Do Babies and Invertebrates Experience Pain?

[jobyts]

Makes me really sick.

 

[Evo]

OMG, I've seen this before, they make sushi from living animals. Horrible.

Beware, you may not want to watch.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I've seen it with lobster and it's disturbing. I don't get it.

 

[wukunlin]

it's still blinking... wtf...

 

[cobalt124]

I could never eat this. I'm hoping its illegal in the U.K. Wikipedia only names Australia and Germany as countries who have outlawed this.

 

[caldweab]

That's just sick. The frog was still moving, yet she was still eating his insides.

 

[trollcast]

Why did I have to watch that just before lunch

 

[D H]

I've seen it with lobster and it's disturbing. I don't get it.

How is the way we treat lobsters somehow more humane? We boil live lobsters, crabs, and crawfish. They are best when they are alive up to the moment they are dropped into that pot of boiling water.

Even closer to home, we eat live shellfish. Oysters on the half shell -- yumm. Marinated scallops -- double yumm. Those oysters are alive (or should be alive) right up to the moment they are chomped. Those scallops are (or should be) alive right up to the moment they are sliced and dropped in the marinade.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How is the way we treat lobsters somehow more humane? We boil live lobsters, crabs, and crawfish. They are best when they are alive up to the moment they are dropped into that pot of boiling water.

But they are still dead when I'm eating them. With the video I saw, the chef cuts the lobsters back open and people started digging in while the lobster was still moving around.

 

[jobyts]

How is the way we treat lobsters somehow more humane? We boil live lobsters, crabs, and crawfish. They are best when they are alive up to the moment they are dropped into that pot of boiling water.

Even closer to home, we eat live shellfish. Oysters on the half shell -- yumm. Marinated scallops -- double yumm. Those oysters are alive (or should be alive) right up to the moment they are chomped. Those scallops are (or should be) alive right up to the moment they are sliced and dropped in the marinade.

We, humans, are as empathetic as how much our mirror neurons tell us.

http://www.parentingscience.com/empathy-and-the-brain.html
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/do_mirror_neurons_give_empathy

A human resembling live eye on a plate gives us bigger secondary pain.
A half dead moving animal on a plate gives us secondary pain than a dead animal.
Killing an animal which has more features as our own species give us more secondary pain. (more empathetic on a mammal dying than a non-vertebrate(scallop, oysters))
It hurts you more when a cuter and bigger animal suffering (bird, dog, cat, rabbit) than a not-so-cute smaller animal (fly, mosquitto).
People who are against killing an animal for food has less issue with killing a mosquito.
It hurts immensely to watch a human die that to see a picture of a human dying. It hurts more to see a human dying than to read a news about some death.

So, to answer to why we are less empathetic to some creatures, it is just the way we are evolved.
We just seem to be more connected to some of the species.

If we kill another animal for our own evolutionary benefit, the action seems justified for the masses.

A half dead live looking animal on a plate might give a freshest food feeling for some minds, but there is no evolutionary advantage to it. Plus, we get confused what happened to their secondary pain.

 

[Monique]

Grosssssss, what's wrong with first knocking an animal unconscious before tearing it apart?

 

[ImATrackMan]

Can you eat Ikizukuri cuisine?

Yes. It's not that bad, just chew thoroughly.

 

[turbo]

I can't plead innocence, since I love shucking oysters and eating them, but at least they are not looking at me like the frog...

 

[Evo]

I can't plead innocence, since I love shucking oysters and eating them, but at least they are not looking at me like the frog...

Hopefully they don't feel pain, but the frog definitely can.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2279/

There was a recent study on crabs that showed they sense pain and remember. The crab's food was placed in 2 holes. One hole would give the crab an electric shock when it tried to go into get it's food. No crab entered the hole with the electric shock more than twice, they would only get food from the shock free hole.

This whole thing about eating food while it's alive is based on superstition, that somehow the "life force" from the living animal is transferred to the eater. It needs to be stopped.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

I would not eat such food.

I find it distasteful in more ways than one.

 

[Monique]

This whole thing about eating food while it's alive is based on superstition, that somehow the "life force" from the living animal is transferred to the eater. It needs to be stopped.

Yes, that's true. I watched a documentary where people in India would go to a convention to swallow a fish alive, because they thought it would heal their asthma.

For the Japanese however, I rather think the practice is done out of the need to have fresh fish that isn't spoiled. An animal on the plate that is still moving is an unmistakable sign that the meat is fresh.

On a side note, meat has to die/decay first before it's nice on the palate right? The live meat must be very tough to eat.

 

[surprise]

In agreement with jobyts, the problem here is logically flawed. Your disgust lies with the frog's appearance being remotely anthropomorphic (specifically, it's eyes), thus making it's prolonged demise seem identifiable on a human level, even empathetic.

If frogs looked like giant featureless blobs of jelly, we wouldn't have this problem. Whether it were alive or not, and whether it felt pain or not, would become irrelevant to this unique cuisine experience.

Throw your petitions away.

 

[inotyce]

They should get its head off the dish, customer won't eat the head with skin on alive anyway. It is there to disgust me, seemingly so.

 

[D H]

They should get its head off the dish, customer won't eat the head with skin on alive anyway. It is there to disgust me, seemingly so.

In our culture, yes. In their culture, no. To the Japanese (and many other Asian cultures), it's a sign of ultimate freshness. Just because we see it as gross doesn't mean they do.

 

[phosgene]

We, humans, are as empathetic as how much our mirror neurons tell us.

http://www.parentingscience.com/empathy-and-the-brain.html
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/do_mirror_neurons_give_empathy

A human resembling live eye on a plate gives us bigger secondary pain.
A half dead moving animal on a plate gives us secondary pain than a dead animal.
Killing an animal which has more features as our own species give us more secondary pain. (more empathetic on a mammal dying than a non-vertebrate(scallop, oysters))
It hurts you more when a cuter and bigger animal suffering (bird, dog, cat, rabbit) than a not-so-cute smaller animal (fly, mosquitto).
People who are against killing an animal for food has less issue with killing a mosquito.
It hurts immensely to watch a human die that to see a picture of a human dying. It hurts more to see a human dying than to read a news about some death.

So, to answer to why we are less empathetic to some creatures, it is just the way we are evolved.
We just seem to be more connected to some of the species.

If we kill another animal for our own evolutionary benefit, the action seems justified for the masses.

A half dead live looking animal on a plate might give a freshest food feeling for some minds, but there is no evolutionary advantage to it. Plus, we get confused what happened to their secondary pain.

In the first place, I don't think flies or mosquitoes feel pain. And I don't know about other people, but I tend not to focus so much on whether or not the animal in pain is cute, but how much pain it's in and whether it's necessary or not. Find me the ugliest animal in existence that can feel pain and I guarantee you that I'm going to be against torturing it. Humanely killing it before cooking it - okay, I can deal with that. But there's absolutely no need to cut something up while it's conscious, rip its organs out and then leave it to die in excruciating pain.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If frogs looked like giant featureless blobs of jelly, we wouldn't have this problem. Whether it were alive or not, and whether it felt pain or not, would become irrelevant to this unique cuisine experience.

I get the theory, but if you told me that blob of jelly was a frog and it was still conscious, that would be even more disturbing to me.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In our culture, yes. In their culture, no. To the Japanese (and many other Asian cultures), it's a sign of ultimate freshness. Just because we see it as gross doesn't mean they do.

Do the Japanese eat their kobe beef with the head still mooing?

 

[Monique]

In the first place, I don't think flies or mosquitoes feel pain.

Of course they are able to detect noxious stimuli, they have nociception. Flies can be trained to avoid being shocked. The idea that an animal would evolve without pain perception is a strange concept, an animal like that wouldn't stay around long enough to give offspring. The only thing we can't measure is the experience, but we can't even do that in humans.

Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_invertebrates

 

[wukunlin]

This reminds me of a book written decades ago that the author watched some chinese programme boasted how talented their chefs are. They turned a living chicken into 3 dishes in 3 minutes (thoroughly cooked in this case thankfully) and one of the dishes has the head of the animal as "decoration"

 

[D H]

Do the Japanese eat their kobe beef with the head still mooing?

Of course not. Fresh beef doesn't taste very good. Why do you think Texans invented chili con carne? Answer: To hide the not-very-good taste of fresh-killed beef (and also to hide the not-very-good taste of beef that really should have been eaten a couple of days before). Beef needs to be aged a bit to taste good.

Of course they are able to detect noxious stimuli, they have nociception. Flies can be trained to avoid being shocked. The idea that an animal would evolve without pain perception is a strange concept, an animal like that wouldn't stay around long enough to give offspring. The only thing we can't measure is the experience, but we can't even do that in humans.

Exactly.

The objections raised in this thread are a bit hypocritical. If you aren't a vegetarian you are responsible for some amount of animal suffering. How much? That's a difference of degree, not kind. To make the difference of degree even smaller, there are a good number of non-eastern animal husbandry practices that cause a good deal of suffering. It's just hidden from us. Ignorance of that suffering doesn't mean it doesn't happen.BTW, I am not a vegetarian. I love oysters on the half shell. I know that my disgust at that poor frog is cultural and hypocritical. I grew up on a farm amongst a family of hunters. I know to some extent what kinds of suffering are involved in animal husbandry. I also spent some time in Asia as a young adult. Their food preferences are a bit different than ours.

If you want to be outraged, aim it at whale sushi and shark fin soup.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That's a difference of degree, not kind.

I don't think we are debating the kind, we are debating the degree. If you are going to kill something to eat, make sure it's as quick and humane as possible. Enjoying meat from an animal while it is still suffering is barbaric to me.

I don't see the Japanese doing this with chickens and that meat tastes fine right away.

 

[Monique]

I love oysters on the half shell. I know that my disgust at that poor frog is cultural and hypocritical.

Well, eating oysters on the half shell doesn't license one to start butchering other animals without considerations, right? In that sense eating the oyster is hypocritical, not the other way around. Do consider that the oysters are always served on ice, so the animal is numbed by the time it's eaten.

I do think it's a good thing for heads to be served with dinner. If one cannot stomach that, one shouldn't eat meat

 

[jobyts]

But there's absolutely no need to cut something up while it's conscious, rip its organs out and then leave it to die in excruciating pain.

But that the way most of the preys die, eaten by the non-human predators. The ones predated by humans are the few lucky ones. This frog just had a very normal painful death compared to most of her buddies.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But that the way most of the preys die, eaten by the non-human predators.

So humans haven't evolved past the moral compass of a lion?

The ones predated by humans are the few lucky ones.

apparently not...

This frog just had a very normal painful death compared to most of her buddies.

If we have the ability, we have the duty.

 

[jobyts]

I'm not suggesting what we should or should not do. I'm just bringing up more data points for a better analysis.

As I mentioned earlier, more than the pain of the animal, it is our perception of the pain (or the trigger of the specific neurons) that is determining our morality. (of course, knowledge about the pain the animal goes through helps us to adjust our morality) The actions we do to other animals or humans are the result of the struggle between our empathetic neurons vs our biologic/sociological evolutionary benefits.

 

[surprise]

I'm not suggesting what we should or should not do. I'm just bringing up more data points for a better analysis.

As I mentioned earlier, more than the pain of the animal, it is our perception of the pain (or the trigger of the specific neurons) that is determining our morality. (of course, knowledge about the pain the animal goes through helps us to adjust our morality) The actions we do to other animals or humans are the result of the struggle between our empathetic neurons vs our biologic/sociological evolutionary benefits.

Humans, specifically women, tend to be more caring and empathetic towards even the most minute forms of suffering. Attempting to anthropomorphize a frog by assuming that it's subjective experience of pain is identical to ours is borderline stupid. Nature has no time for petty caretakers worrying about the feelings of prey and animals at the low end of the food chain.

So humans haven't evolved past the moral compass of a lion?

If we have the ability, we have the duty.

Morality has nothing to do with this. If morality played a role concerning the overall diet of the human race we might as well be all vegetarians. Thinking they feel pain at the level we do is a greater form of superstition as thinking eating them alive will make one receive their internal powers.

 

[Monique]

Thinking they feel pain at the level we do is a greater form of superstition as thinking eating them alive will make one receive their internal powers.

Proof that, or is it just your opinion that humans have stronger pain sensation than other animals? As said, we can't even understand why some humans experience stronger pain than others, there is no independent measurement of pain in animals.

Nature has no time for petty caretakers worrying about the feelings of prey and animals at the low end of the food chain.

We have plenty of time, we're discussing it right now aren't we?

 

[surprise]

Proof that, or is it just your opinion that humans have stronger pain sensation than other animals? As said, we can't even understand why some humans experience stronger pain than others, there is no independent measurement of pain in animals.

It would probably be a more painful experience for you to be forced to eat an Ikizukuri served frog then it would be for the frog itself.

I think your idea of pain is somewhat ill-defined. You seem to believe the sentient experience for us and the frog is the same, based on observations of instinct and the stimulation of receptor neurons. The frog's brain functions at a level that is so primitive it interprets threats to it's existence merely on a biological (physical) level, not a qualitative one. The best way I can explain this to you is to ask you this question:

Remember when you were a baby, and the doctor hit you, and for the first time in your life you felt pain? if you remember that day, then pain is; both a sensory & qualitative experience for an undeveloped brain. If you don't remember that day, then pain is merely a sensory experience for an undeveloped brain.

But that's just my opinion. (Coming off from a logical standpoint, akin to the reasoning behind empathy among higher forms of consciousness).

We have plenty of time, we're discussing it right now aren't we?

A non-qualified, broke 22 year old man argues about biology with a distinguished biologist with a PhD. Not really.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Morality has nothing to do with this. If morality played a role concerning the overall diet of the human race we might as well be all vegetarians.

What? There are plenty of vegetarians and many are for moral reasons. There are complex social economic and strong physiological reasons for why most accept a meat heavy diet.

Thinking they feel pain at the level we do is a greater form of superstition as thinking eating them alive will make one receive their internal powers.

No one is claiming they feel pain at the level we do. In your example, you say babies do not feel pain at an adult level. Why then is abuse of a baby illegal? We should then be able to smack them around as they don't feel pain at our level. It's superstition to think that hitting a baby actually hurts them.

 

[surprise]

What? There are plenty of vegetarians and many are for moral reasons. There are complex social economic and strong physiological reasons for why most accept a meat heavy diet.

No doubt. Thankfully we aren't all like that.

No one is claiming they feel pain at the level we do. In your example, you say babies do not feel pain at an adult level. Why then is abuse of a baby illegal? We should then be able to smack them around as they don't feel pain at our level. It's superstition to think that hitting a baby actually hurts them.

That wasn't what I was implying. I was talking about non-human subjects. How is eating a frog alive in anyway related to physically abusing a baby? Bear Grylls eats living frogs straight out of swamps numerous times on his 'Man vs. Wild' show. I doubt he'd do the same thing with babies. And I wasn't justifying the abuse of animals due to their inability to experience pain on a sentient level, I was backing up my opinion with an example.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That wasn't what I was implying. I was talking about non-human subjects.

Non human, so what about a chimpanzee? Is that ok to eat alive?

How is eating a frog alive in anyway related to physically abusing a baby?

Because as you claim babies feel pain on a "biological (physical) level, not a qualitative one", so it's ok to abuse them just like it's ok to abuse a frog.

 

[surprise]

Non human, so what about a chimpanzee? Is that ok to eat alive?

Don't watch the following video if you have a weak stomach -



What's "ok" as you promptly put it, isn't a matter of fact, but of opinion. Unless you can show me evidence of a book that outlines the absolute morals of humans concerning food consumption.

Because as you claim babies feel pain on a "biological (physical) level, not a qualitative one", so it's ok to abuse them just like it's ok to abuse a frog.

Again, if abusing babies is your thing, then that's your thing. Do I agree with it? No. But who am I? Am I God? So, define what's "okay" and "not okay".

 

[Monique]

The frog's brain functions at a level that is so primitive it interprets threats to it's existence merely on a biological (physical) level, not a qualitative one.

Can you explain that one? What is non-physical pain?

 

[surprise]

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known by the technical term "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Imagine if we created an AI embodied in the form of a robot. You already know where this is headed. Does it feel pain? obviously not. How do we know? Well, unless you believe the motion of atoms within it's mechanical brain somehow allows a pile of constructed plastic and electric wiring to 'feel' pain, then it really isn't able to experience suffering.

Which is why I subscribe to the belief that what we experience as pain is more advanced due to a higher form of consciousness. (i.e. non-physical, but metaphysical).

I should really be asking you this question. You have the PhD, so you're the genius, not me.

 

[Monique]

Yes, I am a biologist and not a philosopher that deals with the metaphysical world.

So you are suggesting that a baby does not have a high cognitive ability, so it can not experience pain? I don't don't think I need to argue that babies experience pain. A doctor wouldn't perform complex procedures on a baby without applying the appropriate analgesics. One can say "the child won't remember when it's older, so let's save some money and cancel the pain medication". However, the behavior of the child will change in response to the experience (the baby might even die, due to the stress). Other animals do so as well, including invertebrates.

Your example of the robot is not appropriate, since biology is much more complex than that. To illustrate, the following article has a thoughtful description: http://ilarjournal.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/175.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH

In order to experience pain one must first have the receptors and nervous system to process the information from the noxious stimulus. Then there must be physiological changes in response: stress, followed by avoidance learning and prolonged memory. These processes happen in primitive animals as well.

I often meet people who belief that fruit flies cannot learn and that they don't have specific types of memory, but they do. Rejected male fruit flies even turn to alcohol, which stimulates the reward center in the brain (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/sexually-rejected-flies-turn-to-.html ).

High cognitive ability is often an argument, but even humans with severe intellectual ability show signs of pain perception. Pain is not only a reflex (touch something hot, pull finger away), it's a complex biological system that's present throughout the animal kingdom. Our experiences are a result of chemical reactions, which are not exclusive to humans.