Something I don't see mentioned is biomagnification. One reason we eat herbivores instead of carnivores is because the higher up the food chain you go, the more you are exposed to a concentration of heavy metals, pesticides, etc.
It's a good argument for eating less meat overall, one vegetarians seem to never make. In a world full of unprecedented levels of relatively new toxic compounds, eating less meat is a good defensive move, especially so if you have health problems.
I'm really picky about meat quality. In situations where my choice is something with low quality/highly questionable meat or a vegetarian option, I typically go with the vegetarian option.
Though be forewarned: It's a dietary path that gets you equally harassed by vegetarians and the meat-and-potatoes crowd, which can be incredibly aggravating and feel like the harassment is unceasing.
> One reason we eat herbivores instead of carnivores is because the higher up the food chain you go, the more you are exposed to a concentration of heavy metals, pesticides, etc.
Whilst it's true that these concentrate in carnivores this is not a reason why we eat mostly herbivores.
Herbivores were plentiful and less dangerous to hunt. Then, herbivores are much easier and more economical to breed (you would need to breed herbivores first if you wanted to breed carnivores...)
You'll note that these decisions were made long before people even knew about heavy metals or had pesticides.
As a vegan this is an argument that I’ve made before unsuccessfully. When I start talking about trophic levels people’s eyes gloss over and they behave confused and disinterested. I think the reason for this is that most people don’t remember high school biology.
Now if you were to talk about ethics THAT gets a strong reaction simply because it’s much more intuitive and relatable. People’s responses can be receptive, antagonist, dismissive etc. but they certainly won’t be falling asleep in front of you.
Serious question: is this actually a concern for land animals like cows or chickens? They tend to be fed an exclusively vegetarian diet, so any bio-accumulation of heavy metals or similar should be minimal - the chain is pretty simple: sun -> plants -> meat animal. I can't say I'm aware of people getting mercury poisoning from beef, for example.
Seafood is different, since the food chain can be significantly longer and more complex.
Just did a quick search and it looks like plants can absorb heavy metals/toxins and are sometimes used for cleaning them up. Is there a reason that this wouldn't apply to the plants that people eat?
> In a world full of unprecedented levels of relatively new toxic compounds, eating less meat is a good defensive move, especially so if you have health problems.
This article is partially about the impact on marine ecosystems, so don't avoid reading it if you think it is all about ethics, which is what the majority of the comments here mention.
If you put a sentence like this in such an article you beg to be bashed on your ethics:
"Given their exceptional abilities, one might ask whether humans should be eating octopus at all, but here we want to raise a different ethical question."
So we can eat stupid animals, but not the more intelligent ones, right? That's absolutely logically and ethically bonkers to just write this down as if it were a common piece of shared knowledge and give it for granted.
I think people tend either see the world primarily through existence or experience.
For those who see the world through the experience frame, they will be more worried about the negative impacts toward an individual octopus, seeing it as an intelligent creature that shouldn’t need to endure our fishing practices.
For those that see the world through the existence frame, the potential genocidal and even eco-system crashing impact of overfishing or various fishing practices is more vital than what happens to any individual creature.
Maybe this would be better as two articles, one that appeals to each type.
> This article is partially about the impact on marine ecosystems, so don't avoid reading it if you think it is all about ethics, which is what the majority of the comments here mention.
You should point out the issue for all the tl;dr people.
The issue is that farming carnivorous seafood is a net ecosystem loss. This applies to more than just octopi.
In the case of an octopus, the conversion rate is about 3:1--you have to feed an octopus about 3 times it's weight in "other fish". Similar ratios are true for other carnivorous fish--none are less than 1.
Consequently, aquaculture farming of carnivorous species causes more overfishing and ecosystem strain and contributes nothing to food security.
There are sustainable and unsustainable sources. The same is true of all seafood.
The life expectancy of octopus is generally between 3-5 years, some live as little as 6 months. The extent of their intelligence is unclear. At most we have evidence that they have the capacity for long and short term memory. Given the standard of intelligence for animals cultures otherwise consume, this doesn't seem remarkable at all. To chase the ethical argument to it's logical end, as one of intelligence is purported, the only ethical animal then to consume is a non-sentient one.
Hypothetically, it could get to the point where it is more ethical to eat meat than not to, ESPECIALLY if they are sentient in the way activists say they are.
Lets say aliens came and offered you a deal. You can either not exist or live a life of luxury with all delicious food and mates you want, then after 1000 years or so you'd peacefully pass away just like a natural death and you are informed that they'd eat your body. I'm pretty sure quite a few people would be open to this.The choice is even simpler with animals since from all evidence they lack the capacity for existential dread.
Now tell, me what would be the most moral choice assuming chickens are sentient? To indulge them to a pampered existence several times their natural lifespan...and yes, at the end disposing of their bodies in the most practical and beneficial way, its not like a chicken cares what happens to its mortal shell in whatever poultry afterlife may exist. Or leave chicken minds to the terror of being torn up by a fox in the wilderness or to never know the joys of existence in the paradise future ethical meat farms may offer?
Not having been born is neutral from the position of the being not getting born. It is neither good nor bad, because the being does not exist.
If a woman dies, we don't feel sorrow for any children (or their children, or their children's children, etc, etc) that will never be born. I am not a murderer for denying life to the billions and billions of people that will not be born if I've chosen not to have kids. Neither am I a hero for saving billions and billions of people if I choose to have kids (and good God, make sure my kids have kids and their kids have kids, etc, etc).
The question just comes down to: is it OK to keep animals to be farmed and eaten. If the answer is "no", then you gain nothing by bringing new lives into the world to subject them to it. If the answer is "yes", then there isn't a dilemma.
That is an interesting question - and I think the answer is "it depends very much on how you farm them," which is why I prefer to eat free-range chicken over factory farmed, and don't eat sentient animals / red meat at all - but thanks for your parenthetical, because yeah, we cannot do so yet with octopi.
If you were the animal in question, what would you think? I'd choose the latter, but your answer may differ. The answer may be different for animals that can conceive of the question than for those who can't, and that's probably a less decidable point.
It depends on what you mean by better. Is it better from the perspective of the universe? Or according to your individual personal guidelines that define "better"? Or better as how your society thinks it is? Or better as how Socrates would've define it?
Quite impossible to answer generic questions and better/worse without defining boundaries.
> given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem.
Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish. The conditions we keep them in and the impact on the wider environment is seperate
Did you intentionally remove the first part of the paragraph ? They are talking about the environmental impact of octopus farming which creates artificial strain on the environment.
> The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself and, given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem.
The calories spent on raising and consuming animals higher in the food chain is exponentially more than consuming those lower in the food chain. This is the point they are trying to make. It wasnt about the ethics of eating Octopus itself, but the means in which they are being raised / procured.
> Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish
Ignoring the farming and catching practices used to get most octopuses from the sea to the plate, which most certainly are unethical since they are unnecessary and cruel, and only look at "eating another being", I still think you are missing the point that octopuses has to eat the fish to survive since they are mostly carnivore's and don't have modern farming practices and supermarkets available, whereas we are omnivores and have those things available where we can get all the things we need from non-animal products.
I say that makes a big difference between us and octopuses eating fish, not to mention the fact that as far as we know, octopuses are not capable of understanding ethics like us, which also makes a big difference (if it were unethical for the octopus to eat fish, which it isn't since it needs it to survive). Just like we don't blame a human baby for unethical behaviour, but still hold ourself up to ethical scrutiny.
We eat cows not wolves in large part because carnivores require vastly more land for the same protean. This argument is about efficiency, though we also eat carnivorous fish.
To simplify The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself where feed is delicious protein.
What makes you say it's a "one size fits all" solution? Should the author not write their own opinion from their own ethical context, but rather keep it to themselves, since other cultures might disagree?
Well... ethics in the wild definitely does vary wildly by time, place and person. But, ethics in the wild usually gets applied to everyone too. When we think sexist legislation (say, women can't vote) is wrong, we usually think it's wrong for everyone and that the people/places that do it should stop.
Pluralism is unstoppable, but so is our instinct to create/defend/assemble a common ethic.
I’m more worried about the genocide of species via chemical and plastic contamination. There are apparently rivers so flooded with estrogenics that fish can’t reproduce at a replacement rate, and need to be re-stocked by fish farms. This is not sustainable.
I eat Octopus because they are delicious, not because I think they are dumb. I know they are very smart, but this fact doesn’t makes them less delicious to me. Also, the fact that I —and millions of other people— don’t feel any affection towards these cephalopods makes the argument of “farming octopuses is unethical […]” less agreeable.
Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism.
> […] Numerous videos on the internet of octopuses escaping from their tanks or stealing fishermen's catches have fuelled a human fascination with the only invertebrate that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds.
Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that.
---
People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.
It's amazing to me that people can make the argument that it's not right to eat something based on intelligence. We should give extra care to less intelligent feeling beings, not less.
The title is misleading here. The article linked to (and the paper it references) is talking about farming octopus specifically, not eating it in general. In fact, the paper specifically states, "Given their exceptional abilities, one might ask whether humans should be eating octopus at all, but here we want to raise a different ethical question."
We should move towards killing less animal, not more. Meat is necessary but killing highly intelligent animals is not. If anything we should find a way to create animals with no conscience/intelligence. A slightly sci-fi scenario for now, but better than eating creatures that are as smart as octopuses.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|6 years ago|reply
It's a good argument for eating less meat overall, one vegetarians seem to never make. In a world full of unprecedented levels of relatively new toxic compounds, eating less meat is a good defensive move, especially so if you have health problems.
I'm really picky about meat quality. In situations where my choice is something with low quality/highly questionable meat or a vegetarian option, I typically go with the vegetarian option.
Though be forewarned: It's a dietary path that gets you equally harassed by vegetarians and the meat-and-potatoes crowd, which can be incredibly aggravating and feel like the harassment is unceasing.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|6 years ago|reply
Whilst it's true that these concentrate in carnivores this is not a reason why we eat mostly herbivores.
Herbivores were plentiful and less dangerous to hunt. Then, herbivores are much easier and more economical to breed (you would need to breed herbivores first if you wanted to breed carnivores...)
You'll note that these decisions were made long before people even knew about heavy metals or had pesticides.
[+] [-] vegetablepotpie|6 years ago|reply
Now if you were to talk about ethics THAT gets a strong reaction simply because it’s much more intuitive and relatable. People’s responses can be receptive, antagonist, dismissive etc. but they certainly won’t be falling asleep in front of you.
[+] [-] ac29|6 years ago|reply
Seafood is different, since the food chain can be significantly longer and more complex.
[+] [-] marble-drink|6 years ago|reply
What kind of people are you mixing with if they are ceaselessly harassing you for what kind of food you're eating?
[+] [-] harimau777|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ailideex|6 years ago|reply
Such as?
[+] [-] keenmaster|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xrd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camillomiller|6 years ago|reply
"Given their exceptional abilities, one might ask whether humans should be eating octopus at all, but here we want to raise a different ethical question."
So we can eat stupid animals, but not the more intelligent ones, right? That's absolutely logically and ethically bonkers to just write this down as if it were a common piece of shared knowledge and give it for granted.
[+] [-] ericdykstra|6 years ago|reply
For those who see the world through the experience frame, they will be more worried about the negative impacts toward an individual octopus, seeing it as an intelligent creature that shouldn’t need to endure our fishing practices.
For those that see the world through the existence frame, the potential genocidal and even eco-system crashing impact of overfishing or various fishing practices is more vital than what happens to any individual creature.
Maybe this would be better as two articles, one that appeals to each type.
[+] [-] bsder|6 years ago|reply
You should point out the issue for all the tl;dr people.
The issue is that farming carnivorous seafood is a net ecosystem loss. This applies to more than just octopi.
In the case of an octopus, the conversion rate is about 3:1--you have to feed an octopus about 3 times it's weight in "other fish". Similar ratios are true for other carnivorous fish--none are less than 1.
Consequently, aquaculture farming of carnivorous species causes more overfishing and ecosystem strain and contributes nothing to food security.
[+] [-] egdod|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] undershirt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slothtrop|6 years ago|reply
https://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/groups/...
http://seafood.edf.org/octopus
There are sustainable and unsustainable sources. The same is true of all seafood.
The life expectancy of octopus is generally between 3-5 years, some live as little as 6 months. The extent of their intelligence is unclear. At most we have evidence that they have the capacity for long and short term memory. Given the standard of intelligence for animals cultures otherwise consume, this doesn't seem remarkable at all. To chase the ethical argument to it's logical end, as one of intelligence is purported, the only ethical animal then to consume is a non-sentient one.
[+] [-] CamelCaseName|6 years ago|reply
Is it better for an animal to be farmed and eaten, or to have never been born at all?
(Assuming we can farm them safely / humanely, even though the article suggests we cannot do so yet)
[+] [-] cybersnowflake|6 years ago|reply
Lets say aliens came and offered you a deal. You can either not exist or live a life of luxury with all delicious food and mates you want, then after 1000 years or so you'd peacefully pass away just like a natural death and you are informed that they'd eat your body. I'm pretty sure quite a few people would be open to this.The choice is even simpler with animals since from all evidence they lack the capacity for existential dread.
Now tell, me what would be the most moral choice assuming chickens are sentient? To indulge them to a pampered existence several times their natural lifespan...and yes, at the end disposing of their bodies in the most practical and beneficial way, its not like a chicken cares what happens to its mortal shell in whatever poultry afterlife may exist. Or leave chicken minds to the terror of being torn up by a fox in the wilderness or to never know the joys of existence in the paradise future ethical meat farms may offer?
[+] [-] mikekchar|6 years ago|reply
If a woman dies, we don't feel sorrow for any children (or their children, or their children's children, etc, etc) that will never be born. I am not a murderer for denying life to the billions and billions of people that will not be born if I've chosen not to have kids. Neither am I a hero for saving billions and billions of people if I choose to have kids (and good God, make sure my kids have kids and their kids have kids, etc, etc).
The question just comes down to: is it OK to keep animals to be farmed and eaten. If the answer is "no", then you gain nothing by bringing new lives into the world to subject them to it. If the answer is "yes", then there isn't a dilemma.
[+] [-] john-radio|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JasonFruit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway8879|6 years ago|reply
Quite impossible to answer generic questions and better/worse without defining boundaries.
[+] [-] dchapp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubberstock|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rdiddly|6 years ago|reply
...which we farm and eat like crazy!
[+] [-] Pfhreak|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xanth|6 years ago|reply
Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish. The conditions we keep them in and the impact on the wider environment is seperate
[+] [-] pavanky|6 years ago|reply
> The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself and, given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem.
The calories spent on raising and consuming animals higher in the food chain is exponentially more than consuming those lower in the food chain. This is the point they are trying to make. It wasnt about the ethics of eating Octopus itself, but the means in which they are being raised / procured.
[+] [-] fredsir|6 years ago|reply
Ignoring the farming and catching practices used to get most octopuses from the sea to the plate, which most certainly are unethical since they are unnecessary and cruel, and only look at "eating another being", I still think you are missing the point that octopuses has to eat the fish to survive since they are mostly carnivore's and don't have modern farming practices and supermarkets available, whereas we are omnivores and have those things available where we can get all the things we need from non-animal products.
I say that makes a big difference between us and octopuses eating fish, not to mention the fact that as far as we know, octopuses are not capable of understanding ethics like us, which also makes a big difference (if it were unethical for the octopus to eat fish, which it isn't since it needs it to survive). Just like we don't blame a human baby for unethical behaviour, but still hold ourself up to ethical scrutiny.
[+] [-] Retric|6 years ago|reply
To simplify The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself where feed is delicious protein.
[+] [-] tingletech|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pete-Codes|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesian_horse|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
Err, isn't the former up to actual ethics, which vary from place to place? Where do these "one size fits all" eating ethics come into place?
[+] [-] happytoexplain|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalbasal|6 years ago|reply
Pluralism is unstoppable, but so is our instinct to create/defend/assemble a common ethic.
[+] [-] ericdykstra|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Deimorz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guessmyname|6 years ago|reply
Many people in America eat cows, while they are considered sacred in Hinduism.
> […] Numerous videos on the internet of octopuses escaping from their tanks or stealing fishermen's catches have fuelled a human fascination with the only invertebrate that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds.
Mammals and birds, I hope everyone read that.
---
People are going against my comment thinking I am on the wrong side of the argument. And I feel like explaining my point of view even further will just increase the anger in the people that already expressed their counter arguments below. We will see if the public agrees with the thesis in this article and changes their eating habits to protect one of the hundreds of animals that are also considered sentient.
[+] [-] marble-drink|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technothrasher|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sudonua|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] codesushi42|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarcasmOrTears|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikig|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malvosenior|6 years ago|reply