5 ms·

I’m begging everyone in this thread to stop eating octopus. There’s a very good chance they’re sentient, and stopping once you know that is a moral imperative.

noisy_boy 3y ago
At the risk of sounding like a fad/new-age-influenced person, I have stopped eating Octopus after seeing "My Octopus Teacher"[0]. Just can't bring myself to do it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Octopus_Teacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Octopus_Teacher
NavinF 3y ago
Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them. If anyone in this thread is wondering what octopus meat tastes like, I encourage them to try Takoyaki at any Japanese restaurant or Boba tea shop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki
- nefitty 3y ago
  Not seeing the moral imperative is not the same as there not being a moral imperative. The attitude that motivated your comment is astonishingly cruel.
  - onethought 3y ago
    How is there a moral imperative? Could you explain it?
    - chimprich 3y ago
      I think there's a moral imperative not to kill animals for food that are above a certain level of intelligence; we can use intelligence level as a proxy for capability for suffering. To take an example ranking of potential food animals: fish, chickens, cows, pigs, great apes, humans. There's a question about where you draw the line, but most people agree there is one. Few people think it's OK to eat chimps. It's not clear on this hierarchy where octopuses fit in.
      - onethought 3y ago
        It’s not clear where in the hierarchy any of those animals fit, because we can’t ask them how much they are suffering, and they can’t conceptualise their experience as Suffering, because we invented that concept to describe a certain state we experience. No, intuitively, most people do not agree there is a line… people just buy meat and eat it, and the main consideration is taste. Can you provide any evidence suffering factors into the majority of peoples food decisions?
        nefitty 3y ago
        There’s research to try to get closer to an objective demarcation of suffering. The latest measures place even shrimp at some level of intolerable suffering, due to some of the farming techniques, eg removing they eyeballs of females to make them more fertile.
      - fireant 3y ago
        Is this what the whole argument about intelligence is about? That you don't want to cause suffering and only species of certain intelligence can suffer and others can't, thus you are not feeling guilt when killing and eating things that are not intelligent? That just seems so bizarrely naive to me. Every living thing suffers when hurt. Suffering is a feeling of not wanting to die, or to be hurt. I'm pretty sure that it is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution of living things, it is a strive for self preservation. Human suffering is fundamentally the same as that of an octopus, an insect or a tree.
- waste_monk 3y ago
  I think they meant that Octopi are probably sapient (as well as sentient), which is a much bigger deal. >Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them In that case, what moral imperative is there for me not to eat you?
  - onethought 3y ago
    That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises. This doesn’t apply to other animals.
    - chimprich 3y ago
      Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
      - onethought 3y ago
        No my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
      - shepherdjerred 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
    - psd1 3y ago
      Could we eat apes? Other hominids? Neanderthals? Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.
- chimprich 3y ago
  Responding to a plea not to eat octopuses with a recipe suggestion seems designed to just cause suffering, and I'm not talking about the octopuses. At least present an argument if you have a different viewpoint.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    There's nothing for me argue against. GP said "stopping once you know that is a moral imperative" as if that didn't need any arguments in favor. If you want a counterexample, languages models are intelligent enough to write essays asking for asylum but that doesn't mean any sane person would give a language model rights. There's no moral imperative to not kill something just because it's intelligent. I also think Takoyaki is highly relevant because if octopus wasn't delicious, nobody would want to eat it in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    - barbazoo 3y ago
      > Takoyaki (たこ焼き or 蛸焼) is a ball-shaped Japanese snack made of a wheat flour-based batter and cooked in a special molded pan. It is typically filled with minced or diced octopus (tako), tempura scraps (tenkasu), pickled ginger (beni shoga), and green onion (negi).[1][2] The balls are brushed with takoyaki sauce (similar to Worcestershire sauce) and mayonnaise, and then sprinkled with green laver (aonori) and shavings of dried bonito (katsuobushi). Most things would taste delicious with those ingredients. Probably even Tofu :)
    - elzbardico 3y ago
      If anything I could be compelled to eat them to partake in their intelligence, ritualistically speaking.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    If hearing an opposing view causes you suffering, then the onus is on you to either accept the suffering, or leave the public space so as to avoid additional suffering. I found the parent comment more offensive than the reply - proselytising morality rather than framing it as an open question. I find it very patronising.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  I feel awful about eating octopus, but I’m not veg and I don’t know why I’m more morally sensitive to eating it vs cow. I was once walking through the Tokyo fish market at 5am and marveled at some enormous tentacles hanging out of a bucket. The man smiled and walked over to me and placed a chuck of octopus in my mouth. I remember this as semi-consensual. What was astonishing was that I chewed that chunk for about a half hour before it dissolved and the whole time, every single chew, it tasted fresh (and very delicious). Part of my moral reaction is the knowledge that the octopus tentacle would be still alive in a meaningful way. Sigh.
  - xeonmc 3y ago
    > A semi-consensual tentacle experience in your mouth lasting half an hour, exclusive in Japan
- psd1 3y ago
  [flagged]
hahajk 3y ago
What do you mean by sentient? Aren't most animals we commonly eat sentient? In that the there is an experience of "being" that animal? At least, insofar as we can tell?
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  Yes, I was mistaken it with Sapience, the property we share with Chimps, Dolphins, and very likely Octopi
c22 3y ago
If panpsychism turned out to be true would it be a moral imperative to starve to death?
- shthed 3y ago
  You might only eat things that consent to being consumed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
  - weregiraffe 3y ago
    But did your fruit trees consent to being farmed by you?
contingencies 3y ago
If awareness of the environment ... is the criterion of consciousness, then even the protozoans are conscious. If awareness of awareness is required, then it is doubtful whether the great apes and human infants are conscious. - Thomas, Garth J. (1967). 'Consciousness', Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 6. p. 366.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Indeed, even human adults drift in and out of levels of self-awareness. We spend much of our days in automatic. I remember highlighting the line "Consciousness is consciousness of being conscious" in a Sartre essay when I was 16. It seemed profound then, but obvious now.
robbiep 3y ago
I don't like eating octopus or squid, mostly because I don't like the texture, but whenever I am out I say it's because I don't eat sentient beings, which usually provokes some interesting discussion.
herbst 3y ago
My neighbours are small herds of cows. They show more social intelligence than most people think. Not only are they closely and interested watching whatever I do in the garden but they also have a very complex social structure between them and communicate with neighbours herd's.
pell 3y ago
Most meat people eat is from sentient beings. Cows, pigs, yes, even chickens are sentient. I'd urge people to consider the capability to suffer and not mainly the level of intelligence.
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
My cellphone is sentient - it cries very loudly when it wants to be fed and groomed.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Sorry, apparently I meant "sapient." Octopi are closer to dolphins and chimps than a chicken. The mind of a chicken is neatly captured by Herzog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM Octopi are not like that. Octopi are something else, and I do believe they are not so far from us.
- 93po 3y ago
  I used to be okay eating chicken (and beef) because I was like, they're dumb birds and don't have any real meaningful life experience. Then I saw this youtube documentary about two kestrels starting a "family" (along with his owl one) and it completely changed my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQb-badp1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQb-badp1s He doesn't mention anything about vegetarianism, I made my own connection there. But even something as dumb as birds have connections to one another, they have a mating and courtship process that feels very similar to humans, they care about their young and will defend them to the death, and the male partner understands the importance of providing for his mate and younglings and does so both by finding and building a nest, but also tirelessly providing food for months
hannasm 3y ago
I think there is a certain moral code we should abide by when it comes to harvesting animals in general. Taking a life to sustain your own is part of the natural order however. Given an octopus can regrow a limb can we farm them more ethically than we do mammals? Almost all animals that don't have an economic basis in human politics are going to go extinct so we better find something meaningful to justify their protection. Of course there are some truly resilient ones like rats and roaches that seem to have actually adapted favorably but the vast majority haven't. Don't most vegans just want livestock to go extinct too?

noisy_boy 3y ago

At the risk of sounding like a fad/new-age-influenced person, I have stopped eating Octopus after seeing "My Octopus Teacher"[0]. Just can't bring myself to do it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Octopus_Teacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Octopus_Teacher

NavinF 3y ago

Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them. If anyone in this thread is wondering what octopus meat tastes like, I encourage them to try Takoyaki at any Japanese restaurant or Boba tea shop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takoyaki

nefitty 3y ago
Not seeing the moral imperative is not the same as there not being a moral imperative. The attitude that motivated your comment is astonishingly cruel.
- onethought 3y ago
  How is there a moral imperative? Could you explain it?
  - chimprich 3y ago
    I think there's a moral imperative not to kill animals for food that are above a certain level of intelligence; we can use intelligence level as a proxy for capability for suffering. To take an example ranking of potential food animals: fish, chickens, cows, pigs, great apes, humans. There's a question about where you draw the line, but most people agree there is one. Few people think it's OK to eat chimps. It's not clear on this hierarchy where octopuses fit in.
    - onethought 3y ago
      It’s not clear where in the hierarchy any of those animals fit, because we can’t ask them how much they are suffering, and they can’t conceptualise their experience as Suffering, because we invented that concept to describe a certain state we experience. No, intuitively, most people do not agree there is a line… people just buy meat and eat it, and the main consideration is taste. Can you provide any evidence suffering factors into the majority of peoples food decisions?
      - nefitty 3y ago
        There’s research to try to get closer to an objective demarcation of suffering. The latest measures place even shrimp at some level of intolerable suffering, due to some of the farming techniques, eg removing they eyeballs of females to make them more fertile.
    - fireant 3y ago
      Is this what the whole argument about intelligence is about? That you don't want to cause suffering and only species of certain intelligence can suffer and others can't, thus you are not feeling guilt when killing and eating things that are not intelligent? That just seems so bizarrely naive to me. Every living thing suffers when hurt. Suffering is a feeling of not wanting to die, or to be hurt. I'm pretty sure that it is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution of living things, it is a strive for self preservation. Human suffering is fundamentally the same as that of an octopus, an insect or a tree.
waste_monk 3y ago
I think they meant that Octopi are probably sapient (as well as sentient), which is a much bigger deal. >Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them In that case, what moral imperative is there for me not to eat you?
- onethought 3y ago
  That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises. This doesn’t apply to other animals.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
    - onethought 3y ago
      No my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
  - psd1 3y ago
    Could we eat apes? Other hominids? Neanderthals? Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.
chimprich 3y ago
Responding to a plea not to eat octopuses with a recipe suggestion seems designed to just cause suffering, and I'm not talking about the octopuses. At least present an argument if you have a different viewpoint.
- NavinF 3y ago
  There's nothing for me argue against. GP said "stopping once you know that is a moral imperative" as if that didn't need any arguments in favor. If you want a counterexample, languages models are intelligent enough to write essays asking for asylum but that doesn't mean any sane person would give a language model rights. There's no moral imperative to not kill something just because it's intelligent. I also think Takoyaki is highly relevant because if octopus wasn't delicious, nobody would want to eat it in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    > Takoyaki (たこ焼き or 蛸焼) is a ball-shaped Japanese snack made of a wheat flour-based batter and cooked in a special molded pan. It is typically filled with minced or diced octopus (tako), tempura scraps (tenkasu), pickled ginger (beni shoga), and green onion (negi).[1][2] The balls are brushed with takoyaki sauce (similar to Worcestershire sauce) and mayonnaise, and then sprinkled with green laver (aonori) and shavings of dried bonito (katsuobushi). Most things would taste delicious with those ingredients. Probably even Tofu :)
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    If anything I could be compelled to eat them to partake in their intelligence, ritualistically speaking.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  If hearing an opposing view causes you suffering, then the onus is on you to either accept the suffering, or leave the public space so as to avoid additional suffering. I found the parent comment more offensive than the reply - proselytising morality rather than framing it as an open question. I find it very patronising.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
I feel awful about eating octopus, but I’m not veg and I don’t know why I’m more morally sensitive to eating it vs cow. I was once walking through the Tokyo fish market at 5am and marveled at some enormous tentacles hanging out of a bucket. The man smiled and walked over to me and placed a chuck of octopus in my mouth. I remember this as semi-consensual. What was astonishing was that I chewed that chunk for about a half hour before it dissolved and the whole time, every single chew, it tasted fresh (and very delicious). Part of my moral reaction is the knowledge that the octopus tentacle would be still alive in a meaningful way. Sigh.
- xeonmc 3y ago
  > A semi-consensual tentacle experience in your mouth lasting half an hour, exclusive in Japan
psd1 3y ago
[flagged]

hahajk 3y ago

What do you mean by sentient? Aren't most animals we commonly eat sentient? In that the there is an experience of "being" that animal? At least, insofar as we can tell?

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Yes, I was mistaken it with Sapience, the property we share with Chimps, Dolphins, and very likely Octopi

c22 3y ago

If panpsychism turned out to be true would it be a moral imperative to starve to death?

shthed 3y ago
You might only eat things that consent to being consumed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
- weregiraffe 3y ago
  But did your fruit trees consent to being farmed by you?

contingencies 3y ago

If awareness of the environment ... is the criterion of consciousness, then even the protozoans are conscious. If awareness of awareness is required, then it is doubtful whether the great apes and human infants are conscious. - Thomas, Garth J. (1967). 'Consciousness', Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 6. p. 366.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Indeed, even human adults drift in and out of levels of self-awareness. We spend much of our days in automatic. I remember highlighting the line "Consciousness is consciousness of being conscious" in a Sartre essay when I was 16. It seemed profound then, but obvious now.

robbiep 3y ago

I don't like eating octopus or squid, mostly because I don't like the texture, but whenever I am out I say it's because I don't eat sentient beings, which usually provokes some interesting discussion.

herbst 3y ago

My neighbours are small herds of cows. They show more social intelligence than most people think. Not only are they closely and interested watching whatever I do in the garden but they also have a very complex social structure between them and communicate with neighbours herd's.

pell 3y ago

Most meat people eat is from sentient beings. Cows, pigs, yes, even chickens are sentient. I'd urge people to consider the capability to suffer and not mainly the level of intelligence.

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

My cellphone is sentient - it cries very loudly when it wants to be fed and groomed.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

Sorry, apparently I meant "sapient." Octopi are closer to dolphins and chimps than a chicken. The mind of a chicken is neatly captured by Herzog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM Octopi are not like that. Octopi are something else, and I do believe they are not so far from us.

93po 3y ago
I used to be okay eating chicken (and beef) because I was like, they're dumb birds and don't have any real meaningful life experience. Then I saw this youtube documentary about two kestrels starting a "family" (along with his owl one) and it completely changed my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQb-badp1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQb-badp1s He doesn't mention anything about vegetarianism, I made my own connection there. But even something as dumb as birds have connections to one another, they have a mating and courtship process that feels very similar to humans, they care about their young and will defend them to the death, and the male partner understands the importance of providing for his mate and younglings and does so both by finding and building a nest, but also tirelessly providing food for months

hannasm 3y ago

I think there is a certain moral code we should abide by when it comes to harvesting animals in general. Taking a life to sustain your own is part of the natural order however. Given an octopus can regrow a limb can we farm them more ethically than we do mammals? Almost all animals that don't have an economic basis in human politics are going to go extinct so we better find something meaningful to justify their protection. Of course there are some truly resilient ones like rats and roaches that seem to have actually adapted favorably but the vast majority haven't. Don't most vegans just want livestock to go extinct too?