The fact that there wasn’t already bothers me. Octopodes are extremely intelligent creatures and we’ve known this for a while. Not that I think intelligence should be how we base our treatment of animals, but it is one of the bigger factors when laws about this sort of thing get made, so I would have expected it to be taken into account before now.
Protections seem probably more important for putting them through unusual experiences that may involve suffering than killing them for food, as that’s essentially predation which they experience as a natural part of life
There’s an argument to be had that we as humans are intelligent enough to choose not to put animals through that which is why lots of folks choose to be vegan, but eating animals is more of a personal ethical choice, whereas funding research conducted on animals kinda needs to be a societal one given it’s funder by other parts of society, and research is generally for the benefit of society; so society needs to be the ones to decide whether the research is ethical. Not sure I articulated quite what I mmea, but hopefully what I’m trying to say makes sense
Just because something happens naturally doesnt make it ethical. For example a ton of animals (including humans) cannibalise but that doesn’t make it ethical.
I agree. I’m not in a position to be vegan myself, but I have a lot of respect for vegan ethics and people who are able to make that sacrifice. But I think it would be a mistake for a government to mandate that you can’t consume animal products. Maybe someday? Not sure how I feel on that subject. But I think its appropriate for there there to be safeguards against unethical research, but I think the choice to consume an animal product or not still needs to be an individual choice.
That being said, I think cannibalism is a bad example of something unethical happening in the wild. Cannibalism is taboo and considered unethical by humans because it involves killing a person, the eating them part is just weird and seen as desecration of a corpse in our culture. But its not any more unethical for a preying mantis to eat another preying mantis than it would be for it to eat some other bug. Perhaps a better example would be rape among primates or dolphins? since thats likely to create similar distress in the way it takes a way an animals autonomy as it does for humans. The concept of ethics starts getting a lot muddier when removed from the context it was created in- human society. Ultimately ethics is a manmade construct that by and large just describes pro social behavior, which is why I think rape among primates is likely to be a strong example of something unethical amongst animals: they are social enough have a concept of society and a level of expected behavior from their peers around them.
Regardless, I don’t think using the government to mandate that people can’t consume animal products would be a mistake, as those who are currently too far from understanding your perspective would be radicalized by it and it would stymy cultural progress towards a more intuitive sense of animal welfare. (I understand that may not be an argument you’re making, I’m just kinda expressing my thoughts on the subject since its topical both to your point and the idea someone expressed that maybe eating them should be protected by the government also)
it's really fucking stupid. We give care and consideration to pets, and if we did to pets what we do to the animals we eat, we'd get locked up for years. It's called speciesism.
The only one you should ever actually use in English is “octopuses,” which is correctly used by Nature in their article and in the linked NIH proposal. It’s the right term for both everyday use and for academic and legal purposes. Octopus is a common English word and warrants the standard English plural.
Add comment