17 ms·

Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs, whereas an octopus is a creative, playful, intelligent creature with amazing capabilities. It seems strange to group them

Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs, whereas an octopus is a creative, playful, intelligent creature with amazing capabilities. It seems strange to group them together.

lstodd 5y ago
Yup. Crab and lobster porn isn't really a thing, while Octopoda have a significant, lasting and ancient presence in Japanese lore, James Bond movies and whatnot.
- jetrink 5y ago
  The James Bond character was actually named after a real octopus that Ian Flemming met in Jamaica[1]. Flemming wanted to befriend it, but before he could, it was eaten by his housemaid. (Credit for this knowledge to the No Such Thing as a Fish podcast.) 1. https://theverbaldiarist.wordpress.com/2019/09/27/my-friend-the-octopus-an-article-by-ian-fleming/ https://theverbaldiarist.wordpress.com/2019/09/27/my-friend-...
stavros 5y ago
And where are cuttlefish?
- peanut_worm 5y ago
  > The review drew on over 300 existing scientific studies to evaluate evidence of sentience in cephalopods (including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) Cuttlefish very closely related to Octopi, I am sure they’d get lumped in with the other cephalopods wherever the law is concerned.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Ah okay, the initial sentence is illustratory, rather than exhaustive, then. Makes sense, thanks!
  - ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
    Octopi isn't the correct plural. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29301946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29301946
    - peanut_worm 5y ago
      Sure but if enough people say it a certain way, it becomes the “correct way” doesn’t it?
ModernMech 5y ago
> The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill already recognises all animals with a backbone (vertebrates) as sentient beings. However, unlike some other invertebrates (animals without a backbone ), decapod crustaceans and cephalopods have complex central nervous systems, one of the key hallmarks of sentience. It’s not that lobsters are being lumped in with octopuses, it’s that they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. That’s a pretty diverse group.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. No, they aren’t treated equal to humans, which are things with backbones.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    I think one is conflating superset/subset privilege granting. Humans, a subset of things with backbones, are given the privilege of describing what is considered something capable of feeling and then extended it to all creatures with a backbone. This does not mean they've extended the privilege of labeling to all things with a backbone, only that they've ascribed a certain label to all things with a backbone. Similarly, humans labeling certain non-backboned creatures in this way does not ascribe those creatures the privilege of being considered human.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    You may be mixing up sentience and sapience.
adriand 5y ago
I assume that Dr Jonathan Birch, Associate Professor at LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, and his team of scientists didn’t encounter this insightful perspective when they reviewed “over 300 scientific studies” in order to arrive at their conclusions… In seriousness though, this comment is a prime example of speciesism. Even if it were true that these crustaceans were “basically bugs” how does it follow that no regard should be given to their suffering? Does being a “bug” justify being boiled alive? They are only being “grouped together” in that they are being granted the most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”. The fact this is somehow just dawning on modern society is a sad indictment of our blinkered and callous disregard for other species. A child could tell you that other living creatures experience pain and distress through simple observation or even based upon, dare I say, the innate understanding we all have about our fellow animals.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Does being an “antelope” somehow justify being torn apart and eaten by a lion? Yeah actually, it does because lions eat antelopes and humans eat lobsters. Nature doesn’t owe any being an existence devoid of suffering.
  - mojomark 5y ago
    Lions don't boil antelopes alive, nor do they reportedly tear them apart while they're alive, instead they suffocate or sever their necks before eating them [1]. (Note: I had a lobster role for lunch two days ago, and I love them. However, these findings give me pause on eating them further.) 1. https://www.krugerpark.co.za/Kruger_National_Park_Wildlife-travel/kruger-park-wildlife-lions.html https://www.krugerpark.co.za/Kruger_National_Park_Wildlife-t...
    - imgabe 5y ago
      That’s kind of beside the point. I’m sure the process of being killed and eaten by a lion nevertheless causes “pain, distress, and harm”. These things are a part of life.
phonypc 5y ago
>Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs Not really. You might as well say humans are basically zebras.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  "Bug," in its most common usage, is a large category that includes spiders, insects, and other arthropods. Crustaceans (which includes pill bugs a.k.a. roly polies) are arthropods. So I'm not seeing your zebra analogy.
  - ofrzeta 5y ago
    It's more like saying humans are apes.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      Yes, both are cladistically correct, but debatable on semantic/usage grounds.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    If you want to expand the category "bugs" to include all arthropods, then "crabs and lobsters are basically bugs" is kinda circular/superfluous. My comparison at that point would become "humans and zebras are basically chordates"... which is true but not very meaningful in context.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      It's not so black and white. Bug is not a scientific term (well, not in its common usage), so it has blurry boundaries. Some definitions say "insect-like", some say "small arthropod", and so on. Lobsters etc are clearly in the gray area. So "basically bugs" is pretty spot on.... it is similar to bugs in the ways that matter to the conversation. And it isn't circular or superfluous in that conversation, since the point that they are similar to other arthropods (which we tend to not give a lot of concern to the pain they might experience), is relevant and seemed to have been missed by those passing the law.
forgotmyoldname 5y ago
Within the realm of what many people consider “bugs”, intelligence also exists. For example, jumping spiders have intelligence similar to mammals or birds. Research is ongoing with bees and they’re seeming similarly advanced, with some having the capacity to suffer depression. In all likelihood, there exist insects with reasonably high levels intelligence that we’ve simply overlooked for centuries. Basically everyone today knows crows and octopuses are very intelligent animals, but that definitely was not a common sentiment when I was a kid. But nobody was really paying attention to animals then beyond “pest”, “edible”, “pet”, and “looks cool.”
- colechristensen 5y ago
  I really doubt a spider is as smart as me. Perhaps a contrived problem solving test proves a certain kind of spider is good at solving a certain kind of problem, but I really doubt I’d be the same with a brain as complex as a spider.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    We tend to measure intelligence by human metrics so of course humans will be the most intelligent at being humans. Taking spiders for example: humans cant spin spiderwebs for shit while this is a core skill to being a spider. From a spider centric worldview, humans must just be dumb meat factories then.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Of course they aren't comparable to humans, but some spiders are amazingly clever. For example, Portia spiders, which hunt other spiders, will apparently try different ways of manipulating the target's web, observe the target's behavior, and then adapt their manipulations to trick the target. The link below has a giant picture of a spider, so although it is an adorable Portia, if anyone has arachnophobia they shouldn't click it: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/spiders-are-much-smarter-than-you-think/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/spiders-are-much-sma... They describe a bunch of different experiments. An interesting one was: the scientists put one type of prey in view of the spider. Then, they blocked view and either swapped they prey with something else, or left it there. Then they revealed the view again. The spiders pay more attention if the prey is a new type, which is interpreted as 'surprise' and an indication that the spider has some mental model of the world. I mean it is a spider, so bit of a low bar to clear for intelligence, but still interesting that they are thinking about the world.
rain1 5y ago
Agreed. It makes no sense.

Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs, whereas an octopus is a creative, playful, intelligent creature with amazing capabilities. It seems strange to group them together.

lstodd 5y ago

Yup. Crab and lobster porn isn't really a thing, while Octopoda have a significant, lasting and ancient presence in Japanese lore, James Bond movies and whatnot.

jetrink 5y ago
The James Bond character was actually named after a real octopus that Ian Flemming met in Jamaica[1]. Flemming wanted to befriend it, but before he could, it was eaten by his housemaid. (Credit for this knowledge to the No Such Thing as a Fish podcast.) 1. https://theverbaldiarist.wordpress.com/2019/09/27/my-friend-the-octopus-an-article-by-ian-fleming/ https://theverbaldiarist.wordpress.com/2019/09/27/my-friend-...

stavros 5y ago

And where are cuttlefish?

peanut_worm 5y ago
> The review drew on over 300 existing scientific studies to evaluate evidence of sentience in cephalopods (including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) Cuttlefish very closely related to Octopi, I am sure they’d get lumped in with the other cephalopods wherever the law is concerned.
- stavros 5y ago
  Ah okay, the initial sentence is illustratory, rather than exhaustive, then. Makes sense, thanks!
- ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
  Octopi isn't the correct plural. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29301946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29301946
  - peanut_worm 5y ago
    Sure but if enough people say it a certain way, it becomes the “correct way” doesn’t it?

ModernMech 5y ago

> The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill already recognises all animals with a backbone (vertebrates) as sentient beings. However, unlike some other invertebrates (animals without a backbone ), decapod crustaceans and cephalopods have complex central nervous systems, one of the key hallmarks of sentience. It’s not that lobsters are being lumped in with octopuses, it’s that they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. That’s a pretty diverse group.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. No, they aren’t treated equal to humans, which are things with backbones.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  I think one is conflating superset/subset privilege granting. Humans, a subset of things with backbones, are given the privilege of describing what is considered something capable of feeling and then extended it to all creatures with a backbone. This does not mean they've extended the privilege of labeling to all things with a backbone, only that they've ascribed a certain label to all things with a backbone. Similarly, humans labeling certain non-backboned creatures in this way does not ascribe those creatures the privilege of being considered human.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  You may be mixing up sentience and sapience.

adriand 5y ago

I assume that Dr Jonathan Birch, Associate Professor at LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, and his team of scientists didn’t encounter this insightful perspective when they reviewed “over 300 scientific studies” in order to arrive at their conclusions… In seriousness though, this comment is a prime example of speciesism. Even if it were true that these crustaceans were “basically bugs” how does it follow that no regard should be given to their suffering? Does being a “bug” justify being boiled alive? They are only being “grouped together” in that they are being granted the most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”. The fact this is somehow just dawning on modern society is a sad indictment of our blinkered and callous disregard for other species. A child could tell you that other living creatures experience pain and distress through simple observation or even based upon, dare I say, the innate understanding we all have about our fellow animals.

imgabe 5y ago
Does being an “antelope” somehow justify being torn apart and eaten by a lion? Yeah actually, it does because lions eat antelopes and humans eat lobsters. Nature doesn’t owe any being an existence devoid of suffering.
- mojomark 5y ago
  Lions don't boil antelopes alive, nor do they reportedly tear them apart while they're alive, instead they suffocate or sever their necks before eating them [1]. (Note: I had a lobster role for lunch two days ago, and I love them. However, these findings give me pause on eating them further.) 1. https://www.krugerpark.co.za/Kruger_National_Park_Wildlife-travel/kruger-park-wildlife-lions.html https://www.krugerpark.co.za/Kruger_National_Park_Wildlife-t...
  - imgabe 5y ago
    That’s kind of beside the point. I’m sure the process of being killed and eaten by a lion nevertheless causes “pain, distress, and harm”. These things are a part of life.

phonypc 5y ago

>Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs Not really. You might as well say humans are basically zebras.

robbrown451 5y ago
"Bug," in its most common usage, is a large category that includes spiders, insects, and other arthropods. Crustaceans (which includes pill bugs a.k.a. roly polies) are arthropods. So I'm not seeing your zebra analogy.
- ofrzeta 5y ago
  It's more like saying humans are apes.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Yes, both are cladistically correct, but debatable on semantic/usage grounds.
- phonypc 5y ago
  If you want to expand the category "bugs" to include all arthropods, then "crabs and lobsters are basically bugs" is kinda circular/superfluous. My comparison at that point would become "humans and zebras are basically chordates"... which is true but not very meaningful in context.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    It's not so black and white. Bug is not a scientific term (well, not in its common usage), so it has blurry boundaries. Some definitions say "insect-like", some say "small arthropod", and so on. Lobsters etc are clearly in the gray area. So "basically bugs" is pretty spot on.... it is similar to bugs in the ways that matter to the conversation. And it isn't circular or superfluous in that conversation, since the point that they are similar to other arthropods (which we tend to not give a lot of concern to the pain they might experience), is relevant and seemed to have been missed by those passing the law.

forgotmyoldname 5y ago

Within the realm of what many people consider “bugs”, intelligence also exists. For example, jumping spiders have intelligence similar to mammals or birds. Research is ongoing with bees and they’re seeming similarly advanced, with some having the capacity to suffer depression. In all likelihood, there exist insects with reasonably high levels intelligence that we’ve simply overlooked for centuries. Basically everyone today knows crows and octopuses are very intelligent animals, but that definitely was not a common sentiment when I was a kid. But nobody was really paying attention to animals then beyond “pest”, “edible”, “pet”, and “looks cool.”

colechristensen 5y ago
I really doubt a spider is as smart as me. Perhaps a contrived problem solving test proves a certain kind of spider is good at solving a certain kind of problem, but I really doubt I’d be the same with a brain as complex as a spider.
- ornornor 5y ago
  We tend to measure intelligence by human metrics so of course humans will be the most intelligent at being humans. Taking spiders for example: humans cant spin spiderwebs for shit while this is a core skill to being a spider. From a spider centric worldview, humans must just be dumb meat factories then.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Of course they aren't comparable to humans, but some spiders are amazingly clever. For example, Portia spiders, which hunt other spiders, will apparently try different ways of manipulating the target's web, observe the target's behavior, and then adapt their manipulations to trick the target. The link below has a giant picture of a spider, so although it is an adorable Portia, if anyone has arachnophobia they shouldn't click it: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/spiders-are-much-smarter-than-you-think/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/spiders-are-much-sma... They describe a bunch of different experiments. An interesting one was: the scientists put one type of prey in view of the spider. Then, they blocked view and either swapped they prey with something else, or left it there. Then they revealed the view again. The spiders pay more attention if the prey is a new type, which is interpreted as 'surprise' and an indication that the spider has some mental model of the world. I mean it is a spider, so bit of a low bar to clear for intelligence, but still interesting that they are thinking about the world.

rain1 5y ago

Agreed. It makes no sense.