Sunshine (she/her)Scientists prove that fish suffer "intense pain" for at least 10 minutes after catch, calls made for reforms
Apologies for the thumbnail as it’s hard to look at.
einkornWas that ever up for debate? I mean, what do people believe happens when one takes a creature adapted to breathing through water out of said water?
Some fishing magazines downplay what the fish experience before being murdered.
SigntistMy dad is adamant that fish don’t feel pain. He just heard it from someone when he was young, and accepted it as fact because it made him feel better as a fishing enthusiast.
An example of a convenient lie when it suits humans.
AnAverageSnootWell, if he is a responsible fishing enthusiast, he should be putting the fish out of its misery by stunning it in the head right away. As mentioned in the article, this is still the best way to ensure that the fish don’t suffer
‘It’s OK kids, they’re made out of styrofoam. They can’t actually feel any pain’
they don't want to think about it, or they directly think that all animals doesn't feel pain (or that the pain the suffer it's not important because they are just animals and "we as humans, are above them".
As a kid I liked to go fishing with my step father, and we (or at least I) never thought about what the fish felt, as they were so different to us, and they taught us that this was normal and fun.
It was years later that I really thought about it.
hungryphrogApparently it’s a common myth that fish don’t feel pain. I think it’s because they show pain differently than mammals (for example, if a salmon let down an ear-shattering shierk when caught, I think we’d think differently) and people don’t want to think about it.
People also believe that goldfish have no memory, and insects don’t think or even aren’t alive. You’ll notice the common thread of these exonerating us for our tiny fish bowls and our swatting.
It’s like the modern version of “animals don’t have a soul”.
Broccoli screams, you just can’t hear it.
OP has provided scientific evidence, feel free to do the same to support your claim - I’d wager this is gonna be hard.
And apologies if there was a /s I missed somewhere, I’m quite sensitive about this topic.
Come on, you can do better.
On the wikipedia page you linked, there is exactly zero occurrence of the word “pain”.
The only part that could remotely be linked to your previous argument does not indicate pain at all.
The GLVs responsible for the smell of freshly cut grass play a role in plant communication and plant defence against herbivory, functioning as a distress signal warning other plants of imminent danger and, in some instances, as a way to attract predators of grass-eating insects.
This paragraph is a less sensational and more serious reformulation of the source material, an opinion piece stating the following without a single scientific reference
Trauma, that’s what. It’s the smell of chemical defenses and first aid. The fresh, “green” scent of a just-mowed lawn is the lawn trying to save itself from the injury you just inflicted.
This piece was posted in May 2012 on mentalfloss.com, so not really a scientific study.
Also, nothing in there speaks of the brocoli, which you fist referred to.
You’re going to have a difficult time cutting through others’ cognitive dissonance. Humor, distancing, false-equivalence, and sarcasm… Are all refuge from the discomfort of being indifferent at best, or outright complicit. If people could start accepting it’s just sad.
I wish more people were mature enough to look at truth straight in the face.
Dude doesn’t even look at usernames. 🤡
Nothing in either comment speaks about pain either, just screams. I only posted the wikipedia link because it referenced the numerous articles about this well established phenomenon. I didn’t realize I was defending a doctoral thesis here. Y’all are fucking toxic.
Ah so stepping on kittens is the same thing as stepping on grass. Great logic…
this isn’t what they said
It’s pretty well known that plants don’t just passively endure damage—they communicate chemically with each other through the air or root systems.
Here are two examples:
Acacia Trees
When attacked, the tree releases ethylene gas into the air. Nearby acacia trees detect this gas and respond by increasing tannin production in their leaves, making them bitter and potentially toxic to herbivores. This chemical warning system helps protect not just one tree, but others nearby as well.
Tomato Plants
When attacked by pests like caterpillars, tomato plants release VOCs (such as methyl jasmonate). Nearby tomato plants “smell” this and preemptively activate their own defenses, such as producing chemicals that deter insects or attract predatory wasps.
Almost all people would agree that’s not the same thing as the subjective experience of pain, though. By that measure, a smoke detector is actually screaming when it’s power is interrupted.
Plants don’t have organs for movement or information processing, because those are too energy intensive and wouldn’t help much. Their other tissues respond to stimuli, but the data rate is orders of magnitude slower than an animal in the same environment.
I’m not sure why these signals would need to reach any significant complexity, but if they did amount to thought it would have the weird property that the plant’s mind grows (with it’s “body”) about as fast as it can think. And it’s kind of beside the point. Stealing from [email protected]:
Plants have feelings too
No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding.
Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…
TonyTonyChopperFuck it. I’m becoming an autotroph.
Or you can just eat a plant-based diet that’s actually viable.
Plants have feelings too
No, they do not. There is no serious study to suggest that they do. Plants do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
If you really care that much about the welfare of plants, you should go vegan, since many more plants “die” for animal feeding.
Do you feel bad while mowing your lawn? And would you rather rescue a potted plant than a dog from a burning house? Is docking pig tails the same as branch trimming to you? Question upon question…
I don’t love the disregard for plant life just because they lack the central nervous system of animals, but this isn’t an argument in favor of eating animals. If you want to argue it’s better for us to die than to live via harm, that’s one thing, but if you accept we have the right to live at the expense of other life forms then the goal of many becomes to minimize suffering.
While plants do have sensory experiences which elicit behaviors, they don’t experience the world in a personal way; they’re like a robot or generative AI. When a dog suffers, it has a concept of self and an understanding of what is happening to it, and it will carry memories of the experience which negatively influence its quality of life.
Prove it. They do not have any sound-producing organs, nor any structured nervous system to coordinate a non-hormonal response to anything.
jarfilCan we solve human suffering first? Not saying this isn’t important… just that it’s kind of hypocritical to shift the focus away from the “hard” stuff, to something “easier”.
This isn’t a zero-sum game you can help people and the animals at the same time. You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention from dog abuse so don’t do it with the fish.
Please leave this thread and post articles about human suffering rather than attacking articles that advocate for the better treatment of the animals.
🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖Well we do live in a capitalist society and capital is a zero sum game so it is a zero sum game just slightly more abstract.
This isn’t a zero-sum game you can help people and the animals at the same time.
Prove it.
Show me how you get the resources to do both. Animalists are high on saving whales, kitties, puppies, etc. while letting their neighbors die home alone, or worse… when not directly saying “I love animals, I hate people”.
Please leave this thread and post articles about human suffering
No, I think I’m right where I should be. I don’t doompost either.
apotheotic (she/her)Let’s address the issue of fishing, by having everyone go plant based. Give some transitionary period so that the infrastructure keeps up. Suddenly, we are putting out far less greenhouse emissions and have loads more land and resources available to tackle other issues, because plant based diets use a fraction of the land and resources to support, and generate far lower emissions.
The climate situation stops enshittening at the rate it is, and we can allocate the freed up resources and land to “more important” issues, like (directly back into) climate change, homelessness, and world hunger.
We save fish and cows and chickens and pigs and etc from living tortured lives (yes, there will be a massive drop in livestock population as we stop breeding them to live in factories).
I love animals. I love people. This is a false dichotomy.
This is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason to do both.
And honestly, people who advocate for animal welfare tend to also be more outspoken against human suffering.
people who advocate for animal welfare tend to also be more outspoken against human suffering
If I got a cent for every time I’ve heard an animal advocate say “I love animals, I hate people”… I’d have a couple bucks already. This thread seems to count towards that.
OK, but can we solve everyone elses before we even think about yours and anyone related to you?
Haha I love this response. Force this person to grow their own food because the farmers have more important people to feed.
You “love” the idea to “force” people to suffer, because they aren’t your chosen ones?
Are you sure?
Any critique of capitalism that ignores this aspect of exploitation is bullshit.
The 2 trillion figure is the minimum: it could be more than 6 trillion every year, and the elephant in the room is that more than half of those are factory farmed - which means for most, their entire lives are torturous.
being farmed isn’t torture.
I beg to differ.
Inhumane Practices on Factory Farms
The rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs (often referred to as “factory farms”) that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures, but as production units. Raised by the thousands at a single location, animals are confined in such tight quarters that they can barely move, let alone behave normally.
torture means that pain/distressed are caused intentionally. like beating someone so they give up information. that’s not the case in farming. sometimes, animals are caused pain or distress, but the point of the activity is not to cause it. if a farmer could raise their livestock and never cause them any pain or distress for the same cost, i’m sure they would. the pain is incidental, not intentional. it’s not torture. qed.
trolling or just willfully ignorant?
why not both?
yeah, killing the animals so you can consume their flesh, after all their lives being in a enclosed space designed to maximise the profits, isn't bad or torture for the animals.
the bad things happening to them from that life is just a byproduct of wanting to use their corpses for other things, so it can be considered torture, right?
it doesn't matter what is the explicit or direct intent, they are being abused, mistreated and tortured, just for personal and human gain.
you can torture other people physically, emotionally or psychologicaly without it being the direct intent for your actions, but the torture will still be there.
torture is intentional. the pain and distress caused by farming is only incidental.
Ah, technically correct, the best kind.
Okay, equivalent in unpleasantness to prolonged torture.
Maypull is not worth talking to. They’re defending the cruel multi-billion dollar animal agriculture system no matter the cost to the animals, the environment and the workers.
Depends massively on the farm and the practices.
Being a cow on a pasture looks okay most of the time. Factory farms should not exist.
OmegaHow would you ethically kill fish? For animals you could raise them to be old and live decent lives in a free range area and kill them with a stunner, but what about fishes?
Also, what are some good alternatives to fishes for your diet?
Can you ethically kill your dog when they want to live?
You can make fish alternatives with carrots, tofu, jackfruit, seitan, oyster king mushrooms, chickpeas, tempeh, anti choke.
there is no evidence non-human animals understand personal mortality. we can’t say they want to live, since there’s no evidence they understand that they themselves are living or could die.
Oh yes let’s ignore the fact that fish intentionally avoid being eaten in the ocean. I smell concern trolling, intentionally making false claims as if they were “the absolute truth.”
if you can point me to an animal behavioral-cognition study that shows any non-human animal understands personal mortality, i’d love to read it. all the studies i have found that get close to talking about it go out of their way to point out they don’t have evidence of it.
you can't kill ethically a fish, cow, pig, dog, etc.
sometimes there are "humane" times you have to kill, for some reason, another animal, because they are really suffering and it's impossible to bring them to health.
anything else, is unnecessary.
There are a lot of alternatives for a plant based diet, and being healthy, you have to be informed to know what to eat, and with which thing combine it (rice and beans, together, are a complete protein).
there is tofu, seitan, different types of grains and legumes that are protein complete or that you can complete between them
you can’t kill ethically a fish, cow, pig, dog, etc.
i think it’s amoral
Just like it’s amoral to kill ethically a dog and a cat.
in most circumstances, probably.
Edit: CW Don’t read if you don’t want descriptions of death of fish
Different ethical systems presume different things. That aside, I think the most universal thing is to minimise suffering. So it you’re going to fish, there are ways to minimise suffering of catch. It really depends your setup. But obviously the number one thing is do everything in your power to only catch things you will eat. Secondly, when you do catch something, don’t let it asyphixiate slowly to death. You can do a clean cut around the gill arches or the caudal artery. Which will hit the main veines and drop blood pressure to the brain really quick (very very quick death), this is also useful because then the fish bleeds out which prevents blood pooling in the meat from turning it rotten. Some people prefer to stun the fish before any cutting at all, so the first thing they will do, is hit something hard on the fish’s head which will immediately render it unconscious, then cut the arteries.
The whole asphyxiation to death is really the worst because it takes many many minutes and fish go through things like lungs collapsing and blood clotting which bring immense pain before being unconscious.
I think the most universal thing is to minimise suffering.
that’s just not true. the only ethical system i know of that holds this axiom is utilitarianism, and that is fraught with issues from epistemics to the fact it can be summarized “the ends justify the means”