Boiling Shellfish, Crabs, Lobsters and other sea creatures alive: should it be banned?
128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;32786701]They dumbest human in existence would outsmart the smartest lobster any day any time. No contest. They are much much dumber than us. And I personally value species based on their intelligence and their looks, i.e torturing a lobster is not as bad as torturing a cat, dog, or a human.
But that's just me.[/QUOTE]
That's like the worst thing i have ever heard in my life, do you know, how horrible what you just said is?
[QUOTE=DrBreen;32815290]That's like the worst thing i have ever heard in my life, do you know, how horrible what you just said is?[/QUOTE]
it's downright retarded but i wouldn't go as far as calling it horrible
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32786378]everything is alive before it is killed[/QUOTE]
life lesson 101
[QUOTE=Elexar;32816049]it's downright retarded but i wouldn't go as far as calling it horrible[/QUOTE]
but it is
As the owner of a Crab and a Blue Crayfish(Related to a lobster) I can verify they feel no pain, And under extreme duress, go into a coma-like state, I had two crabs at one time, One ripped the other's leg off and ate it, While the injured crab went into a coma state until its death. The minute it lands in the pot, It's gone. I love crustaceans and i love their meat, I view neither as wrong or inhumane, The "air escaping" thing is 100% true aswell.
To people claiming that lobsters or other animals "feel pain", you have to understand a bit about the underlying physiology of all animals.
As humans, we have two distinct parts that make up our nervous system. There is the concious part and the unconcious part. If you were to put your finger in a boiling pot of water, you'd pull it out without even thinking about it. This is called an involuntary nervous response and it completely bypasses the conscious part of our brain. Even humans in significantly deep comas retain this response even though they have no concept of pain.
Then there is the higher level response which is the voluntary one. In the case of you putting your finger in some boiling water, you would make a concious decision to run your hand under cold water in order to stop it from hurting.
Lobsters brains are wired completely differently than humans, and almost all of their cognitive function and response to nervous stimuli is on an unconcious level. You can probably consider being a lobster similar to being a human in a coma; you might respond to pain unconciously, but you have no underlying concept of it and therefore are unable to comprehend what is happening.
[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;32817289]To people claiming that lobsters or other animals "feel pain", you have to understand a bit about the underlying physiology of all animals.
As humans, we have two distinct parts that make up our nervous system. There is the concious part and the unconcious part. If you were to put your finger in a boiling pot of water, you'd pull it out without even thinking about it. This is called an involuntary nervous response and it completely bypasses the conscious part of our brain. Even humans in significantly deep comas retain this response even though they have no concept of pain.
Then there is the higher level response which is the voluntary one. In the case of you putting your finger in some boiling water, you would make a concious decision to run your hand under cold water in order to stop it from hurting.
Lobsters brains are wired completely differently than humans, and almost all of their cognitive function and response to nervous stimuli is on an unconcious level. You can probably consider being a lobster similar to being a human in a coma; you might respond to pain unconciously, but you have no underlying concept of it and therefore are unable to comprehend what is happening.[/QUOTE]
Can I get a source for the last paragraph?
As much as I hate using wiki as a source it says the argument is unresolved.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans[/url]
[editline]16th October 2011[/editline]
I have personally boiled over a thousand or more crabs and crayfish over the course of my life. I always wondered if they did feel pain but I know the meat is fairly bad if they are dead before being cooked. Might make me a horrible person but........ya know.
My grandma's boyfriend used to snap the lobsters neck before he put them in the boiling water because he thought it was inhumane to do that :(
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;32824459]My grandma's boyfriend used to snap the lobsters neck before he put them in the boiling water because he thought it was inhumane to do that :([/QUOTE]
Lobsters don't have necks...
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;32824459]My grandma's boyfriend used to snap the lobsters neck before he put them in the boiling water because he thought it was inhumane to do that :([/QUOTE]
Which did he think, did he think that it was inhumane to put them in the boiling water or to snap their ''necks''?
Of all the things you could pick for a case of massive animal cruelty I think this would be the least cruel, if certain factors are true.
GUYS GUYS GUYS!
GUYS!
GUYS!
I think we missed the entire point of this discussion!
HOW do you humanely kill plants to eat them?
I don't think it should. I mean if you don't boil seafood alive you'll spoil it. One thing I do to ease the animal's suffering is to drunk it with wine or vinegar.
Crabs have the same nervous system as a cockroach.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32827804]Crabs have the same nervous system as a cockroach.[/QUOTE]
It's simply not known how effective their nervous system is. You can't make statements like that when scientists, who tend to, y'know, know what they are doing say that they don't know.
Thus, it's best to err on the side of caution and make sure that they are properly stunned, then killed quickly and humanely. (of which boiling water tends to be the best bet)
They once determined if goldfish felt pain by strapping mini heat blankets to them and recording their reaction to heat.
Again, if you don't know, assume they do.
It's just giving them a nice warm bath.. Pinchy? PINCHY!
By the way it's the same with snails, except there are few alternatives because you can't exactly break a snail's neck or shoot it in the back of the head or anything.
As people have said, it's actually one of the most humane ways because they effectively fall unconcious before they die.
What No there are pleanty to go around we can keep doing this till we start to see decrease in numbers lots of fish is born each year and seafood is a food so it supplys many countrys and there are people that only eat seafood and Even if a law began it wouldent be followed due to people getting on secret boats and going out at secret times like late at night foggy at night and fish so.
"We can keep doing this until we start to see a decrease in numbers".
Generally by then it's too late...
[editline]18th October 2011[/editline]
Also this is a discussion on the ethical issue that is boiling the fish alive.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;32844590]What No there are pleanty to go around we can keep doing this till we start to see decrease in numbers lots of fish is born each year and seafood is a food so it supplys many countrys and there are people that only eat seafood and Even if a law began it wouldent be followed due to people getting on secret boats and going out at secret times like late at night foggy at night and fish so.[/QUOTE]
Generally you want to fish while maintaining healthy population growth. If you fish until numbers start to decline, then you have to lay off fishermen so the numbers go back up. Fishermen don't like getting laid off so they bitch and complain. Then, years down the road they're all out of a job because they fished into oblivion.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;32844590]What No there are pleanty to go around we can keep doing this till we start to see decrease in numbers lots of fish is born each year and seafood is a food so it supplys many countrys and there are people that only eat seafood and Even if a law began it wouldent be followed due to people getting on secret boats and going out at secret times like late at night foggy at night and fish so.[/QUOTE]
What No and then we type pleanty complete sentences to go around with no periods if we keep doing then we'd start looking smart because if we did then people would think we were actually potential for smart but we can't because stupid so.
Also I see you edited for "grammar" however, you need to try harder, maybe try looking into a third grade education.
[QUOTE=The one that is;32850072]What No and then we type pleanty complete sentences to go around with no periods if we keep doing then we'd start looking smart because if we did then people would think we were actually potential for smart but we can't because stupid so.
Also I see you edited for "grammar" however, you need to try harder, maybe try looking into a third grade education.[/QUOTE]
English might not be his first language, be cool.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;32844590]What No there are pleanty to go around we can keep doing this till we start to see decrease in numbers lots of fish is born each year and seafood is a food so it supplys many countrys and there are people that only eat seafood and Even if a law began it wouldent be followed due to people getting on secret boats and going out at secret times like late at night foggy at night and fish so.[/QUOTE]
I think you're addressing a different argument to the one posed in this thread; we're discussing the morality of boiling lobsters, not fishing practices.
But since I have a little time, we may as well discuss that too. You claim we shouldn't restrict fishing because:
1. There is an abundance of fish
2. We should only act when the fish population decreases
3. Some countries rely heavily on fishing to support themselves
4. It may be difficult to enforce the regulations
An abundance of a resource shouldn't affect your decision-making [I]unless[/I] you can safely say the factors involved are insignificant. An example of this is solar power; at some point, billions of years from now, the sun will indeed "die" and the power will not be available, but that is irrelevant as Earth's conditions will be too hostile for our species to survive anyway. In the case of fishing, the "abundance" of fish is not large enough to ignore given our current rate of consumption so your first reason is moot.
Your second reason makes little sense as we already [I]are[/I] seeing declining fish populations. The time to act is now. In fact, we've been restricting fishing for decades; it's not a new idea.
It's true that many nations, like Japan, rely heavily on fishing to feed their population. But inherently they are the people that would be harmed the most from a severe case of over-fishing. It's possible to feed those nations and preserve the fish population, but it requires planning and moderation. You need to plan your fishing around their mating cycles and only take as much as you need. Reducing oceanic pollution and raising artificial schools of fish are two methods that can help too.
One should not abandon the idea of implementing a law simply because enforcing it may be difficult or ineffective. It's understandable that some would break the law and fish more than their fair share, but the vast majority would not take such risks; it's a simple case of keeping honest men honest. An analogy: the locks on your house won't stop a determined thief, but they might dissuade your nosey neighbors. In some cases it is necessary to have laws that are borderline impossible to enforce, like keeping out illegal immigrants or preventing drug trafficking, simply to maintain sovereignty.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;32854292]I think you're addressing a different argument to the one posed in this thread; we're discussing the morality of boiling lobsters, not fishing practices.
But since I have a little time, we may as well discuss that too. You claim we shouldn't restrict fishing because:
1. There is an abundance of fish
2. We should only act when the fish population decreases
3. Some countries rely heavily on fishing to support themselves
4. It may be difficult to enforce the regulations
An abundance of a resource shouldn't affect your decision-making [I]unless[/I] you can safely say the factors involved are insignificant. An example of this is solar power; at some point, billions of years from now, the sun will indeed "die" and the power will not be available, but that is irrelevant as Earth's conditions will be too hostile for our species to survive anyway. In the case of fishing, the "abundance" of fish is not large enough to ignore given our current rate of consumption so your first reason is moot.
Your second reason makes little sense as we already [I]are[/I] seeing declining fish populations. The time to act is now. In fact, we've been restricting fishing for decades; it's not a new idea.
It's true that many nations, like Japan, rely heavily on fishing to feed their population. But inherently they are the people that would be harmed the most from a severe case of over-fishing. It's possible to feed those nations and preserve the fish population, but it requires planning and moderation. You need to plan your fishing around their mating cycles and only take as much as you need. Reducing oceanic pollution and raising artificial schools of fish are two methods that can help too.
One should not abandon the idea of implementing a law simply because enforcing it may be difficult or ineffective. It's understandable that some would break the law and fish more than their fair share, but the vast majority would not take such risks; it's a simple case of keeping honest men honest. An analogy: the locks on your house won't stop a determined thief, but they might dissuade your nosey neighbors. In some cases it is necessary to have laws that are borderline impossible to enforce, like keeping out illegal immigrants or preventing drug trafficking, simply to maintain sovereignty.[/QUOTE]
Human population growth is exponential. Fish population growth will follow that in a negative trend. Humanity cannot fish to meet the demands of people. We must eat within the reach of their growth. As far as I'm concerned, human population and product demand should not be considered in fishing. Only consider what we can take to keep the populations [i]growing[/i].
[i]"We must plant the sea and herd its animals using the sea as farmers instead of hunters. That is what civilization is all about - farming replacing hunting."[/i]
- Jacques Yves Cousteau
[QUOTE=OvB;32854400]Human population growth is exponential. Fish population growth will follow that in a negative trend. Humanity cannot fish to meet the demands of people. We must eat within the reach of their growth. As far as I'm concerned, human population and product demand should not be considered in fishing. Only consider what we can take to keep the populations [i]growing[/i].
[i]"We must plant the sea and herd its animals using the sea as farmers instead of hunters. That is what civilization is all about - farming replacing hunting."[/i]
- Jacques Yves Cousteau[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, but the alternatives are a "tough sell". You could enforce population control to temper demand, but that is usually viewed as unethical. You could encourage/enforce other means of food production but then you have to deal with the economic impacts of that alongside the cultural ones.
In Japan, land is in short supply so typical farming techniques simply won't suffice. They can (and do) import food but that requires they balance that economically with some exports; since they lack any significant natural resources that export is usually technology. Unfortunately the rest of the world is rapidly increasing their R&D (see India, China, Europe, Russia, etc) so they are losing their edge in that field. The only remaining option would be to grow the food using new methods, like hydroponics, that have a minimal footprint. Such foods may be viewed as inferior in the eyes of the consumer and require considerable capital. On top of all that you have the uphill struggle of trying to change an ingrained culture of catching and consuming seafood.
As I said, I agree with you. But one can't ignore the complex political, economic, and cultural implications of the issue.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;32855711]I agree with you, but the alternatives are a "tough sell". You could enforce population control to temper demand, but that is usually viewed as unethical. You could encourage/enforce other means of food production but then you have to deal with the economic impacts of that alongside the cultural ones.
In Japan, land is in short supply so typical farming techniques simply won't suffice. They can (and do) import food but that requires they balance that economically with some exports; since they lack any significant natural resources that export is usually technology. Unfortunately the rest of the world is rapidly increasing their R&D (see India, China, Europe, Russia, etc) so they are losing their edge in that field. The only remaining option would be to grow the food using new methods, like hydroponics, that have a minimal footprint. Such foods may be viewed as inferior in the eyes of the consumer and require considerable capital. On top of all that you have the uphill struggle of trying to change an ingrained culture of catching and consuming seafood.
As I said, I agree with you. But one can't ignore the complex political, economic, and cultural implications of the issue.[/QUOTE]
I know you agree, I was just adding on. Honestly, I don't think we'll stop population growth. Hopefully within the next 100 years, mars colonization will have begun and maybe a few centuries from now we will be able to spread out the population through two planets. Until then, we have to tell everyone to suck it the fuck up and stop eating fish. If we promote a healthy ocean there will be enough to go around, but the way it is now it's only declining. Fish we eat today will be a delicacy (or extinct) in 100 years if we don't do something.
Honestly, I think we need an enforcement agency, and a globally regulated system. Getting the whole world on board would be optimistic, but If we could run it through the UN it might make an impact. (until fishing is outsourced to foreign counties). You put an official on every registered fishing boat, count every fish going on and off the boat. Then employ Patrol boats much like Sea Shepherd (not ideologically) or a Coast Guard that enforces the fleets. Should a boat refuse to be searched/checked you chase them, spray them with a water cannon until they stop. (they'll stop or they'll be in the drink when their boat fills with water, then you pick them up and charge them with evading search)
While on the topic of overpopulation, Cousteau had an opinion on that as well:
[i]"Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer . . . . Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species.
This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it." [Emphasis added.][/i]
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32785933]Well if they're [B]shellfish [/B]I think they deserve it.[/QUOTE]
Had to
[QUOTE=Megadick;32865700]Had to[/QUOTE]
No you didn't. shut up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
