18 ms·

In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

286 points by fmihaila 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago
It's at this point you'd probably want to go read David Foster Wallace's essay "Consider The Lobster", an assignment he took from (I shit you not) Gourmet Magazine, which begins with a sort of Illinois Country Fair style travelogue from the Maine Lobster Festival and "ends", if you can call the back 2/3rds of an essay "ending", in a discussion of the meaning of pain and its applicability to the specific nervous system anatomy of crustaceans. Suffice it to say: Wallace is not convinced that the knife through the head lets you off the hook so easily.
- derefr 9y ago
  I'm desperately holding myself back from getting distracted from work with a deep dive through crustacean nervous system anatomy here, so I'll just ask: in what way are they different?
  - leeoniya 9y ago
    if i remember correctly it has something to do with the nervous system being less central and more distributed. probably similar to limbs that continue to move once severed (in other species)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Having to do with the fact that lobsters (according to Wallace) have decentralized nervous systems consisting of ganglia wired in series, so that slicing through one of them might not disable the creature's nociception upon being immersed in boiling water. You might just be keeping it from flailing around, paralyzed but still "aware" in whatever sense a lobster is aware of anything. Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. (Myself, I'm kind of grossed out by shellfish).
    - miles 9y ago
      > Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43 https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43
      - david38 9y ago
        Lots of things aren't necessary. Eating lots of meat, sex without intent to procreate, travel. They sure are fun!
        Eyas 9y ago
        The gp is still pointing out that causing suffering to other creatures is a downside of eating meat. While all items you listed are not necessary, only one of them has that downside. Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
        theoh 9y ago
        Not sure about the meaning of your second paragraph, but in theory, animals bred for human consumption could live happy lives up to the point of a painless, instant death. The issue becomes whether they would be missed by other animals. Some would consider this a dangerous way of thinking, but someone like Temple Grandin would agree, I think, that the correct thing to worry about is suffering, not 'harm' in some abstract sense.
        firethief 9y ago
        Considering suffering alone seems like it could justify some counterintuitive conclusions. Would it be wrong to have a child, raise it happily to adolescence, and then give it a painless, instant death? If so, why?
- open-source-ux 9y ago
  According to this BBC article: "crustaceans have decentralised nervous systems, meaning that unlike fish, they can't be rendered unconscious with a single blow to the head. To "spike" a lobster to death, again unlike fish, you have to pierce the body in more than one spot." From: What's the kindest way to kill a lobster? (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of the headline) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42647341 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42647341
  - jayess 9y ago
    Is a lobster conscious?
    - biztos 9y ago
      Is this knowable by anyone who is not a lobster?
- chr1 9y ago
  What is worse, causing pain or killing? If we consider an extreme case of someone going through a horrible torture, but the next day waking up as healthy as before, and without some kind of mental illness, and without losing significant amount of his time, or opportunity, would it be any different than a game? Would most people try such a game, where they play for someone getting executed in middle ages? My guess is they would, so fear of the pain is misplaced, and death is the horrible part. And therefore killing painlessly doesn't let one off the hook, since it is still killing. (And if one thinks killing is ok, then some amount of pain should be ok too.)
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    Wait, what? You mean most people would volunteer to be tortured horribly as long as any damage is 100% reversed the next day? Uh, I’m not sure whether your model of people is entirely accurate.
    - chr1 9y ago
      Not volunteer for it alone, but try it as a part of a bigger package. Kind of like a more realistic version of a horror movie/game. Do you think i am entirely wrong, and suffering is worse than death? Do you think it is better to die, instead of enduring suffering and then getting to live some more?
      - blattimwind 9y ago
        My gut feeling is that you do very little work with your hands, because your pain-o-meter seems to have drifted in a very unrealistic direction.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        I agree. I'd do a heck of a lot more unsafe shit if I knew I could survive it without permanent damage. It's the permanent damage that keeps me from doing flagrantly unsafe stuff, not the pain. You wind up causing yourself pain in all sorts of avoidable but not terribly unsafe ways.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sharkweek 9y ago
  Love that whole series of essays in the Consider the Lobster collection - you can also listen to several of them on YouTube and I have to say Wallace’s tone when reading the essays makes them more enjoyable https://youtu.be/_fZOl7C_vDI https://youtu.be/_fZOl7C_vDI
- brownbat 9y ago
  Great reference. I will note that he seems to shrug, especially in footnote 19, as if to confess that whether lobsters feel pain or merely express reflexes is basically unknowable, not for any lack of humans trying to figure it out. He seems genuinely conflicted, rather than firmly opinionated, certain only that people should take these questions more seriously. Or maybe he's being coy, to avoid alienating the gourmand. I'm curious if he hesitates to kill spiders since writing this article. Spiders are similar to lobsters. Spiders exhibit preferences. Maybe we should all hesitate to kill them. Or maybe that's just crazy. I don't know. Incidentally, if you want to feel incredibly confused about how you balance empathy towards human and nonhuman things, including arthropods, (and robots, and sociopaths, ...) you should read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It's a short novella, it's culturally relevant, it isn't really captured by the films, and it artfully messes with your head. DFW on lobsters: http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf (The PKD is pretty easy to find, no link.)
  - mlevental 9y ago
    >I'm curious if he hesitates to kill spiders since writing this article. DFW committed suicide many years ago.
    - moab 9y ago
      This is pretty clear bait, but his choice to commit suicide gives absolutely no information on his position on harming other creatures.
      - discoursism 9y ago
        I think the person you were responding to was saying that he does not hesitate, because he does not kill spiders, because he is dead. Not necessarily bait of any kind.
        moab 9y ago
        Thanks for the explanation. My misunderstanding.
- kpil 9y ago
  I'm not convinced that 250,000 neurons is capable of much self reference at all, so the psychological suffering must be negligible. But sure, electrical stunning is probably preferable.
nickjj 9y ago
"...dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." So for a few seconds it will think it's being released back into its natural habitat and then seconds later its brains are dripping down some chef's knife. The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any form of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally. NOTE: I'm not some animal rights person and I do eat meat without thinking, and no I've never seen the inside of a slaughter house (and yes I think that would probably scar me for life).
- watwut 9y ago
  Natural death of an animal in the nature can be quite long and very painful. The point is not to simulate natural kill, the point is to kill the animal without torturing it unnecessary.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Yes, sometimes when I hear people talk about how we kill animals inhumanely, I feel like they should watch a little bit of national geographic. Makes a sketchy slaughterhouse seem like a picnic.
    - lukaslalinsky 9y ago
      This is a dangerous route to take, because at that point you can start comparing yourself to animals. We spent a few centuries developing our world, so I think it's fair to assume higher standards. Animals kill other animals to solve their hunger and they do their best to end it quickly.
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        "Animals kill other animals to solve their hunger and they do their best to end it quickly." is not entirely true. Many animals will start to eat others without bothering to kill them; non-carnivorous birds will peck each other (not particularly quickly) to death, dolphins do gang rape for fun while having the ability to understand what it means, they also kill things like porpoises for fun (they can't eat porpoises and they're neither a threat nor competition to dolphins); predators in good conditions do "surplus kill" i.e. kill just for practice/fun without attempting to eat the victim, apes have been observed to eat parts of other apes while they're still alive, etc, etc. The main difference between animals is that while less intelligent animals will sometimes simply kill things "just because" even if they don't need to and the suffering will be an accidental side effect, the more intelligent animals will sometimes intentionally hurt/torture others. Morality is orthogonal to intelligence. Romanticizing nature as something pure, "taking only what they need" and beyond evil is ridiculous idealism that doesn't reflect reality.
heinrichf 9y ago
It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone to loneliness): https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-switzerland/ https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-swi...
- eps 9y ago
  It is mentioned in the article.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I am a vegetarian, but I'm more troubled by these totalitarian laws. Yes, I know they 'are just helping animals,' but throughout history, too often tyrants strip your liberties in the name of of moral righteousness.
  - kranner 9y ago
    In what way does it strip one's liberties to be required to keep at least two guinea pigs if one must keep them? The "liberty" to keep exactly one guinea pig: that is just silly.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      That's exactly the point. The first steps in the path to illegitimate authority is to start legitimizing it using these low-hanging fruits. This is just textbook play calling. Removing net neutrality starts "we just want to help hospitals and police have faster internet, don't be ridiculous." Drug prohibition, the War on Terror, the TSA, police militarization. It all, every time, comes with "they're just trying to do something good and it doesn't seriously affect you." Except maybe thre TSA, because when someone starts searching you all of a sudden everyone is a civil libertarian.(1) The problems 1) One can always make the argument that "those are just not worthwhile freedoms." 2) The idea that using the threat of violence from the government to solve every problem is the actual path to tyranny. 1-https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
selim_tiotoys 9y ago
This has to do with the fact that we in Switzerland once voted (in the early 90s) to constitutionally recognize animals, and giving them dignity. The dignity of the creature it was called. This is the reason also why you are not allowed to own just one single guinea pig or a lovebird.
- josephorjoe 9y ago
  So, if you own two and one dies, what happens?
  - endymi0n 9y ago
    > Rent-A-Guinea Pig Service Takes Off in Switzerland http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-rodents-rent-a-guinea-pig-service-takes-off-in-switzerland-a-787336.html http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-...
    - josephorjoe 9y ago
      Lol that is awesome. Thanks for the link. I feel for the poor introverted guinea pigs of Switzerland though. No chance for a peaceful quiet life free from the squeaking of another pig.
      - watwut 9y ago
        Human introverts still go crazy in solitary cell. It is kinda the same.
    - Udik 9y ago
      "It's like Uber, but for guinea pigs".
unknown_apostle 9y ago
This morning I looked out of my kitchen window and saw a falcon picking apart a small animal (bird I think). It took an incredibly long time for the animal to stop moving. That's death in nature. We can and should strive to do better.
- topmonk 9y ago
  Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent them from reproducing and causing more suffering. All animals should only be allowed to be raised in captivity and killed as humanely as possible. And from there it follows that we must capture and enslave all humans, to prevent them from causing pain and hurting each other as they would given their own devices.
  - discoursism 9y ago
    > Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent them from reproducing and causing more suffering. There is a fantasy series with this motif. It's called The Second Apocalypse, by R. Scott Bakker, and the first book is called the Prince of Nothing.
tzs 9y ago
Question: what is the maximum water temperature that a lobster can survive in? If that maximum is less than the boiling point of water, then another question: how carefully is the law drafted? If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies but not as fast?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies but not as fast? Yeah, make stupid rules, play stupid games. This seems like a feel-good law. I wonder how enforcement will be.
  - askvictor 9y ago
    i can imagine heavily armed lobster police bursting in the kitchen of an unsuspecting cook.
    - AndrewGaspar 9y ago
      Judge Trudy will handle the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-YoQj60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-YoQj60
- djrogers 9y ago
  I like to cook my lobster sous-vide at well below boiling, can’t imagine that’d be any better for the bug...
andrewwharton 9y ago
The common procedure I was taught when growing up was chilling the crayfish (stick it in the freezer until it goes to sleep) before killing it [1]. It really takes very little effort and make no discernible difference whatsoever to the end result. It's interesting that this method wasn't one of those listed, because I was under the impression that it was quite effective. [1] http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-crustaceans-for-human-consumption_625.html http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-c...
- petre 9y ago
  The Swiss probably don't cook much live lobster or crayfish anyway, so chilling the live crustacean hasn't occured to the lawmakers. Yes, it's way easier than electrocuting, so thank you for sharing.
smoe 9y ago
The article does not do that good a job at explaining what the law going into affect first of March actually says. The law extends compulsory stunning ("Betäubungspflicht") before killing, already in effect for vertebrates to certain types of crustaceans. So the lobsters will likely be still alive when thrown into boiling water but stunned with e.g. electric shock. Also the media frenzy causing lobster issue is only a part of new legislation aiming to improve conditions of animals held as pets, for sport, in laboratories or to be eaten. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-muessen-kuenftig-vor-Kochen-betaeubt-werden/story/14589713 https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-muessen...
georgecmu 9y ago
I'm torn on the subject. There's a Korean restaurant in Queens that serves live seafood (octopi chopped in front of you; hot pots with live scallops cooked at your table): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo I don't have a problem with chopping up an octopus at the dinner table, but I probably wouldn't want to see a chicken clubbed to death before it lands in plate. On a different subject, I'm not sure that 'dignity' is a well-defined concept or that it applies to death in the first place. Is bleeding out from a cut throat as per the kosher slaughter method [1] less or more dignified than boiling alive in a pot? [1] https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg/aid345855-v4-900px-Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-Slaughter...
- m_mueller 9y ago
  There’s reason to believe that Octupus are as conscious or more so than chicken. Certainly among non-mammal seafood they have the most intelligent behavior.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  You should have a problem with a live octopus being chopped up in front of you. Octopi are some of the most intelligent creatures around. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-oc.... They are undoubtedly delicious too, just like cows, and, in some cultures, dogs. It boils down to empathy... the way you acquire empathy is bound to culture and education. Knowing and understanding what a octopus is: a being of high intelligence and skill, sitting here at the bleeding edge of deep time with the other survivors, aught to matter to a emphatic being, like yourself.
- fiblye 9y ago
  Octopuses are some of the most intelligent creatures on earth. Eating or cutting them alive is nothing short of savage, and no better than serving live dog or chimpanzee. I'm all for regulations that end unnecessary animal suffering, especially when the whole purpose of it is to do nothing more than add novelty to a meal. We evolved to eat meat. We didn't evolve to torture our meals.
IdontRememberIt 9y ago
Switzerland law makers are pragmatic (most of the time). The main target of the law is not the individuals but the industrials.
bikamonki 9y ago
Hahahaha this is too stupid. How can these be less cruel? "Two methods are recommended: Electrocution or sedating the lobster by dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." Maybe the lobster actually feels a litle pleasure on the boiling water before going main-dish, like you reader on a jacuzzi, having an exoskeleton and all sure helps. Stupid laws. Better fix that corrupted banking system first.
ptaipale 9y ago
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  The are really interesting animals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0c1e9NkY7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0c1e9NkY7M
- benjohnson 9y ago
  We also benefit - by learning to treat animals better, we'll learn to treat each other better.
  - nixpulvis 9y ago
    If you treat me like your dog I'll probably end up punching you in the face. Just saying.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - djrogers 9y ago
      And on the flip side, if you treat your dog like a human, it’ll probably wind up being a misbehaving menace.
      - ptaipale 9y ago
        That is a worthy point. Some dog owners, particularly those getting their first dog, treat their dogs like humans, which is bad both for humans and dogs.
    - not_kurt_godel 9y ago
      He didn't say we should treat people like animals, he said we'll treat each better.
nickik 9y ago
As a Swiss person, I would say that I don't care either way. As least as long as they are dealing with this crap they have less budget for computer surveillance.
marcrosoft 9y ago
Wtf. Should chopping the head off a chicken be illegal as well? How about shooting a cow in the back of the skull? What if it's suffering? Is it ok then?
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  They're not making it illegal to kill lobsters.
ricardobeat 9y ago
> and Kunfermann said offenders could land in a lot of hot water Is there serious journalism being made anywhere these days? I feel like these subtle puns everywhere detract from the reading experience - not everything is for entertainment.
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  I don't think USA Today's target audience wants "serious journalism"
- myopicgoat 9y ago
  Seems a bit overreacting dissing the whole of journalism for the odd pun seen in an article. Eg: John Oliver’s late night show is, objectively, quite good journalism (even if he denies it) though it’s not very “serious”.
  - goostavos 9y ago
    > objectively, quite good journalism Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy. The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver: >“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    It’s something I’ve begun to notice in almost every piece, like it is now worth some kind of internet points. It pops up in texts that are otherwise completely ‘serious’, even more formal ones, which is unsettling. Not exactly what I’m looking for when reading news about a tragedy, business failure or science.
marcoperaza 9y ago
The bar for infringing on people's freedom should be high. Laws should exit only to protect human interests. That can include things like preserving biodiversity. But to use the power of the state against people for the sole purpose of protecting animal interests is unjustified in my opinion. I believe we have a moral duty to treat animals well, and certainly to avoid causing needless suffering. But not all moral duties justify state compulsion.
- a_cactus 9y ago
  Do you disagree with most animal cruelty laws then? What about dog or cock fighting?
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    That would fall under the scope of "needless". The context of this law is a lobster that's going to be eaten.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    One of the strongest arguments for banning cock/dog fighting is that it inculcates moral depravity in its participants. To stand there and take pleasure in causing suffering in living things can only serve make you callous to human suffering as well. It seems justified to ban it, at least as an organized, large-scale enterprise.
    - avdempsey 9y ago
      By the same token, a gradual increase in the legal and customary respect shown to animals could inculcate a growing respect for our fellow humans.
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their dogs from running off. I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for social engineering.
myrandomcomment 9y ago
So you will crush a roach or swat a fly? I am all for humane chicken faming methods, et.al. However we are the top of the food chain and we eat everything below. That means it dies. My friends dogs will try to eat his chickens and it is not pretty (he trains the dogs not to of course.) I have a forest full of dear behind my house. I heard the very loud screaming of an animal the other day. One of the deer was lunch for a mountain lion. This is the way it works. If you have an issue with it then do not eat lobster or do not eat meat. I like lobster. If you told me I could do something simple to make their death more human I would, but it’s still going to die and I am still going to eat it. Edit: English is hard :)
- lazyasciiart 9y ago
  Fascinating thoughts, maybe you shouldn't live in Switzerland.
  - shard972 9y ago
    Thanks captain obvious, Although maybe a more insightful response would have been pointing out the contrast between the modern culture of switzerland and that of nature which lacks major intrusions by humans.
    - lazyasciiart 9y ago
      I think the contrast is between the modern culture of Switzerland and that of the US, where people feel that their right to kill animals inhumanely is too important to be legislated away.
      - shard972 9y ago
        Or maybe it's a difference in a country that isn't as bought and sold on the idea that you can fix everything by passing a law.
- bufferout 9y ago
  No. Our intelligence and capacity for empathy obliges us to rise above the level of primitive instincts. Seeing as rape and incest exists in the natural world, by your argument should it also be considered fair game for humans?
eridius 9y ago
> That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines Wow, really? Why? Cats are loners, they don't need to be around other cats. In fact, my cat hates other cats, giving her daily visual contact with other cats would basically be torture.
- jgh 9y ago
  I'm with you there...we used to live in an apartment on the ground level and people nearby had outdoor cats that would regularly come to our windows and it would really stress my cat out. He's a lot easier going without the daily visual contact with other felines.
  - upvotinglurker 9y ago
    I had one cat like that (extreme agitation and threat displays through the window at stray cats). I have another one who, after his cat companion died, started exhibiting play aggression and increased clingy behavior toward me. When I got him a new cat companion (taking care to choose one that enjoyed rough-and-tumble play with other cats), his behavior returned to normal. These two do seem to actually enjoy their daily contact.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago
  That's why. Because animals like yours suffer as adult cats when they're poorly socialised as kittens.
- opencl 9y ago
  The law is actually far more sensible and says that "Cats kept on their own shall have daily contact with humans OR visual contact with members of their own species." Some people like harping on the Swiss animal protection laws as horrible tyranny but I feel really bad for any animals whose owners don't follow such basic standards of decency. This PDF is the actual text of the law, the cat-specific part is section 11: http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tierschutzthemen/pdf/Tierschutzverordnung_e.pdf http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiers...
Bizarro 9y ago
That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines, and hamsters or guinea pigs must be kept in pairs. And anyone who flushes a pet goldfish down the toilet is breaking the law. Say what? So in Switzerland I can go to jail for not making a play date for my cat, or buying a little friend for my hamster? What's next, you can't kill a spider that's creeping around your house? People need to understand that there's always intended or unintended consquences for all laws. And laws like this have a tendency to make nasty precedents for other stupid-ass laws. This is just more anthropomorphic emotional immaturity.
- mudil 9y ago
  It's as easy to catch a spider and throw it out as to kill it. So fo the right thing and have a respect for a little wild animal.
  - Tomminn 9y ago
    If it's poisonous, killing is considerably easier.
    - woodson 9y ago
      Venomous. Poisonous is when you die from eating it (like a pufferfish). Sorry if I come off as pedantic, I just see this very often and think it’s a pretty basic distinction.
      - shabble 9y ago
        But is the venom also poisonous?
        IntronExon 9y ago
        Most venom isn’t poisonous, as your gastric juices denature the proteins and enzymes which make them dangerous. Big HOWEVER though, is that if you have a cut or any route to your bloodstream in your mouth or throat... then you can be envenomated that way. In addition some animals are both venemous and poisonous, such as tarantulas with urticating hairs.
nixpulvis 9y ago
I think the only logical solution is to learn to communicate with the lobsters. Then we can establish diplomatic relations, and learn of their ways. Only after we truly understand the lobster can we say what is a dignified way for them to go. Who knows maybe one will even run for president one day.
- Matumio 9y ago
  Funny thing you should say this about lobsters in particular. In Charles Stross' novel "Accelerando" simulated (uploaded) lobster brains got smart enough to reach out for help and escape their experiment. They eventually become a superhuman being, living in space.
sunstone 9y ago
Lobster fishing is not a big industry in Switzerland so this shouldn't cause too much inconvenience.
phkahler 9y ago
My first reaction was that this was silly, but I tried my best to follow along and have some empathy for the lobster. They had me right until electrocution...
dghughes 9y ago
The weird part of all this is lobster was considered garbage only about a 100 years ago. I live in a rural area and the farmers would use whole lobsters as fertilizer on their fields. This only after anyone bothered to collect them from the beaches, no fishermen were catching them. Even when people did eat them anyone who did was poor. My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked because everyone knew they were poor "Eww lobster". I wonder what the Swiss law says about shellfish such as clams, mussels, quahogs, geoducks etc. all those are boiled. Compassion is one thing but outright lunacy is another.
- anonymfus 9y ago
  >My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked because everyone knew they were poor "Eww lobster". That explains Doctor Zoidberg
- bufferout 9y ago
  "Convict food" in penal Australia.
nurettin 9y ago
So some humans think they finally have the luxury of seriously considering animal ethics while some other humans would still kill for survival. Meanwhile, the earth or the universe continues to not care.
- c_shu 9y ago
  I agree that we should pay more attention to people that are suffering. But I think the rationale of such laws is somewhat valid. Can you imagine a person who is totally emotionless when torturing an animal but is also very compassionate towards human beings? I think in some ways human ethics and animal ethics are connected. Though if you ask me whether Switzerland has gone too far, I'm still hesitant about yes/no.
  - nurettin 9y ago
    Imagine grandpa gutting fish and shooting animals with a rifle all day to come back and give children a goodnight kiss. I am not the one lacking imagination.
    - c_shu 9y ago
      That's not the kind of torture i meant. Rifle or knife should be acceptable to most people. (This process is simple. Experienced butchers even work fast and clean.) Switzerland law is also about killing the lobster instantly so it's the same.
abecedarius 9y ago
> "then it dies within seconds,” he said. Perhaps worth keeping in mind that smaller animals tend to run at a faster "clock speed". Seconds might feel rather longer to them. (E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-live-in-a-slow-motion-world/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-liv... though that's about vertebrates.)
bobnarizes 9y ago
- The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Mahatma Gandhi
- nielsole 9y ago
  https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-hoax-quote-greatness-of-a-nation-and-its-moral-progress-can-be-judged-by-the-way-that-its-animals-are-treated/ https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-hoa... A rather lengthy article that doesn't find any references to a primary source.
lucio 9y ago
>The new lobster legislation that boils down to... not the best choice of words

286 points by fmihaila 9y ago

It's at this point you'd probably want to go read David Foster Wallace's essay "Consider The Lobster", an assignment he took from (I shit you not) Gourmet Magazine, which begins with a sort of Illinois Country Fair style travelogue from the Maine Lobster Festival and "ends", if you can call the back 2/3rds of an essay "ending", in a discussion of the meaning of pain and its applicability to the specific nervous system anatomy of crustaceans. Suffice it to say: Wallace is not convinced that the knife through the head lets you off the hook so easily.

derefr 9y ago
I'm desperately holding myself back from getting distracted from work with a deep dive through crustacean nervous system anatomy here, so I'll just ask: in what way are they different?
- leeoniya 9y ago
  if i remember correctly it has something to do with the nervous system being less central and more distributed. probably similar to limbs that continue to move once severed (in other species)
- tptacek 9y ago
  Having to do with the fact that lobsters (according to Wallace) have decentralized nervous systems consisting of ganglia wired in series, so that slicing through one of them might not disable the creature's nociception upon being immersed in boiling water. You might just be keeping it from flailing around, paralyzed but still "aware" in whatever sense a lobster is aware of anything. Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. (Myself, I'm kind of grossed out by shellfish).
  - miles 9y ago
    > Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43 https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43
    - david38 9y ago
      Lots of things aren't necessary. Eating lots of meat, sex without intent to procreate, travel. They sure are fun!
      - Eyas 9y ago
        The gp is still pointing out that causing suffering to other creatures is a downside of eating meat. While all items you listed are not necessary, only one of them has that downside. Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
        theoh 9y ago
        Not sure about the meaning of your second paragraph, but in theory, animals bred for human consumption could live happy lives up to the point of a painless, instant death. The issue becomes whether they would be missed by other animals. Some would consider this a dangerous way of thinking, but someone like Temple Grandin would agree, I think, that the correct thing to worry about is suffering, not 'harm' in some abstract sense.
        firethief 9y ago
        Considering suffering alone seems like it could justify some counterintuitive conclusions. Would it be wrong to have a child, raise it happily to adolescence, and then give it a painless, instant death? If so, why?
open-source-ux 9y ago
According to this BBC article: "crustaceans have decentralised nervous systems, meaning that unlike fish, they can't be rendered unconscious with a single blow to the head. To "spike" a lobster to death, again unlike fish, you have to pierce the body in more than one spot." From: What's the kindest way to kill a lobster? (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of the headline) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42647341 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42647341
- jayess 9y ago
  Is a lobster conscious?
  - biztos 9y ago
    Is this knowable by anyone who is not a lobster?
chr1 9y ago
What is worse, causing pain or killing? If we consider an extreme case of someone going through a horrible torture, but the next day waking up as healthy as before, and without some kind of mental illness, and without losing significant amount of his time, or opportunity, would it be any different than a game? Would most people try such a game, where they play for someone getting executed in middle ages? My guess is they would, so fear of the pain is misplaced, and death is the horrible part. And therefore killing painlessly doesn't let one off the hook, since it is still killing. (And if one thinks killing is ok, then some amount of pain should be ok too.)
- Sharlin 9y ago
  Wait, what? You mean most people would volunteer to be tortured horribly as long as any damage is 100% reversed the next day? Uh, I’m not sure whether your model of people is entirely accurate.
  - chr1 9y ago
    Not volunteer for it alone, but try it as a part of a bigger package. Kind of like a more realistic version of a horror movie/game. Do you think i am entirely wrong, and suffering is worse than death? Do you think it is better to die, instead of enduring suffering and then getting to live some more?
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      My gut feeling is that you do very little work with your hands, because your pain-o-meter seems to have drifted in a very unrealistic direction.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        I agree. I'd do a heck of a lot more unsafe shit if I knew I could survive it without permanent damage. It's the permanent damage that keeps me from doing flagrantly unsafe stuff, not the pain. You wind up causing yourself pain in all sorts of avoidable but not terribly unsafe ways.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sharkweek 9y ago
Love that whole series of essays in the Consider the Lobster collection - you can also listen to several of them on YouTube and I have to say Wallace’s tone when reading the essays makes them more enjoyable https://youtu.be/_fZOl7C_vDI https://youtu.be/_fZOl7C_vDI
brownbat 9y ago
Great reference. I will note that he seems to shrug, especially in footnote 19, as if to confess that whether lobsters feel pain or merely express reflexes is basically unknowable, not for any lack of humans trying to figure it out. He seems genuinely conflicted, rather than firmly opinionated, certain only that people should take these questions more seriously. Or maybe he's being coy, to avoid alienating the gourmand. I'm curious if he hesitates to kill spiders since writing this article. Spiders are similar to lobsters. Spiders exhibit preferences. Maybe we should all hesitate to kill them. Or maybe that's just crazy. I don't know. Incidentally, if you want to feel incredibly confused about how you balance empathy towards human and nonhuman things, including arthropods, (and robots, and sociopaths, ...) you should read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It's a short novella, it's culturally relevant, it isn't really captured by the films, and it artfully messes with your head. DFW on lobsters: http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf (The PKD is pretty easy to find, no link.)
- mlevental 9y ago
  >I'm curious if he hesitates to kill spiders since writing this article. DFW committed suicide many years ago.
  - moab 9y ago
    This is pretty clear bait, but his choice to commit suicide gives absolutely no information on his position on harming other creatures.
    - discoursism 9y ago
      I think the person you were responding to was saying that he does not hesitate, because he does not kill spiders, because he is dead. Not necessarily bait of any kind.
      - moab 9y ago
        Thanks for the explanation. My misunderstanding.
kpil 9y ago
I'm not convinced that 250,000 neurons is capable of much self reference at all, so the psychological suffering must be negligible. But sure, electrical stunning is probably preferable.

nickjj 9y ago

"...dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." So for a few seconds it will think it's being released back into its natural habitat and then seconds later its brains are dripping down some chef's knife. The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any form of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally. NOTE: I'm not some animal rights person and I do eat meat without thinking, and no I've never seen the inside of a slaughter house (and yes I think that would probably scar me for life).

watwut 9y ago
Natural death of an animal in the nature can be quite long and very painful. The point is not to simulate natural kill, the point is to kill the animal without torturing it unnecessary.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Yes, sometimes when I hear people talk about how we kill animals inhumanely, I feel like they should watch a little bit of national geographic. Makes a sketchy slaughterhouse seem like a picnic.
  - lukaslalinsky 9y ago
    This is a dangerous route to take, because at that point you can start comparing yourself to animals. We spent a few centuries developing our world, so I think it's fair to assume higher standards. Animals kill other animals to solve their hunger and they do their best to end it quickly.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      "Animals kill other animals to solve their hunger and they do their best to end it quickly." is not entirely true. Many animals will start to eat others without bothering to kill them; non-carnivorous birds will peck each other (not particularly quickly) to death, dolphins do gang rape for fun while having the ability to understand what it means, they also kill things like porpoises for fun (they can't eat porpoises and they're neither a threat nor competition to dolphins); predators in good conditions do "surplus kill" i.e. kill just for practice/fun without attempting to eat the victim, apes have been observed to eat parts of other apes while they're still alive, etc, etc. The main difference between animals is that while less intelligent animals will sometimes simply kill things "just because" even if they don't need to and the suffering will be an accidental side effect, the more intelligent animals will sometimes intentionally hurt/torture others. Morality is orthogonal to intelligence. Romanticizing nature as something pure, "taking only what they need" and beyond evil is ridiculous idealism that doesn't reflect reality.

heinrichf 9y ago

It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone to loneliness): https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-switzerland/ https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-swi...

eps 9y ago
It is mentioned in the article.
wallace_f 9y ago
I am a vegetarian, but I'm more troubled by these totalitarian laws. Yes, I know they 'are just helping animals,' but throughout history, too often tyrants strip your liberties in the name of of moral righteousness.
- kranner 9y ago
  In what way does it strip one's liberties to be required to keep at least two guinea pigs if one must keep them? The "liberty" to keep exactly one guinea pig: that is just silly.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    That's exactly the point. The first steps in the path to illegitimate authority is to start legitimizing it using these low-hanging fruits. This is just textbook play calling. Removing net neutrality starts "we just want to help hospitals and police have faster internet, don't be ridiculous." Drug prohibition, the War on Terror, the TSA, police militarization. It all, every time, comes with "they're just trying to do something good and it doesn't seriously affect you." Except maybe thre TSA, because when someone starts searching you all of a sudden everyone is a civil libertarian.(1) The problems 1) One can always make the argument that "those are just not worthwhile freedoms." 2) The idea that using the threat of violence from the government to solve every problem is the actual path to tyranny. 1-https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

selim_tiotoys 9y ago

This has to do with the fact that we in Switzerland once voted (in the early 90s) to constitutionally recognize animals, and giving them dignity. The dignity of the creature it was called. This is the reason also why you are not allowed to own just one single guinea pig or a lovebird.

josephorjoe 9y ago
So, if you own two and one dies, what happens?
- endymi0n 9y ago
  > Rent-A-Guinea Pig Service Takes Off in Switzerland http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-rodents-rent-a-guinea-pig-service-takes-off-in-switzerland-a-787336.html http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-...
  - josephorjoe 9y ago
    Lol that is awesome. Thanks for the link. I feel for the poor introverted guinea pigs of Switzerland though. No chance for a peaceful quiet life free from the squeaking of another pig.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Human introverts still go crazy in solitary cell. It is kinda the same.
  - Udik 9y ago
    "It's like Uber, but for guinea pigs".

unknown_apostle 9y ago

This morning I looked out of my kitchen window and saw a falcon picking apart a small animal (bird I think). It took an incredibly long time for the animal to stop moving. That's death in nature. We can and should strive to do better.

topmonk 9y ago
Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent them from reproducing and causing more suffering. All animals should only be allowed to be raised in captivity and killed as humanely as possible. And from there it follows that we must capture and enslave all humans, to prevent them from causing pain and hurting each other as they would given their own devices.
- discoursism 9y ago
  > Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent them from reproducing and causing more suffering. There is a fantasy series with this motif. It's called The Second Apocalypse, by R. Scott Bakker, and the first book is called the Prince of Nothing.

tzs 9y ago

Question: what is the maximum water temperature that a lobster can survive in? If that maximum is less than the boiling point of water, then another question: how carefully is the law drafted? If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies but not as fast?

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies but not as fast? Yeah, make stupid rules, play stupid games. This seems like a feel-good law. I wonder how enforcement will be.
- askvictor 9y ago
  i can imagine heavily armed lobster police bursting in the kitchen of an unsuspecting cook.
  - AndrewGaspar 9y ago
    Judge Trudy will handle the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-YoQj60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-YoQj60
djrogers 9y ago
I like to cook my lobster sous-vide at well below boiling, can’t imagine that’d be any better for the bug...

andrewwharton 9y ago

The common procedure I was taught when growing up was chilling the crayfish (stick it in the freezer until it goes to sleep) before killing it [1]. It really takes very little effort and make no discernible difference whatsoever to the end result. It's interesting that this method wasn't one of those listed, because I was under the impression that it was quite effective. [1] http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-crustaceans-for-human-consumption_625.html http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-c...

petre 9y ago
The Swiss probably don't cook much live lobster or crayfish anyway, so chilling the live crustacean hasn't occured to the lawmakers. Yes, it's way easier than electrocuting, so thank you for sharing.

smoe 9y ago

The article does not do that good a job at explaining what the law going into affect first of March actually says. The law extends compulsory stunning ("Betäubungspflicht") before killing, already in effect for vertebrates to certain types of crustaceans. So the lobsters will likely be still alive when thrown into boiling water but stunned with e.g. electric shock. Also the media frenzy causing lobster issue is only a part of new legislation aiming to improve conditions of animals held as pets, for sport, in laboratories or to be eaten. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-muessen-kuenftig-vor-Kochen-betaeubt-werden/story/14589713 https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-muessen...

georgecmu 9y ago

I'm torn on the subject. There's a Korean restaurant in Queens that serves live seafood (octopi chopped in front of you; hot pots with live scallops cooked at your table): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo I don't have a problem with chopping up an octopus at the dinner table, but I probably wouldn't want to see a chicken clubbed to death before it lands in plate. On a different subject, I'm not sure that 'dignity' is a well-defined concept or that it applies to death in the first place. Is bleeding out from a cut throat as per the kosher slaughter method [1] less or more dignified than boiling alive in a pot? [1] https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg/aid345855-v4-900px-Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-Slaughter...

m_mueller 9y ago
There’s reason to believe that Octupus are as conscious or more so than chicken. Certainly among non-mammal seafood they have the most intelligent behavior.
ageofwant 9y ago
You should have a problem with a live octopus being chopped up in front of you. Octopi are some of the most intelligent creatures around. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-oc.... They are undoubtedly delicious too, just like cows, and, in some cultures, dogs. It boils down to empathy... the way you acquire empathy is bound to culture and education. Knowing and understanding what a octopus is: a being of high intelligence and skill, sitting here at the bleeding edge of deep time with the other survivors, aught to matter to a emphatic being, like yourself.
fiblye 9y ago
Octopuses are some of the most intelligent creatures on earth. Eating or cutting them alive is nothing short of savage, and no better than serving live dog or chimpanzee. I'm all for regulations that end unnecessary animal suffering, especially when the whole purpose of it is to do nothing more than add novelty to a meal. We evolved to eat meat. We didn't evolve to torture our meals.

IdontRememberIt 9y ago

Switzerland law makers are pragmatic (most of the time). The main target of the law is not the individuals but the industrials.

bikamonki 9y ago

Hahahaha this is too stupid. How can these be less cruel? "Two methods are recommended: Electrocution or sedating the lobster by dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." Maybe the lobster actually feels a litle pleasure on the boiling water before going main-dish, like you reader on a jacuzzi, having an exoskeleton and all sure helps. Stupid laws. Better fix that corrupted banking system first.

ptaipale 9y ago

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
The are really interesting animals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0c1e9NkY7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0c1e9NkY7M
benjohnson 9y ago
We also benefit - by learning to treat animals better, we'll learn to treat each other better.
- nixpulvis 9y ago
  If you treat me like your dog I'll probably end up punching you in the face. Just saying.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - djrogers 9y ago
    And on the flip side, if you treat your dog like a human, it’ll probably wind up being a misbehaving menace.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      That is a worthy point. Some dog owners, particularly those getting their first dog, treat their dogs like humans, which is bad both for humans and dogs.
  - not_kurt_godel 9y ago
    He didn't say we should treat people like animals, he said we'll treat each better.

nickik 9y ago

As a Swiss person, I would say that I don't care either way. As least as long as they are dealing with this crap they have less budget for computer surveillance.

marcrosoft 9y ago

Wtf. Should chopping the head off a chicken be illegal as well? How about shooting a cow in the back of the skull? What if it's suffering? Is it ok then?

daveFNbuck 9y ago
They're not making it illegal to kill lobsters.

ricardobeat 9y ago

> and Kunfermann said offenders could land in a lot of hot water Is there serious journalism being made anywhere these days? I feel like these subtle puns everywhere detract from the reading experience - not everything is for entertainment.

ReverseCold 9y ago
I don't think USA Today's target audience wants "serious journalism"
myopicgoat 9y ago
Seems a bit overreacting dissing the whole of journalism for the odd pun seen in an article. Eg: John Oliver’s late night show is, objectively, quite good journalism (even if he denies it) though it’s not very “serious”.
- goostavos 9y ago
  > objectively, quite good journalism Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy. The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver: >“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  It’s something I’ve begun to notice in almost every piece, like it is now worth some kind of internet points. It pops up in texts that are otherwise completely ‘serious’, even more formal ones, which is unsettling. Not exactly what I’m looking for when reading news about a tragedy, business failure or science.

marcoperaza 9y ago

The bar for infringing on people's freedom should be high. Laws should exit only to protect human interests. That can include things like preserving biodiversity. But to use the power of the state against people for the sole purpose of protecting animal interests is unjustified in my opinion. I believe we have a moral duty to treat animals well, and certainly to avoid causing needless suffering. But not all moral duties justify state compulsion.

a_cactus 9y ago
Do you disagree with most animal cruelty laws then? What about dog or cock fighting?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  That would fall under the scope of "needless". The context of this law is a lobster that's going to be eaten.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  One of the strongest arguments for banning cock/dog fighting is that it inculcates moral depravity in its participants. To stand there and take pleasure in causing suffering in living things can only serve make you callous to human suffering as well. It seems justified to ban it, at least as an organized, large-scale enterprise.
  - avdempsey 9y ago
    By the same token, a gradual increase in the legal and customary respect shown to animals could inculcate a growing respect for our fellow humans.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their dogs from running off. I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for social engineering.

myrandomcomment 9y ago

So you will crush a roach or swat a fly? I am all for humane chicken faming methods, et.al. However we are the top of the food chain and we eat everything below. That means it dies. My friends dogs will try to eat his chickens and it is not pretty (he trains the dogs not to of course.) I have a forest full of dear behind my house. I heard the very loud screaming of an animal the other day. One of the deer was lunch for a mountain lion. This is the way it works. If you have an issue with it then do not eat lobster or do not eat meat. I like lobster. If you told me I could do something simple to make their death more human I would, but it’s still going to die and I am still going to eat it. Edit: English is hard :)

lazyasciiart 9y ago
Fascinating thoughts, maybe you shouldn't live in Switzerland.
- shard972 9y ago
  Thanks captain obvious, Although maybe a more insightful response would have been pointing out the contrast between the modern culture of switzerland and that of nature which lacks major intrusions by humans.
  - lazyasciiart 9y ago
    I think the contrast is between the modern culture of Switzerland and that of the US, where people feel that their right to kill animals inhumanely is too important to be legislated away.
    - shard972 9y ago
      Or maybe it's a difference in a country that isn't as bought and sold on the idea that you can fix everything by passing a law.
bufferout 9y ago
No. Our intelligence and capacity for empathy obliges us to rise above the level of primitive instincts. Seeing as rape and incest exists in the natural world, by your argument should it also be considered fair game for humans?

eridius 9y ago

> That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines Wow, really? Why? Cats are loners, they don't need to be around other cats. In fact, my cat hates other cats, giving her daily visual contact with other cats would basically be torture.

jgh 9y ago
I'm with you there...we used to live in an apartment on the ground level and people nearby had outdoor cats that would regularly come to our windows and it would really stress my cat out. He's a lot easier going without the daily visual contact with other felines.
- upvotinglurker 9y ago
  I had one cat like that (extreme agitation and threat displays through the window at stray cats). I have another one who, after his cat companion died, started exhibiting play aggression and increased clingy behavior toward me. When I got him a new cat companion (taking care to choose one that enjoyed rough-and-tumble play with other cats), his behavior returned to normal. These two do seem to actually enjoy their daily contact.
alphaalpha101 9y ago
That's why. Because animals like yours suffer as adult cats when they're poorly socialised as kittens.
opencl 9y ago
The law is actually far more sensible and says that "Cats kept on their own shall have daily contact with humans OR visual contact with members of their own species." Some people like harping on the Swiss animal protection laws as horrible tyranny but I feel really bad for any animals whose owners don't follow such basic standards of decency. This PDF is the actual text of the law, the cat-specific part is section 11: http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tierschutzthemen/pdf/Tierschutzverordnung_e.pdf http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiers...

Bizarro 9y ago

That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines, and hamsters or guinea pigs must be kept in pairs. And anyone who flushes a pet goldfish down the toilet is breaking the law. Say what? So in Switzerland I can go to jail for not making a play date for my cat, or buying a little friend for my hamster? What's next, you can't kill a spider that's creeping around your house? People need to understand that there's always intended or unintended consquences for all laws. And laws like this have a tendency to make nasty precedents for other stupid-ass laws. This is just more anthropomorphic emotional immaturity.

mudil 9y ago
It's as easy to catch a spider and throw it out as to kill it. So fo the right thing and have a respect for a little wild animal.
- Tomminn 9y ago
  If it's poisonous, killing is considerably easier.
  - woodson 9y ago
    Venomous. Poisonous is when you die from eating it (like a pufferfish). Sorry if I come off as pedantic, I just see this very often and think it’s a pretty basic distinction.
    - shabble 9y ago
      But is the venom also poisonous?
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Most venom isn’t poisonous, as your gastric juices denature the proteins and enzymes which make them dangerous. Big HOWEVER though, is that if you have a cut or any route to your bloodstream in your mouth or throat... then you can be envenomated that way. In addition some animals are both venemous and poisonous, such as tarantulas with urticating hairs.

nixpulvis 9y ago

I think the only logical solution is to learn to communicate with the lobsters. Then we can establish diplomatic relations, and learn of their ways. Only after we truly understand the lobster can we say what is a dignified way for them to go. Who knows maybe one will even run for president one day.

Matumio 9y ago
Funny thing you should say this about lobsters in particular. In Charles Stross' novel "Accelerando" simulated (uploaded) lobster brains got smart enough to reach out for help and escape their experiment. They eventually become a superhuman being, living in space.

sunstone 9y ago

Lobster fishing is not a big industry in Switzerland so this shouldn't cause too much inconvenience.

phkahler 9y ago

My first reaction was that this was silly, but I tried my best to follow along and have some empathy for the lobster. They had me right until electrocution...

dghughes 9y ago

The weird part of all this is lobster was considered garbage only about a 100 years ago. I live in a rural area and the farmers would use whole lobsters as fertilizer on their fields. This only after anyone bothered to collect them from the beaches, no fishermen were catching them. Even when people did eat them anyone who did was poor. My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked because everyone knew they were poor "Eww lobster". I wonder what the Swiss law says about shellfish such as clams, mussels, quahogs, geoducks etc. all those are boiled. Compassion is one thing but outright lunacy is another.

anonymfus 9y ago
>My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked because everyone knew they were poor "Eww lobster". That explains Doctor Zoidberg
bufferout 9y ago
"Convict food" in penal Australia.

nurettin 9y ago

So some humans think they finally have the luxury of seriously considering animal ethics while some other humans would still kill for survival. Meanwhile, the earth or the universe continues to not care.

c_shu 9y ago
I agree that we should pay more attention to people that are suffering. But I think the rationale of such laws is somewhat valid. Can you imagine a person who is totally emotionless when torturing an animal but is also very compassionate towards human beings? I think in some ways human ethics and animal ethics are connected. Though if you ask me whether Switzerland has gone too far, I'm still hesitant about yes/no.
- nurettin 9y ago
  Imagine grandpa gutting fish and shooting animals with a rifle all day to come back and give children a goodnight kiss. I am not the one lacking imagination.
  - c_shu 9y ago
    That's not the kind of torture i meant. Rifle or knife should be acceptable to most people. (This process is simple. Experienced butchers even work fast and clean.) Switzerland law is also about killing the lobster instantly so it's the same.

abecedarius 9y ago

> "then it dies within seconds,” he said. Perhaps worth keeping in mind that smaller animals tend to run at a faster "clock speed". Seconds might feel rather longer to them. (E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-live-in-a-slow-motion-world/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-liv... though that's about vertebrates.)

bobnarizes 9y ago

- The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Mahatma Gandhi

nielsole 9y ago
https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-hoax-quote-greatness-of-a-nation-and-its-moral-progress-can-be-judged-by-the-way-that-its-animals-are-treated/ https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-hoa... A rather lengthy article that doesn't find any references to a primary source.

lucio 9y ago

>The new lobster legislation that boils down to... not the best choice of words