I believe, but calamari is squid if I'm not mistaken. As for Octopus, it appears a bit more iffy [1]. As for intelligence, that's secondary to sustainability for my eating habits at this point. [0] - http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/sustainable_fisheries/celebrate_seafood/ocean-friendly_seafood/species/market_squid.php http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/fishe... [1] - http://seafood.edf.org/octopus#bmb=1 http://seafood.edf.org/octopus#bmb=1

nyolfen 11y ago
there's good reason to suspect that a lot of calamari is pig asshole: http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/npr-claims-pig-rectum-is-a-suitable-substitute-for-calamari-in-a-pinch-7043151 http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/npr-claims-pig-rec...
- jeremyt 11y ago
  Considering the article is only a few paragraphs, and right in the middle of the article it states "dining on pork bung at your favorite Italian restaurant is improbable (most hog bung is exported to Asia)". I don't see how you have any factual support for the statement "a lot". In fact, there isn't even anecdotal evidence listed.
  - nyolfen 11y ago
    Apologies, the correct link is the This American Life episode linked in the story I linked, but that episode appears to have been pulled offline. Here's a transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/484/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/484/t...

koolba 11y ago

Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (delicious) former.

Falling3 11y ago
Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living.
- koolba 11y ago
  > Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living. I didn't say it wouldn't be worth living. I said that, given the choice, I'd rather live in a world with ham, bacon, and baby back ribs.
  - Tempest1981 11y ago
    What if you could get the same delicious flavors artificially?
kristopolous 11y ago
Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat, where it comes from, and the ecological footprints their choices implicate, then have at it, eat whatever.

cloudjacker 11y ago

Relatively speaking? I think Cephalopods are smarter than humans, with their life span of 3 - 5 years their cognitive intelligence I think meets or exceeds most toddlers. They decide to die by starvation after laying eggs and the majority of the babies are killed while they are defenseless. With any organization and cognition that they don't have to die at this point in their life, they could perhaps take over the ocean.

bduerst 11y ago

Many countries ban certain types of research (e.g. pain-inducing) on cephalopods because of their intelligence.

Xcelerate 11y ago

If I started thinking about it too much, I'd probably become a vegetarian. So I refrain from thinking about the topic, which probably isn't a great idea, because then I remember all of the moral atrocities committed in the 1800s under the name of "not thinking about it too much" or "that's just the way it is".

ashitlerferad 11y ago
Think about vegetable rights before you become a vegetarian.
- akerro 11y ago
  What will my bunny eat when you eat all the carrots?

ekianjo 11y ago

Actually, most of the animals we eat are intelligent and certainly share similar traits of self-consciousness as humans. Mammals certainly, but even fishes. EDIT: And I know this does not justify anything, but "intelligent" animals in the wilderness also eat each others all the time. If we were to find out that they "get" that the other species they eat are also intelligent and have feelings, then why wouldn't it be acceptable for humans to do the same?

zematis 11y ago
> ... I know this does not justify anything > ... wouldn't it be acceptable for humans to do the same? Edit: Re-reading your comment, I think this isn't a charitable interpretation. I'll assume that you don't think cruelty in nature justifies human cruelty unless the animals are knowingly cruel. I still don't agree with you however. I don't think it's acceptable to wrong someone/an animal just because they knowingly wronged someone else/a different animal.

threatofrain 11y ago

To me, morality is based upon a goal and the causal means by which we may have relation to that goal. For many, the goal is approximately similar, i.e., for humanity to prosper. I also think that morality becomes productive when consensus is achieved, even if it's approximate consensus. I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respect to ecological reasons. If the argument is about sustainability, then I think a lot of people can get into that discussion. But if the argument stems from the idea that we should simply feel bad for killing smart cows and pigs, then I don't understand. I would also say that under my definition of morality, goals are more important than means. Therefore, just as I would think it bad to let a human starve or be eaten in a forest, by extension, if we were to regard "smart animal" prosperity as the goal, then we would also think it morally negligent to simply throw up our hands and say "the wild took its course with that one!". So what is your moral premise? (killing smart animals like cows or pigs) => (mediating factors) => (? moral outcome you're attempting to build consensus on ?)

Zeeem 11y ago
How about these premises: 1. Happiness/pleasure ought to be increased. 2. Suffering ought to be decreased. 3. The type of being experiencing these is immaterial. Why stop at humans?
- bitL 11y ago
  That is nice until you observe what actually happens in the raw nature itself - I had a "joy" observing two crows killing a sparrow with the utmost cruelty, prolonging its suffering as much as they could, and then leaving it there without "eating" it. We simply have to transcend nature if we want to feel good about ourselves. Maybe once we master technology, we can reprogram the mess of this Universe (at some point we will be dealing with pure computer science instead of physics, which will be just a consequence of some mathematical structures and algorithms running on top of them). I never understood why so many humans worship nature - nature is broken, it's like a fairly balanced pathological system, showing some wonders (Moon-Earth distance allowing total eclipses) as well as atrocities (basically all what is nasty about life itself).

bitL 11y ago

Unfortunately nature sucks. One of the main philosophical questions of the past was why humans' internal moral code goes against what happens in the nature? We need to eat to survive. Animals/plants/bacteria etc. need to eat as well. Why is killing/damaging plants more acceptable than killing/damaging animals? Why do we want to kill viruses that are eating our bodies? How many insects did you kill on the way to work today and didn't even notice? Simply no good answers :-( Hence cyberspace vs meatspace etc.

Mz 11y ago

I am totally okay with you being not happy with eating things live. But I will suggest that you be careful with basing it on intelligence. That framing opens up weird things like "Maybe it is okay to eat mentally retarded humans."

Joof 11y ago

Octopi also eat octopus. Probably because they are delicious. They are still brilliant.