20 ms·
The Case Against Octopus Farming
- technothrasher 7y agoThe title is misleading here. The article linked to (and the paper it references) is talking about farming octopus specifically, not eating it in general. In fact, the paper specifically states, "Given their exceptional abilities, one might ask whether humans should be eating octopus at all, but here we want to raise a different ethical question."
- john-radio 7y agoIt's not possible for you to eat them without farming them, as a member of society in its current instantiation, so the title holds.
- technothrasher 7y agoHuh? Almost no octopus is currently farmed. The vast majority of it is wild caught.
- dang 7y agoWe changed the title when we changed the url (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20632121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20632121). Submitted title was "Millions of people eat octopus- why we shouldn't".
- coldtea 7y ago>Farming octopuses is not only unethical but deeply damaging to the environment, scientists say. Err, isn't the former up to actual ethics, which vary from place to place? Where do these "one size fits all" eating ethics come into place?
- bovermyer 7y agoEthics are completely arbitrary. The article comes from a particular background. From said background, the espousal of "unethical" is understandable. Whether you consider the ingestion of octopus to be unethical or not depends entirely on your own definition of ethics.
- sabertoothed 7y ago> Ethics are completely arbitrary. That cannot possibly be true if ethics is based on what causes suffering / well-being.
- vertex-four 7y agoAt some point, ethics comes down to "whose suffering/well-being do you prioritise when you're presented with a bunch of shitty options", and that's where everyone eventually disagrees.
- chibg10 7y agoI don't think this is actually true in the vast majority of day-to-day ethical decisions, although there are cases where it's certainly true. I'm fairly confident that many more unethical actions, even subjectively defined (i.e. from each individual observer's pov), are the result of ignorance and apathy than actual differences of opinion regarding ethics.
- coldtea 7y agoEthics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being. At best, it takes those things, along with many others, into account (and usually from the side of a specific community, not across the board). Specific ethics have been adhered that caused tons of suffering to people (The Spanish Inquisition was a protector and enforcer of certain ethics, for example. Homophobia was also based on ethics, and when slavery was a thing in the US, it was totally compatible with the Southern ethics at the time -- you could be a well respected gentleman considered totally ethical and own 1000s of slaves -- that you also beat to work and so on).
- happytoexplain 7y agoWhat makes you say it's a "one size fits all" solution? Should the author not write their own opinion from their own ethical context, but rather keep it to themselves, since other cultures might disagree?
- GuiA 7y agoThe issue OP seems to have is that while “X damages the environment” is a claim that science is reasonably well equipped to answer, “X is unethical” is not. While scientists claiming that farming octopuses is damaging to the environment falls within reasonable scope of their work and expertise, them claiming that it is unethical may not be so, yet the author is lumping both together in the same introductory sentence.
- coldtea 7y ago>Should the author not write their own opinion from their own ethical context, but rather keep it to themselves, since other cultures might disagree? Yes. At a minimum, they shouldn't state their "own opinion from their own ethical context" as some kind of universal fact: "it's not only deeply unethical (...) scientists say".
- john-radio 7y agoWhat earthly purpose would that serve? They're scientists; they subscribe to a moral system. Subscribing to an ethical system involves arguing it through rhetoric and reasoning. Scientists are only expected to be politically neutral; they're not Uatu the Watcher.
- fromthestart 7y agoThe problem here is the misleading implication that there is a singular set of correct ethics, hidden behind a false appeal to scientific authority.
- bscphil 7y agoDon't the vast majority of people think there is a singular set of correct ethics? Why do you think otherwise? The mere fact that there is wide disagreement about some ethical questions doesn't help the argument (as some people think), because there are all sorts of very controversial questions where it's still commonly accepted that these questions have a correct answer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dalbasal 7y agoWell... ethics in the wild definitely does vary wildly by time, place and person. But, ethics in the wild usually gets applied to everyone too. When we think sexist legislation (say, women can't vote) is wrong, we usually think it's wrong for everyone and that the people/places that do it should stop. Pluralism is unstoppable, but so is our instinct to create/defend/assemble a common ethic.
- coldtea 7y ago>When we think sexist legislation (say, women can't vote) is wrong, we usually think it's wrong for everyone and that the people/places that do it should stop. Yes, but we ourselves think it -- e.g. we extend our ethics to everybody. Others think such legislation is ethical, and consider us unethical, corrupt, etc (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
- malvosenior 7y agoCounterpoint: Octopus is super delicious, especially when chargrilled. It’s a traditional food in many cultures.
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoSo is shark fin soup, but that doesn’t excuse it.
- codesushi42 7y agoI will attest that shark fin soup is not delicious. Nor does it taste like much of anything.
- pstuart 7y agoseconded.
- kart23 7y agoThat's because sharks are endangered. Different situations.
- martimarkov 7y agoHey another counterpoint, Nazi Germany thought that they need to purify the gene pool. They would have totally made it a tradition if they won... Sorry but stupid arguments deserve a stupid response.
- User23 7y agoIgnoring stupid arguments is a far better strategy. I'm replying because I don't think you're stupid, so I hope you see the wisdom of ignoring over engaging. Or, to steal a quote (paraphrase really): never get in an argument with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and then beat you by virtue of experience.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
- guessmyname 7y agoI eat Octopus because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable. Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism. > […] Numerous videos on the internet of octopuses escaping from their tanks or stealing fishermen's catches have fuelled a human fascination with the only invertebrate that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds. Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that. --- People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.
- martimarkov 7y agoNo it does not make more agreeable. We had slavery back in the day, in some instances we still have it, but just because we have enough ppl doing something does not make it more “agreeable”. Ethics is not something dictated by a number of ppl sharing a belief.
- abfan1127 7y agothis seems like the idea that Americans eat cows and pigs, but not horses and dogs... not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue.
- elliekelly 7y ago> not necessarily an ethical issue, but more a social norms issue. I'm not convinced these two things are mutually exclusive. I'd even guess that social norms are most often spurred to change by people who start the conversation about the flawed "ethics" of a given social norm.
- 7y ago
- rdiddly 7y ago"... sentient alongside mammals and birds." ...which we farm and eat like crazy!
- Pfhreak 7y agoMakes you wonder... should we?
- xrd 7y agoThis article is partially about the impact on marine ecosystems, so don't avoid reading it if you think it is all about ethics, which is what the majority of the comments here mention.
- ericdykstra 7y agoI think people tend either see the world primarily through existence or experience. For those who see the world through the experience frame, they will be more worried about the negative impacts toward an individual octopus, seeing it as an intelligent creature that shouldn’t need to endure our fishing practices. For those that see the world through the existence frame, the potential genocidal and even eco-system crashing impact of overfishing or various fishing practices is more vital than what happens to any individual creature. Maybe this would be better as two articles, one that appeals to each type.
- darkFunction 7y agoThe author should have written two different articles catering for arbitrary categories of people that you just invented?
- astura 7y agoI care deeply about both, though.
- egdod 7y agoThe non-ethical issues raised seem no different from eating any animal.
- pavanky 7y agoWe dont farm and eat as many carnivores. Octopus and some fish are the only exceptions. The non ethical issues raised do not generalize easily.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
- Deimorz 7y agoBlogspam, original is https://issues.org/the-case-against-octopus-farming/ https://issues.org/the-case-against-octopus-farming/
- dang 7y agoOk, changed from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/millions-of-people-eat-octopus-heres-why-we-probably-shouldnt https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/millions-of-people-ea.... Thanks!
- ericdykstra 7y agoI’m more worried about the genocide of species via chemical and plastic contamination. There are apparently rivers so flooded with estrogenics that fish can’t reproduce at a replacement rate, and need to be re-stocked by fish farms. This is not sustainable.
- CamelCaseName 7y agoHere is a question I found myself asking: Is it better for an animal to be farmed and eaten, or to have never been born at all? (Assuming we can farm them safely / humanely, even though the article suggests we cannot do so yet)
- john-radio 7y agoThat is an interesting question - and I think the answer is "it depends very much on how you farm them," which is why I prefer to eat free-range chicken over factory farmed, and don't eat sentient animals / red meat at all - but thanks for your parenthetical, because yeah, we cannot do so yet with octopi.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- checkyoursudo 7y agoDo you classify birds as non-sentient? I don't really know how to classify sentience, but I would have thought that birds qualify.
- JasonFruit 7y agoIf you were the animal in question, what would you think? I'd choose the latter, but your answer may differ. The answer may be different for animals that can conceive of the question than for those who can't, and that's probably a less decidable point.
- dchapp 7y agoIf you're interested in schools of thought that argue on the side of "better off not having been born at all", take a look at negative utilitarianism.
- cybersnowflake 7y agoHypothetically, it could get to the point where it is more ethical to eat meat than not to, ESPECIALLY if they are sentient in the way activists say they are. Lets say aliens came and offered you a deal. You can either not exist or live a life of luxury with all delicious food and mates you want, then after 1000 years or so you'd peacefully pass away just like a natural death and you are informed that they'd eat your body. I'm pretty sure quite a few people would be open to this.The choice is even simpler with animals since from all evidence they lack the capacity for existential dread. Now tell, me what would be the most moral choice assuming chickens are sentient? To indulge them to a pampered existence several times their natural lifespan...and yes, at the end disposing of their bodies in the most practical and beneficial way, its not like a chicken cares what happens to its mortal shell in whatever poultry afterlife may exist. Or leave chicken minds to the terror of being torn up by a fox in the wilderness or to never know the joys of existence in the paradise future ethical meat farms may offer?
- xanth 7y ago> given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem. Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish. The conditions we keep them in and the impact on the wider environment is seperate
- Retric 7y agoWe eat cows not wolves in large part because carnivores require vastly more land for the same protean. This argument is about efficiency, though we also eat carnivorous fish. To simplify The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself where feed is delicious protein.
- xanth 7y agoI'm with you, but it seems that the article & many in the comments are more concerned with the ethical implications of killing a thinking creature for sustenance than they are the environmental impacts of farming a carnivore.
- mc32 7y agoWhile some fish are vegetarians, are most fish pescatarians or omnivorous?
- 7y ago
- aaron695 7y agoI think we agree farming on land is far better than hunting and gathering. (Minus hunting and gathering pests) If 7 billion people hunted and gathered, it'd be the end of the ecosystem. Yet somehow this is not the case in the oceans? Or it's a religious meme that won't die? I go with two. Gathering in the oceans is cleaning them out. We need to farm. Just because you can see the damage on coastal farms doesn't make it worse.
- sarcasmOrTears 7y agoWe should move towards killing less animal, not more. Meat is necessary but killing highly intelligent animals is not. If anything we should find a way to create animals with no conscience/intelligence. A slightly sci-fi scenario for now, but better than eating creatures that are as smart as octopuses.
- erikig 7y agoI don't eat octopi, squid, nautili or cuttlefish because I don't want to be on His bad side when Cthulhu returns. All Hail Cthulhu...
- DoreenMichele 7y agoSomething I don't see mentioned is biomagnification. One reason we eat herbivores instead of carnivores is because the higher up the food chain you go, the more you are exposed to a concentration of heavy metals, pesticides, etc. It's a good argument for eating less meat overall, one vegetarians seem to never make. In a world full of unprecedented levels of relatively new toxic compounds, eating less meat is a good defensive move, especially so if you have health problems. I'm really picky about meat quality. In situations where my choice is something with low quality/highly questionable meat or a vegetarian option, I typically go with the vegetarian option. Though be forewarned: It's a dietary path that gets you equally harassed by vegetarians and the meat-and-potatoes crowd, which can be incredibly aggravating and feel like the harassment is unceasing.
- keenmaster 7y agoIf someone harangues you about your dietary choices, they’re probably not worth being around.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y agoDepends on their motivation. If they're genuinely concerned about your health they're probably a good friend.
- BRAlNlAC 7y agoI mean, I tend to give all of my friends a hard time about sweets and sugary drinks, and expect the same. Most everyone I know understands that it’s best to avoid sugar, but it is both truly ubiquitous and extremely addictive so it’s essential impossible. Trying to not get into an icecream/chocolate habit is a never ending battle.
- vegetablepotpie 7y agoAs a vegan this is an argument that I’ve made before unsuccessfully. When I start talking about trophic levels people’s eyes gloss over and they behave confused and disinterested. I think the reason for this is that most people don’t remember high school biology. Now if you were to talk about ethics THAT gets a strong reaction simply because it’s much more intuitive and relatable. People’s responses can be receptive, antagonist, dismissive etc. but they certainly won’t be falling asleep in front of you.
- slothtrop 7y agoAs with everything, it depends. https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/groups/octopus?o=158579988,1386140647 https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/groups/... http://seafood.edf.org/octopus http://seafood.edf.org/octopus There are sustainable and unsustainable sources. The same is true of all seafood. The life expectancy of octopus is generally between 3-5 years, some live as little as 6 months. The extent of their intelligence is unclear. At most we have evidence that they have the capacity for long and short term memory. Given the standard of intelligence for animals cultures otherwise consume, this doesn't seem remarkable at all. To chase the ethical argument to it's logical end, as one of intelligence is purported, the only ethical animal then to consume is a non-sentient one.
- codesushi42 7y agoTakoyaki is delicious. But I don't know why the octopus can't be substituted with squid.
- JimiofEden 7y agoEbiyaki (shrimp) is a fairly common substitute that I take. For me, I barely taste the tako at any rate.
- GordonS 7y agoOctopus and squid have very different flavours. Octopuses also have a layer of fat that squids don't.
- codesushi42 7y agoOctopus and squid don't taste much different to me. And I definitely wouldn't be able to tell the difference in takoyaki.
- sudonua 7y agoTIL; we shouldn't eat octopus because they have complex nervous system
- Pete-Codes 7y agoI already feel bad eating octopus nowadays but farmed octopus would be horrible.
- fredsir 7y agoWhy do you eat octopus if you feel bad about it? Why not just don't do it? It's not like you need to for survival.
- Pete-Codes 7y agoI'm not perfect like you.
- fredsir 7y agoPobody’s nerfect, but you can improve.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoFarmed insects have been proposed as a more sustainable alternative to fish meal in aquaculture and poultry.
- calf 7y agoI wonder if since we really only eat the tentacles, which have regenerative abilites, maybe they're easier to grow in the lab than beef or something. Like, I get the argument that the authors (who are largely white and probably didn't grow up eating cephalopods unlike in other cultures; honestly the article is a bit tone-deaf in this respect) don't care for the loss of eating octopus but their argument that this is unsustainable and counterproductive is based on assuming current levels of biotechnology. Canada has already permitted GMO salmon, and Canadian consumers seem to have have forgotten about that.
- arethuza 7y agoOctopus is a pretty common foodstuff in Mediterranean cultures - I've seen people eating it in Spain and Greece. Edit: I was never very keen on trying it and the one time I did I was rather ill for a couple of days after. Edit2: I've since learned how smart they are so I wouldn't dream of eating one again.
- nudpiedo 7y agoThere is no single sentence right in your comment. Your comment is so judgmental and racial biased that can only be called racist. In addition you make several race identity assumptions on the authors and food and cultures based on mere prejudices. By the way white cultures (whatever you imagine here because there is no such thing) also have cephalopod and seafood and roots or fermented foods. And not even just occasional. And even if there weren’t it would still not invalidate the article since in the current age we eat an incredible diverse diet.
- ttsda 7y agoI'm Portuguese, and we eat a lot of octupus over here...
- marble-drink 7y agoIt's amazing to me that people can make the argument that it's not right to eat something based on intelligence. We should give extra care to less intelligent feeling beings, not less.
- Barrin92 7y agoas the article points out with intelligence usually comes complex social behaviour, which makes it much more stressful for those animals to be kept in captivity and under mass farming conditions. The same doesn't necessarily apply to less intelligent animals which might be perfectly fine with their captive conditions and don't requrie as much attention, so I think the argument is perfectly defensible.
- stronglikedan 7y agoI don't think we should farm them due to their intelligence, but I do eat wild octopi because of their intelligence. Octopi are serious dicks, so for every one eat, I'm saving hundreds or thousands of other animals from their abuse.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rajlego 7y agoI’ve always found the intelligence criteria for eating for not eating animals stupid (because I never thought of intelligence having relevance to ability to suffer) but the social metric is an interesting way of looking at it. I don’t think you can call socialness of a species something so related to the intelligence though, there are highly solitary species that are still very intelligent. Being kept in captivity would still be suffering for them, just for different reasons. I think the suffering of all animals matters but if I had to say between animals which one’s matters more I’m not sure I would differentiate by more than lifespan.