4 ms·
> Last year, researchers at the London School of Economics concluded from a review of 300 scientific studies that octopus were sentient beings capable of experi
by nefitty 5y ago
> Last year, researchers at the London School of Economics concluded from a review of 300 scientific studies that octopus were sentient beings capable of experiencing distress and happiness, and that high-welfare farming would be impossible.
I don't understand how someone can decide to ignore that in an effort to make money. I fear that if we don't more quickly move the Overton window on the suffering of sentient creatures, we may suddenly find ourselves with synthetic sentient life devoid of protection under the law.
- jodrellblank 5y agoIs it not clear that cows experience distress? And we farm and eat those. Or is this conclusion that octopuses experience distress and other animals are p-zombies which only react in a way that looks like distress but might be emotionally neutral inside?
- nefitty 5y agoI mean specifically octopods, considering this is the first farm. It means someone really went out of their way to get past historical momentum to be the first to create this process. The worst part is that it will be easily replicable. That's really sad. I feel sympathy for these poor creatures.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI think the point is to start somewhere and nip this one in the bud.
- adolph 5y agoYes, Temple Grandin’s work to reduce animal distress is very important. Grandin also developed an objective, numerical scoring system for assessing animal welfare at slaughtering plants. The use of this scoring system resulted in significant improvements in animal stunning and handling during slaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin Edit for quote format
- sweetheart 5y agoThat is some absolutely twisted shit.
- chrisweekly 5y agoIt's also true and important (at least in the context of this whole HN discussion).
- sweetheart 5y agoSure, I agree
- alliao 5y agothe same would apply to pretty much all animals no? and dare I say plants too?
- alliao 5y agoby the way love the lab food concept due to this, don't really trust big Ag/Pharma would leave us alone though; there're profits to be made damnit.
- nefitty 5y agoAnimals yes. Plants? I eat them without guilt. I wouldn't eat insects, not only because of my conditioned disgust, but now even moreso because crustaceans were found to be capable of suffering based on an 8-point scale. Bugs and crabs don't seem so far off to one another in my mind.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoWe as a society seem to have no problem killing millions of insects to make it easier to grow plants though. No matter what you eat, things are dying to supply your food. If you want to minimize the number of animals being killed, it’s probably best to eat the largest ones you have.
- nefitty 5y agoSentience is a matter of degree. That's why people can compare the intelligence of a chimpanzee to the intelligence of a three year old human. Or why it's intuitive to prefer saving the life of a human to saving the life of a fish. That does not diminish the capability of suffering that the fish has, but merely comparing the objective complexity of a human's preferences vs a fish's.
- sweetheart 5y agoHow do you think we grow those bigger animals though? We grow plants to feed them and convert those plant calories to animal calories at a mind bogglingly inefficient rate. If you want to reduce death and suffering overall, sticking to plants only is the best route.
- kuhewa 5y agoI'm calling BS on the happy octopus study.