6 ms·

> It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter met

by abeppu 3y ago

> It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling without stunning. I mean, that's all well and good, but if you take the "sentience" part seriously, then surely we should also consider in scope: - bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can casually kill large numbers of individuals - ocean pollution - warming oceans that may put whole populations at risk Like, if the suffering of individuals is acknowledged, then surely reducing that suffering is important whether it's in a restaurant kitchen or on the sea-floor beneath a fishing boat. You don't get to ignore the harms your actions cause just because the effects are out of line-of-sight.

e_i_pi_2 3y ago
I'd hope that this can be a foothold for future legal action - maybe someone could argue that bottom-trawling is an extreme slaughter method and then bad that Definitely glad to see this being the direction we move though
- Lio 3y ago
  I don’t know, you can hope but people are cheap bastards. Gassing of pigs with high concentrations of CO2 is pretty cruel. Cruel enough that CO2 was expected to be replaced with inert gasses like nitrogen in the early naughties. It takes them minutes to die and they do not go easy. If you want to eat animals that one thing but the least you can do is give them a quiet death. CO2 is cheap though and people like cheap more than they like humane. So now CO2 is used for 80% of UK pigs. If anyone wants to watch there’s a video attached: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/suffering-of-gassed-pigs-laid-bare-in-undercover-footage-from-uk-abattoir?ref=upstract.com https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/sufferin...
AeroNotix 3y ago
Perfect is the enemy of the good. Let's start somewhere and build on it rather than throwing a perfectly actionable plan away just because it doesn't solve literally all problems.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  > just because it doesn't solve literally all problems. one would be nice. But I'm ignorant on how many untrained experts are de-humanaizing (de-crustationizing?) crabs to begin with.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    I just watched a youtube chef mangle and torture a live lobster the other day, all while claiming to be informed on how to humanely kill them.
    - bena 3y ago
      I'm reminded of an episode of Masterchef where the cooks are given live crabs to prepare a dish with (as part of the meal, not as an assistant). Most contestants left the crab alone until it was time to boil them. One starts ripping the crab apart. Gordon Ramsay had to come up to her and explain that the crab was alive and what she was doing constituted torture.
      - drsnow 3y ago
        >(as part of the meal, not as an assistant) Did that really need to be said?
    - uh_uh 3y ago
      Sometimes I wonder how future generations will judge our meat industry practices once they figure out artificial meat production and also have a more accurate picture of consciousness/sentience and hence the suffering we cause. It's quite plausible that their judgement will be just as harsh, if not hasher, as how present day humans look at "savages" of the past.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jdboyd 3y ago
Actually, if you took "sentience" seriously, you would also need to ban any captivity or killing.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also this whole thing leads to somewhat interesting moral questions from evolutionary perspective. Would we allow domesticated species or breeds to go extinct? Pigs might survive outside. But what about dairy cows, or various breeds of birds? Should we just release them back to nature and possibly let them die out there?
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > Should we just release them back to nature and possibly let them die out there? Some of those animals you would need to force to leave. I had a dog growing up and like you can leave the front door open and occasionally she'd go out it but come meal time she was going back in that door.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    Had happened before with a small viviparous fish species used in labs in 60's I thing. After being banned from experimentation, the species disappeared from labs "overnight". As nobody was breeding the fish anymore, when the habitat of the wild populations was destroyed people discovered too late that there was not a safety copy and the entire species vanished. We could have it still except by a stupid law that nobody remembers anymore. The stupid politicians that wrote it are dead by now probably or wouldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. This lobbies simply hide or ignore that they don't have alternatives to the problems that are creating and will soon hit hard.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      A species is not some kind of treasured unique token. It's not a thing. It's a process. It only seems like a thing because humans like to find patterns and give them names. Outside of practical considerations wrt. biodiversity, why should we care? I mean, if you don't think individual members of a species are entitled to a good life, or at least life free of needless cruelty - then why would you care about their species? Conversely, if you think the species should be saved for reasons other than entertainment or practicality, then I think it only makes sense if you think individuals of that species deserve better conditions.
martingoodson 3y ago
This new law is irrelevant to these points. Vertebrate animals were already considered sentient in UK law. So sharks, dolphins, turtles, fish etc were already covered. Your outrage comes several years too late.
- abeppu 3y ago
  The new recognition of cephalopods and decapods are is relevant to these points because they can be and are killed by these human-driven factors, and experience pain and distress. The UK's recognition that fish can suffer doesn't seem to have forced the elimination of the UK's fishing industry. That industry intentionally catches and kills large numbers of fish but incidentally kills plenty of other kinds of animals, including cephalopods and decapods, through the extremely untargeted practices. My understanding is that bottom-trawling is still a permitted in UK waters, and as of a couple years ago, was even still allowed in most marine protected areas. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/uk-fishing-licences-for-bottom-trawling-could-be-unlawful-says-oceana https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/uk-fishi...
burnished 3y ago
Hey, those sound like great things to tackle next!
belorn 3y ago
Bottom-trawling should be outlawed, like dynamite fishing. By-catch laws don't work, and the ecological harm is like hunting deer be putting the forest on fire. Pollution is already illegal (but poorly enforced) and global warming should be illegal but enforcement is evem more tricky.
boringuser2 3y ago
If such an absurd ruling were to be taken at face value, these creatures would be owed human rights.
hammock 3y ago
> bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can casually kill large numbers of individuals I don't believe these techniques are used for lobsters, crabs or octopuses
- snapcaster 3y ago
  But they still kill loads of them
Y_Y 3y ago
What about killing? If their interests are to be valued then surely we shouldn't kill them. I'd much rather be declawed than killed. This isn't to say I think killing lobsters is wrong, I just think the moral reasoning is fatally inconsistent.

by abeppu 3y ago

e_i_pi_2 3y ago

I'd hope that this can be a foothold for future legal action - maybe someone could argue that bottom-trawling is an extreme slaughter method and then bad that Definitely glad to see this being the direction we move though

Lio 3y ago
I don’t know, you can hope but people are cheap bastards. Gassing of pigs with high concentrations of CO2 is pretty cruel. Cruel enough that CO2 was expected to be replaced with inert gasses like nitrogen in the early naughties. It takes them minutes to die and they do not go easy. If you want to eat animals that one thing but the least you can do is give them a quiet death. CO2 is cheap though and people like cheap more than they like humane. So now CO2 is used for 80% of UK pigs. If anyone wants to watch there’s a video attached: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/suffering-of-gassed-pigs-laid-bare-in-undercover-footage-from-uk-abattoir?ref=upstract.com https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/sufferin...

AeroNotix 3y ago

Perfect is the enemy of the good. Let's start somewhere and build on it rather than throwing a perfectly actionable plan away just because it doesn't solve literally all problems.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
> just because it doesn't solve literally all problems. one would be nice. But I'm ignorant on how many untrained experts are de-humanaizing (de-crustationizing?) crabs to begin with.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  I just watched a youtube chef mangle and torture a live lobster the other day, all while claiming to be informed on how to humanely kill them.
  - bena 3y ago
    I'm reminded of an episode of Masterchef where the cooks are given live crabs to prepare a dish with (as part of the meal, not as an assistant). Most contestants left the crab alone until it was time to boil them. One starts ripping the crab apart. Gordon Ramsay had to come up to her and explain that the crab was alive and what she was doing constituted torture.
    - drsnow 3y ago
      >(as part of the meal, not as an assistant) Did that really need to be said?
  - uh_uh 3y ago
    Sometimes I wonder how future generations will judge our meat industry practices once they figure out artificial meat production and also have a more accurate picture of consciousness/sentience and hence the suffering we cause. It's quite plausible that their judgement will be just as harsh, if not hasher, as how present day humans look at "savages" of the past.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jdboyd 3y ago

Actually, if you took "sentience" seriously, you would also need to ban any captivity or killing.

Ekaros 3y ago
Also this whole thing leads to somewhat interesting moral questions from evolutionary perspective. Would we allow domesticated species or breeds to go extinct? Pigs might survive outside. But what about dairy cows, or various breeds of birds? Should we just release them back to nature and possibly let them die out there?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > Should we just release them back to nature and possibly let them die out there? Some of those animals you would need to force to leave. I had a dog growing up and like you can leave the front door open and occasionally she'd go out it but come meal time she was going back in that door.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  Had happened before with a small viviparous fish species used in labs in 60's I thing. After being banned from experimentation, the species disappeared from labs "overnight". As nobody was breeding the fish anymore, when the habitat of the wild populations was destroyed people discovered too late that there was not a safety copy and the entire species vanished. We could have it still except by a stupid law that nobody remembers anymore. The stupid politicians that wrote it are dead by now probably or wouldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. This lobbies simply hide or ignore that they don't have alternatives to the problems that are creating and will soon hit hard.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    A species is not some kind of treasured unique token. It's not a thing. It's a process. It only seems like a thing because humans like to find patterns and give them names. Outside of practical considerations wrt. biodiversity, why should we care? I mean, if you don't think individual members of a species are entitled to a good life, or at least life free of needless cruelty - then why would you care about their species? Conversely, if you think the species should be saved for reasons other than entertainment or practicality, then I think it only makes sense if you think individuals of that species deserve better conditions.

martingoodson 3y ago

This new law is irrelevant to these points. Vertebrate animals were already considered sentient in UK law. So sharks, dolphins, turtles, fish etc were already covered. Your outrage comes several years too late.

abeppu 3y ago
The new recognition of cephalopods and decapods are is relevant to these points because they can be and are killed by these human-driven factors, and experience pain and distress. The UK's recognition that fish can suffer doesn't seem to have forced the elimination of the UK's fishing industry. That industry intentionally catches and kills large numbers of fish but incidentally kills plenty of other kinds of animals, including cephalopods and decapods, through the extremely untargeted practices. My understanding is that bottom-trawling is still a permitted in UK waters, and as of a couple years ago, was even still allowed in most marine protected areas. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/uk-fishing-licences-for-bottom-trawling-could-be-unlawful-says-oceana https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/uk-fishi...

burnished 3y ago

Hey, those sound like great things to tackle next!

belorn 3y ago

Bottom-trawling should be outlawed, like dynamite fishing. By-catch laws don't work, and the ecological harm is like hunting deer be putting the forest on fire. Pollution is already illegal (but poorly enforced) and global warming should be illegal but enforcement is evem more tricky.

boringuser2 3y ago

If such an absurd ruling were to be taken at face value, these creatures would be owed human rights.

hammock 3y ago

> bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can casually kill large numbers of individuals I don't believe these techniques are used for lobsters, crabs or octopuses

snapcaster 3y ago
But they still kill loads of them

Y_Y 3y ago

What about killing? If their interests are to be valued then surely we shouldn't kill them. I'd much rather be declawed than killed. This isn't to say I think killing lobsters is wrong, I just think the moral reasoning is fatally inconsistent.