- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
For the first time in the United States, research with cephalopods might require approval by an ethics committee.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Don’t trust an octopus. Ever. You heard it from me first.
Well, I don’t trust squids either, specifically ones that fly…
You wouldn’t be where you are today if it weren’t for us.
😳
Thank you flying squid people. 🙇
They have so many arms, it’s practically impossible to see when they cross their fingers behind their back!
Hey. Don’t insult the many-armed. The problem is they only have a pitiful 8 instead of a respectable 10.
What kind of sad existence would a being with a measly 10 arms be able to lead? 12, and not fewer, as the gods intended!
What a sad, miserable existence armed creatures must live. I just use one of my many eyestalks to do anything an arm could do and more.
These arms built your entire civilization!
There was a whole Dollop episode about octopuses. They’re pretty smart and probably deserve it.
EDIT: Fixed my plural!
Fun fact, the plural of octopus is actually octopuses, or my favourite, octopodes!
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.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Octopuses is the English plural and most commonly used, but I personally use octopodes just cause I just like how it sounds lol.
Honestly octopuses just sounds awkward anyway
I need to find this one.
Weird they live so short
What about those we eat?
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)
Very well put, i agree.
Thank you :)
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.
No protections for them
otcopodes are actually the animal companions to the aliens. they brought them with because they just love the water.
or we can stop testing on animals
The alternatives are less ethical.
Gotta love these people solutions lmao.
Dude in the back who’s only been listening to his buddies text messages for what’s going on in class yells “OR WE COULD JUST NOT AMIRITE HAHA”
Perhaps, in the future, it would be wise to propose alternatives solutions like an adult instead of shitting on the fucking floor like an animal.
God damn
shitting on the floor like a fucking animal
Ah, I see you’re fed up with chuds too.
