So they're telling me that, if you put a lobster in a pot of boiling water with a ramp leading out of the water, it wouldn't choose to walk out? Can they not at least sense discomfort brought on by high temperatures? Maybe there is more evidence to this study, but, if so, you can't tell it from the article.
Speaking as a vegetarian, I can tell you that if you want to eat lobster, go for it. That is your business. If they don't feel pain, that's fine. I'm still not going to eat them because, despite not feeling pain, they still DIE in the process - worse than the pain, IMO. I'm not quite as strident as forebay, but I will say that the arguments relating to our eating them vs. an animal that mauls another animal in the wild are really off base. If you want to argue that they are available and you want to do it, that's fine. But, you can't argue that we NEED lobster to survive like the wild animal that kills for its food. If you lived in a place where lobster was the only available food source, it would be one thing, but we waste more food than we actually eat in America. Our table scraps could feed millions if that were an option. In reality, we need very little food to survive. Our choice to eat meals that could feed an entire family is a choice, not a necessity, just as eating lobster is a choice, not a necessity and, as a result, cannot be defended using the "we are no different than an animal eating to survive" argument. If you want to eat them, cool, but don't use the survival defense. It isn't a good one.
I don't believe it, either. I bet they experience pain. Or, at least the instinct to survive (as most animals do). That said, lobsters are mighty tasty! -- droxford
Regarding the pain issue, it is certainly possible that they don't experience pain. We can't really know one way or the other because they can't tell us. What it boils down to (all puns intended) is that we need to make those decisions consciously with the understanding that we may very well be torturing a living breathing creature for the benefit of our personal satisfaction. If you don't mind doing it, that's cool and you should go for it. But, let's at least be honest about it and not try to make ourselves feel better for killing something for food.
I don't really need to defend my carnivorous attitude. I like eating meat. I don't have to eat meat. I like to. But.... (here comes my rant) News flash: Animals aren't people. Animals don't have spirits. Animals don't go to heaven. And, honestly, I find it very annoying when people act like animals' feelings are just as important as humans. They aren't. People should not spend large amounts of time, money, love and care on an animal, when such precious things could and should be given to people/children. Don't love a cat. Don't love a lobster. Love a person. ..and then kill, cook and share the delicious lobster with the person you love. note: this post was not directed at anyone in particular. -- droxford
IYO. Keep in mind that there are many cultures that consider animals the top of the spiritual ladder. To each his own as they say. Shakespeare said it best... There are far more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Funny, but even thought I don't eat lobster, I freakin' LOVED them when I did eat meat. It is one thing that, if I took a day off from vegetarianism, I would go for pretty much immediately.
Jeff: Does any vegetable die when you eat them? Oh, they are already dead before you eat them? Or do they never "live"? What about eggs, it could have a chance for life also, you know
There is a line, obviously. At some point, you have to make a choice that does end with the death of something. You do the best you can and I'm not going to sit here and say that I never contribute to the death of anything with my eating habits. I do. It is the life we lead in this world at this time. My point was that, if we are going to be completely honest, we can say that our choices are our own and trying to justify the suffering of a creature we know is living, breathing, etc. by saying it is necessary is pointless. If we do it, we just do it. There isn't a rational justification beyond, "I want to." There is nothing wrong with that if you are honest about it. But, there is a difference between want and need. And, it shouldn't require any justification.
How do you know this? * Why doesn't anyone speak up for all those little yeast that are killed for beer?
I don't take away life cruely to satisfy my stomach, I do it to satisfy my taste buds and sense of smell (human's sense of smell greatly determines if the think something tastes good).
I'm not God. But he's is a good friend of mine. I asked him about this and he told me to eat the lobsters. Who am I to argue? -- droxford
The sensation known as "pain" is definitely many different things. Where as a cut from a knife causes immediate response, you can sometimes pick up something from the stove and not realize it's burning you for a second or two. A big part of neurology is getting people to re-express their symptoms in ways that aren't the limiting result of language. I believe that burn pain is caused by potassium which gets released when cell walls become broken? There's also bradykin and histamine mediated pain, but the point is that it's biological systems built on top of biological systems. It would not surprise me if lobsters were lacking in the ability to sense heat damage. I'd imagine that without burn sensitivity, it'd be a bit like dying from radioactivity, where you become confused and stop functioning. Of course, the lobsters have little sea-roach brains, so it's probably not too concerned. The big deal is the way that lobsters appear to scream when boiled, which apparently is just air leaving the shells and even occurs if you kill the lobster first, but would be very easy to anthropomorphize.
