▲ 57 points
back
108 comments
It strikes me as rather bizarre to oppose eating octopus because they are "too smart", but to continue to eat other animals because they "aren't smart enough". That's a really arbitrary line to draw.
An analogy I like to use is that there presumably could be aliens out there that would like to eat humans. You could imagine said aliens landing on Earth and trying to eat us, and even imagine some argument among themselves that humans aren't smart, and thus can be eaten - something that we'd all obviously find issue with.
Now obviously animals cannot think of or cannot communicate with us that they do not want to be eaten the same way we could with another species, but I believe part of the responsibility of having any kind of power (whether intellectual or otherwise), is to take the utmost care of those who are somehow weaker than you. To do otherwise is to take advantage (might makes right), and that notion is disturbing.
In those terms, I have a very hard time justifying raising, keeping, and killing (and in most cases causing incredible suffering) to animals purely for our pleasure, when it is both entirely possible and likely more efficient for us to not eat them.
Basically, the only reason we eat animals today is because we've always done things this way. I do not mean to be offensive, as putting it this way suggests that those eating animals are wrong or doing evil, but instead I just think it is one of the many little things that we as society and individuals do without much thought.
> It strikes me as rather bizarre to oppose eating octopus because they are "too smart", but to continue to eat other animals because they "aren't smart enough". That's a really arbitrary line to draw.
Especially when you consider that plants are also organisms, many of which exhibit complex reactions to stimuli, signalling among individuals, memory, etc.
Besides, I don't know of a compelling ethical argument for why it's worse for one to eat things that are perceived to be more similar to oneself. There seem to be obvious evolutionary arguments for why such taboos would develop, but that's not a sufficient argument in my opinion.
> Basically, the only reason we eat animals today is because we've always done things this way.
That's a bit oversimplified, because it implies that the genesis of humans (or their ancestors) eating animals is simply arbitrary, an accident of history. But it's pretty clear that eating animals provided some massive advantages over not doing so, and later domesticating animals for consumption even more so.
A bit of a rambling, since I'm basically just thinking out loud.
We'd all obviously find issue with being eaten not because we think it's unethical that the alien wants to eat us (it's unlikely that the ethics question would even come up), but because we don't want to die, as an individual and as a species (I'm trying to say that it's NOT obvious that the issue we would have with such a scenario would have anything to do with ethics, not to make a judgement whether it's ethical or not). And so your argument looks like it's saying "we don't want it to happen to us, therefore it's unethical (for anyone to do that to us, or for us to do that to others)". I know you probably doesn't mean it that way.
Now, whether it's ethical to eat meat itself. As someone else have mentioned, I've always wondered where do you draw the line? Pigs and cows seem obviously out of the questions, but how about cockroach, caterpillar, corepod, hydra[0]? Event certain plants do sense distress signals when they're being attacked.
Do we actually know that it's possible for us, as a society as a whole to survive entirely on non-animal products, food or otherwise? Additionally, even if it might be just historical accident that we have a heavy meat-eating society, and another society that starts out without ever using animal products can advance to where we are right now and have a perfectly functioning society, it doesn't mean that it's ever feasible to actually switch to such a no-animal product society. In our terms, that would be a switch from not just from one programming language to another, but probably from silicon-based chips to germanium-bases chips.
I'd agree that the line in this case seems to be quite arbitrary but I'd respectfully suggest that it's not fair to say individuals whom eat meat having not given it much thought.
Although that may be true for some people, myself and many people I've talked to have given it significant amounts of thought and simply not found a sufficiently compelling argument against it.
It seems unfair to suggest, and apologies in advance if this wasn't the intention of your comment, that people who eat meat automatically do so due to lack of thought rather than having considered the options and positively chosen it as a course of action.
>Now obviously animals cannot think of or cannot communicate with us that they do not want to be eaten the same way we could with another species
That's not obvious. The will to live is strong everywhere, and that cows don't speak "human" isn't to say they don't have a will to live (not be eaten). Nor that we can't speak "alien" any sign that we don't have a will to live (not be eaten).
This all reminds me of: http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
We are animals that eat animals. You are putting too much thought into it.
Here's a line that's pretty clear: does the creature itself care if its cohort are eaten? That is, why should I protect say dolphins, if other dolphins make no effort to protect their own?
This means, for octopuses (octopi as a plural is incorrect; its Greek not Latin) its probably ok. They are born alone, are loners and meet others of their kind only to mate. So snack away!
I used dolphins in my example because of a curious behavior seen at an annual dolphin slaughter. The Japanese annually net dolphins in a bay where they like to congregate (the dolphins, not the Japanese). Every year some dolphins escape the net.
The next year, the dolphins return en masse. Why? Didn't the dolphins that escaped give some alarm - "Aliens with catchy stringy things will entangle you and drag you up to the bright place if you go there!"
No, they apparently don't. Either because they don't communicate very well (which speaks poorly for their intelligence), or they just don't give a damn about other dolphins. Either way - dolphins pass my snack test.
Even some of the dolphins that escaped, return the next year. Why? Maybe they like it! Maybe its some rite of passage to run the gauntlet, risk capture in the bay of death! Like some Klingon warrior ritual or something. Then hey! we're just doing our part!
Or, far more likely in my opinion, they're just not very smart.
This reminds me of HG Well's Time Machine where it explored the theme of one human species eating another human species.
While I agree that we should think twice about eating sentient animals like octopuses, pigs are quite intelligent too (more so than many dogs!) and few people hesitate in front of a hot dog. Unlike the pigs we eat, the octopuses at least had a nice life and weren't cramped into tiny, dirty pens. Furthermore, octopuses have a very low life expectancy, they die after reproducing, and eating them is ecologically more sensible than many other seafood, tuna for example.
I think the case of dogs is very interesting. Any dog lover will readily admit their dog is intelligent and emotional. Is owning them and keeping them on leashes not therefore slavery?
The domestication of dogs was something that was mutually beneficial at the time. The use of leashes on a walk is for the sake of safety, not because the dog wants to escape.
If you're talking about abused dogs being chained up and not taken care of, you're right. That is unethical.
That's an interesting question, and I have two answers for it:
1. My dogs live a much longer, happier, healthier life with me than they would out in the wild. Their lives are orders of magnitude better here.
2. Have you ever shown a dog a leash? :-)
Domestic dogs want to be owned, cared for, and for many breeds, worked hard. This makes them happy. We have bred them this way for thousands of years. Abusing dogs is cruel, keeping them (well) is not.
Yeah, that really should have been discussed in the article...
This article was linked at the end, and I presume the author didn't feel the need to address the same issue, even though it was a big part of the experience at the heart of the article.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/09/flesh-of-your-f...
It's interesting to me that the dolphin and octopus seem to be separated from us by some missing feature. The Dolphin is social and intelligent, but lacks graspers (for tools). The Octopus is intelligent, has capable graspers, but is not social and doesn't live long. I wonder if having those missing features would cause critical tipping points toward civilization.
Both animals live underwater, where it would be really hard for any advanced civilization to form (no fire, much harder to extract raw resources, much harder to build shelters out of dirt/straw/etc.), etc. It's probably not a coincidence that all civilizations (for a perhaps loose definition of civilization- bees, ants, termites, humans, etc.) live on firm ground.
I was with you until bees and such. In what way do you feel bees are more of a "civilization" than say a pod of whales or dolphins? Is it a "has a structure" requirement?
Jaron Lanier speculates the lack of cultural knowledge passing from one generation to the next has put a cap on Cuttlefish development. Once the eggs hatch, the latest brood has to start from scratch.
Humans became human by eating meat. We aren't nearly as good as we think we are at creating fake replacement foods (see the number of people who have health problems clear up after going Paleo). Some day, we may be able to replace real animal protein, but we aren't there yet. In the meantime, I think we owe it to the animals and the environment to give the animals that will sacrifice their lives to propagate our own a happy existence. My goal for the past year has been to convert to sustainably raised, pastured meats exclusively. I'm not perfect, but I try. And I am grateful for the sacrifice these animals make.
On the specific topic of Cephalopods, I think our highest moral imperative is to ensure the survival and continued evolution of the species. If that requires farming some, fine, but we may find the intelligent life on earth in the next two million years belongs to them. Breaking that branch of, either trough ignorance or gluttony, is intolerable.
You can entirely replace animal protein with a combination of plant-based proteins. Ethical or humane methods of killing animals is a step forward, but it absolutely is not required.
I don't think that's even close to universally true. I know quite a few vegetarians (and vegans) who were "doing it right", but were later advised by their doctors (even after getting 2nd and sometimes 3rd opinions) to eat meat as a means of curing their systemic health problems. And guess what? Eating meat made them healthy.
I'm not saying that there aren't tons of people who are very healthy vegetarians and vegans (some of them healthier than they would be eating meat), but I'd just like to point out that it's not universally true that you can replace animal protein with plant-based protein and be healthy. Nutrition is a complex topic, and not all bodies behave the same when it comes to food.
Some people can. Some people find that the phytochemicals associated with those plant proteins, when consumed in quantities, cause significant gut and hormonal problems (phytoestrogens impacting androgen production, for example). And that says nothing about the current questions about whether soy increases breast cancer risk.
Soy is obviously not the only plant protein. My current favorite is mushroom-based, but it is new, and industrial food doesn't have a good track record.
We can live perfectly healthy lives without meat. That said, I have no problem killing an animal that lived a full non-tortured life for food. I do think we owe more than buying the expensive whole foods meat. I think we should all go through the experience of killing a cow, pig, lamb, and chicken. Killing animals shouldn't be completely abstracted away from society - we need to understand what we are doing in a hands on way.
>>We can live perfectly healthy lives without meat.
Perhaps and with great care a diligence. Ask anyone who has tried to body build vegan, getting complete ammino acids takes planing. All the reverted vegans I know say they feel much better now. And being a vegan can be more unhealthy if you replaced the meat that was in your diet with carbs/sugars.
It is far more healthy to eat a diet without grain/carbs IMHO if you are choosing one thing to improve health.
Want to be in fat burning mode (ketonic)? Done. Want to cure your type II diabetes? Done. Want to lower your blood pressure? Done. Want to raise your HDL and lower your triglycerides? Done. Want to lower your cancer risk (est. 60-90% of tumors can't run off ketone bodies, but require sugars)? Done. Want to have better dental health? Done. Want to have consistent energy all day? Done.
Based on everything I have read and learned it is my strong (but open to change) opinion that the natural human diet was consistent daily consumption of vegetables/leafy greens (esp. low starch ones), occasional fruit and occasional gluttonous consumption of animal products as community members made kills.
That is to say, I think humans evolved for a ketogenic diet (< 20 grams of carbs/day) and that is why it makes so many people healthier, independent of choosing to have a caloric deficit.
> We aren't nearly as good as we think we are at creating fake replacement foods (see the number of people who have health problems clear up after going Paleo).
That may be true for some people who don't pay much attention to their diet, but it's not true in the general case. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
You might not be "there" yet, but nearly 8 million people in the US are[1]. It's likely that most of them are healthy[2].
On the point of "sacrifice," animals aren't making one. To sacrifice something, you must willingly trade it for something else. (Though plenty of BBQ joints will suggest otherwise[3].)
[1] http://www.peta.org/living/food/2011-vegetarian-vegan-stats/
[2] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/525s.full
[3] http://vanishingsouthgeorgia.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/wil...
As Benjamin Franklin famously noted, even animals eat animals. The problem is quantity. Never in human history, even modern times, meat was served daily, in mass. For most people, it was an expensive food, affordable once or twice a week. And that before population increase we see. If people consumed meat once or twice a week, the diet, and for those who like it - taste, were OK, yet many many problems would be solved. Much more food, and less cruel industrialisation of animals to food.
(full disclosure: vegan)
That's a good observation by Franklin, but in so many ways we like to think of ourselves as superior than animals. An animal doing something is a poor justification for a human doing something.
(This is probably obvious to you already being a vegan).
> Never in human history
I'm curious, when did Inuits stop being human?
If anyone stops by Padova, Italy, (I have a standing invitation like patio11's: http://www.kalzumeus.com/standing-invitation/ ), there's a fantastic seafood street stand that serves octopus:
http://www.tripadvisor.it/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187867-d3...
It's so good even my kids love it! "More tentacles, please!"
Reminds me of this (surprisingly powerful, IMO) video of a kid who doesn't want to eat an octopus:
Wow great video. Thanks for sharing.
I found the "bargain with humanity" argument mentioned to justify eating pigs disturbing, since it was also used many times to rationalize human atrocities, too and many a situation that is disguised economic slavery, e.g. "Yes, their condition is bad but wouldn't they be worse off if we weren't doing this to them?".
Okay between this and the lobster story you guys and gals are really starting to make me feel bad about the seafood Christmas my family does ever year (we're each responsible for a different seafood dish). I'll surely bring this up at the dinner table and I can tell ya right now, grandma isn't going to agree! :)
Back on topic though, this was another good read. The debate about how to cook it was hilarious:
He insisted that there was an art to cooking octopus correctly. His includes a Neapolitan trick: a wine cork in the cooking liquid. Éric Ripert and Harold McGee dismiss this step as mere legend—to which Pasternack gleefully responds, “Éric Ripert is full of shit!”
I wanted to like this article, but it didn't address or resolve the pig versus octopus debate adequately really.
I honestly can not come up with a comfortable moral basis for eating meat derived from sentient animals. I do it anyway, mostly out of practical concerns, but I really hope artificial growth technology picks up over the next few years and tank-grown meat becomes viable.
More cladistic thoughts:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kvk/the_octopus_the_dolphin_and_us_a...
Octopus is definitely on my menu.
Rather than assessing a species intellect, I tend to look for things to eat that are healthy, nutritious, delicious, environmentally sound/sustainable and most importantly, low carbon.
Just started reading the article but Jaron Lanier has a whole section on this (surprisingly) in his book, You Are Not A Gadget.
Octopuses may be much smarter than any other invertebrate, but does anyone seriously think they are as smart as pigs?
Great article !
I've been a strict vegetarian for close to 5 years. While I support any reduction in meat consumption, grading the edibility of animals by our perception of their intelligence is Nazism.
You might want to develop your comment instead of just using words that are mostly used for blind trolling ("nazism").
Wanting to exterminate all the jews and maintain the superiority of some concept of an Aryan race is nazism. Grading the edibility of animals by our perception of their intelligence might be right or might be wrong depending on your moral/ethical framework, but I'm not sure there is any consistent worldview in which it actually is nazism.
In other words, your comment doesn't help the vegetarian cause, and maybe being a bit more thoughtful is a small price to pay to turn that around.
As a vegetarian you do the same thing. You kill living things to eat them, you simply choose to kill living things that don't have a nervous system. That is, you kill living things that you perceive are unable to appreciate that they are alive. Although plants do transmit electro-chemical signals across their regions, which could be argued as a rudimentary nervous system. They also get damaged and heal, they get sick, grow, reproduce, and respond to interactions with the environment.
We're not talking about whether or not killing is wrong, but rather where on the gradient of developed nervous system-like behavior is it ethically okay to kill something. Many people have chosen a higher point on the gradient than you have, but that by no means implies that it's okay to kill anything along the full spectrum. You've simply chosen a lower cut off point than others.
What a ridiculous comment. Animals are currently farmed according to profitability. Why do you reject another preference measure (intelligence)?
So is asserting superiority on the basis of not eating meat.
Edit: I don't understand the downvotes for this. Nazism is not all about racial cleansing and gas chambers; it has a strong social darwinist component in general. The vegetarian/vegan group know they are better people for having made the decision to stop eating meat. There is no gray area: they are right and everyone else is wrong, as illustrated by the parent comment.
Pretty sure Hitler was a vegetarian.