> When the irony is that the same random argument applied towards Octopus can be done on just about any sentient beings like cow and pigs.
Or like humans! It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that animals are biologically very similar to us and that they're likely sentient and intelligent. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming otherwise. We share so much biology with animals (this is proven, not conjectured) but you're trying to tell me that somehow it's just humans who are sentient and feel pain? Then prove it.
> Let's just call this article what it is: To reassure non-octopus eaters on their superior moral creed and a license to preach this narrative to people who consume octopus
Doesn't mean they're wrong.
> These articles almost always seem to derive to us-vs-them narrative, the idea that the West is somehow the forefront of moral novelty and the rest of the world is behind.
That may be the case sometimes, and their patronising tone irks me as well, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about this topic. Also, they're not the first ones to voice this idea, not by a longshot. So feel free to decouple your annoyance at "the West" (by which I assume you mean the Anglosphere) from what we can assume to be true until proven otherwise (animal sentience).
I did not engage with your comment further since it signaled the same amount of moral depth like someone who will claim that homeless meth addicts are humans too and they will invite them to a warm dinner with your family.
I seriously somehow doubt that octopus is a hill that animal activists will die on seeing they failed to stop the whaling industry or a certain anti-oil virtue signaling girl with parents who work for the EGR industry who successfully convinced a bunch of people buy EVs.
I'm willing to bet that YC is probably going fund a company that will be able to produce imitations of Crustacean meat once the narrative Octopus Lives Matter have disseminated into coastal cities.
My enjoyment levels have nothing to do with the discussion. You're essentially using the same "we're superior to X" argument that has been regularly used for the entirety of human history to try justify what is morally unjustifiable.
> I did not engage with your comment further since it signaled the same amount of moral depth like someone who will claim that homeless meth addicts are humans too and they will invite them to a warm dinner with your family.
To me it seems you alternate between the "might is right" approach and "everything is the same, nothing matters" pseudo-nihilism. Funny you should talk about moral depth. I'm not trying to offend you but come on.
> I seriously somehow doubt that octopus is a hill that animal activists will die on seeing they failed to stop the whaling industry
Well, I'm sure in that particular instance there were also many people like you who at best mocked the entire effort and at worst did everything to oppose it for no good reason.
When plants are usually cut, it emits a certain chemical as a warning stressor to communicate to other plants, who on a very slow time frame are just as capable of perceiving stressors and able to adjust their exposure to nutrients and sunlight in a matter very similar to animals.
Yet because it is difficult to attach anthropomorphic qualities to it you are free to farm, destroy and eat, whom by all definition just as sentient as the mammals you describe.
> To me it seems you alternate between the "might is right" approach and "everything is the same, nothing matters" pseudo-nihilism. Funny you should talk about moral depth. I'm not trying to offend you but come on.
As I suspected there's nothing really to be gained here, if you do not understand the spirit of what is meant, that you were simply trying to bate me into an endless argument in an endless circle.
Poignantly r/european I might add
> Yet because it is difficult to attach anthropomorphic qualities to it you are free to farm, destroy and eat, whom by all definition just as sentient as the mammals you describe.
The existence of an adaptive mechanism in an organism doesn't mean that any organisms that have such mechanisms are sentient to similar degrees. You're actually completely contradicting yourself here by first arguing that other animals are "less" sentient than humans (presumably because of the neurological complexity of our brains compared to those of other species) and then continue by claiming that plants are similarly sentient to mammals.
If there is an intelligence behind such mechanism, it still would not fit your definition of sentiency correct?
How are you so certain that there isn't an intelligence to all living things, plant, trees, insects and animals? How can such intelligence not adapt to its environment and instruct its physical medium to change its behavior or rearrange itself spatial temporally to maximize survivability?
Is that not the definition of a lifeform? the drive to survive?
really bizarre you would limit your horizon here, is it to double down on your original argument that is in alignment with what the article is proposing and the rest of us are commenting at the irony of deciding what is ethically edible or not in a country where industrial scale farming of all things sentient?
All that being said, Octopus is also often found cuisines of Western countries that are coastal and some of the best I've ever had was in Greece and Mexico. I've also had it in Japan on a stick as a street food, fried in the Bahamas, grilled over a campfire in Italy, and a few other places.
In the U.S. I've only ever encountered it either at ethnic Asian or Greek places, or at high-end western dining experiences where the palettes are assumed to be more "adventurous". It's almost complete unknown as a food to most people and considered quite exotic and scary. But Americans are largely people who consider seafood to start and stop at canned tuna so...
That isn’t very accurate. Coastal Americans have had plenty of seafood to choose from, consider when they would serve lobsters to prisoners. Alaska is full of seafood to the point that it is a staple (and considering many of the Inuit communities who have been on that diet for thousands of years). Just because the customs are different from other coastal communities in other countries doesn’t make America’s any less sophisticated.
That’s not even getting into range. You won’t find lobster or octopus on the west coast unless it’s imported from a far away place. Better luck on the gulf coast, but you would have to be used to Cajun food (which is distinctly American with French influence) or Caribbean (ditto). Never try and Google Cajun and octopus together.
The gross statistics back it up. The average American eats about as much seafood as the average Russian, which is surprising considering one has ample fisheries and coastal areas and the other doesn't. Both countries are about mid-line per capita globally at something like 20-30 lbs (9-13 kg) per person per year (vs 60-80 pounds (27-36 kg) for countries like Korea, Japan, etc.)
More detail, if you look by locale in the U.S. the average Midwesterner eats something like under 1/4th the seafood of their coastal countrymates. That's not 1/4, that's again less than 1/4th so we're talking from zero to 7.5 pounds per capita.
Since population distribution in the U.S. is heavily skewed towards the coasts, you can estimate that for example, the average of 20lbs per person per year is representative of the average coastal person. This means that the average Midwesterner eats less than 5 pounds of all types of seafood per person per year or about something like less than 1 small shrimp per day.
The thing is, modern logistics make it possible to eat fresh Sushi in the middle of Kansas. Being away from the coasts isn't really an excuse as the availability is or can be approximately the same.
*sources: something something forgot to copy paste use the google or DDG it's like 2 minutes of searching plus some math
Flash freezing is relatively new technology (I assume that’s what you mean by “fresh”). It is not surprising midwesterners go all out on sushi (the real kind, not Californian roles) just because the logistics are easier now. Food is local because it has been that way for the last hundred or so years.
The miracle of the National Highway System makes Boston to San Diego a 50 hour possibility. Surely the people of Springfield Missouri would be fine with iced, fresh, 20 hour old fish caught off the coast of Connecticut! You can get an entire boat of fish from the Gulf Coast to Kansas City same day by road.
Delaware to Louisville is what 8 hours? But why bother, fresh mussels from Lake Erie don't even have to leave the state, can by caught in the morning after breakfast and eaten for lunch a couple hours later.
The Highway System is almost a century old. That's a few generations time to change preferences.
Because everything undergoes flash freezing in the boat anyways, 8 hours or 8 days isn’t going to matter much.
On average it is less sophisticated though. Most coastal Americans (US) only consume a subset of the breadth of diversity of seafood available to them relative to many other regions of the world.
You would have to specifically ask for this ingredient at a restaurant and it is only kept alive if it is prepared in a seafood restaurant specifically which they keep them alive and fresh to be consumed usually raw since its a bad idea to consume already dead raw fishes.
I guess what you wrote does a really great job of illustrating the subtle passive aggressive tones often used by journalists in the West to mock or bring their personal stereotype views of the world while virtue signaling, constantly thinking and telling others what a great, upright, outstanding set of moral upbringing you've had, will have as a result of the perceived quality of life you might be experiencing.
Following such mindset I can see why somebody in the West might be construed as uppity and condescending, they are not able to see at all the bubble that they've constructed not through actually perceiving things as they are but how it makes you FEEL informed, intelligent, morally superior being that you believe yourself you are.
Which really leaves to little debate as to what the PURPOSE of these articles are: They are specifically brought to light to make the reader believe they are morally upright descent human beings that the rest of the world simply isn't.
THE question to ask here is why is the population constantly subject to such reminders through mass media and why is there so much deliberate and urgency that can't be found in other parts of the world?
Does it strike you that what we lack is probably what we are taught to believe as it would not fit with the reality that has been constructed in this country?
What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them.
Yes and this is exactly the issue here, that people in the world are increasingly incapable of being grounded in principle, its whatever in that moment is trendy to believe, do etc., through group thinking. Social media does a great job of trust in large numbers.
And going back to the original parent comment, this is largely cultural is it not? We are simply using the ideas that arise from one culture to impose it on the other only to be disappointed.
> What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them.
It is insane to me that the people arguing octopus lives matter essentially, are not seeing the irony of their reaction, that they would continue to tolerate the farming of foods that they regularly consume (beef, chicken) but not under the same amount of vigor and without the same level of virtue signaling attached with such dangerous thought exercise.
The craziest take away is that literally people will stop doing a behavior that is inconsistent with their own values, as long as they are made to FEEL informed. If the documentary was mostly powerpoint slides it is NOT possible to FEEL because it does not try to pander or manipulate the emotions of the audience.
The sad matter of the fact is that being informed with facts that you have to weigh yourself and reach your own conclusion is too difficult, (boring even!) that the individual living in the so called "First World" CANNOT/MUST NOT be burdened with because they are too busy with whatever ephemeral activities they are engaged in at any given time.
Remember! Original Parent noted eating octopus NEVER bothered him UNTIL he saw a Netflix documentary. Or one can reduce this to an outsider: Individuals in the West are increasingly growing dependent on for-profit motivated organizations to think and judge for them. The more obfuscated and difficult it is to follow the cui bono chain, the increasingly emotional and tribal they become. ex) If YC startup selling imitation crustacean meat was behind the Octopus Lives Matter, one would immediately deduce there are biases and conflict of interest and such narrative would lose credibility. However, if the distance between whoever benefits and the narrative is wide and uncertain (multiple beneficiaries) it becomes increasingly credible (must be of good non-profit social cause) and resilient against Truths that challenge it. Often explanations that deviate from the narrative are labelled with hostility and written off as conspiracy...
and on HN, such contrary views are quickly downvoted and censored outright.
The article is about a farm in Spain in a region well known for it's octopus dishes. Not everything has to be about geopolitical ideologies.
When the irony is that the same random argument applied towards Octopus can be done on just about any sentient beings like cow and pigs. As a german, my understanding of Western narratives are almost always aimed at patting themselves on the back.
I still remember Western media going in to overdrive to condemn masks during the onset of the pandemic, deriding Asian countries practice of wearing masks when you are sick as some sort of a backward psuedoscience.
Let's just call this article what it is: To reassure non-octopus eaters on their superior moral creed and a license to preach this narrative to people who consume octopus, namely Asian and European countries.
Already the comments on reddit are poking fun at Asian countries for eating octopus when in fact its Western Europe that consumes the largest amount. Octopus isn't just that delicious as a sashimi in large amounts.