Author
|
Topic: Study says lobsters don't suffer in boiling water
|
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290
|
posted 15 February 2005 02:09 PM
Lobster study fuels debate quote: PORTLAND, Maine (AP) A new study out of Norway concludes that it's unlikely lobsters feel pain, stirring up a long-simmering debate over whether Maine's most valuable seafood suffers when it's being cooked.Animal activists for years have claimed that lobsters feel excruciating agony when they are cooked, and that dropping one in a pot of boiling water is tantamount to torture. The study, which was funded by the Norwegian government and written by a scientist at the University of Oslo, suggests that lobsters and other invertebrates probably don't suffer even if lobsters do tend to thrash in boiling water. The 39-page report was aimed at determining if invertebrates should be subject to animal welfare legislation as Norway revises its animal welfare law. The report looked at invertebrate groups such as insects, crustaceans, worms and mollusks and summarized the scientific literature dealing with feelings and pain among those creatures without backbones.
[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 15 February 2005 04:12 PM
quote: Pain is a very useful feedback mechanism, and I don't see why it would be less useful for invertebrates.
True, but that's not necessarily the same as "feeling" pain. If you put your hand down on a red hot stove burner, your hand will retract. It's a reflex loop that does an end run on your brain (in other words, your arm withdraws itself before your brain has any conscious awareness of the pain). As humans, with big brains, we'll feel the pain later, but for an animal whose brain is about the size of a mung bean, there may very well be no point in "remembering" or "feeling" the pain, if the reflex is sufficient to trigger an avoidance activity on the part of the lobster. All that really matters to the lobster is "move away from the possible source of pain". Being conscious of this, or even aware of it, is unnecessary. Many people believe that plants can "feel" pain in a similar way. They can move away from it, or recoil from it, but nobody believes that plants sit around all day thinking about pain. If what we're basically saying here is that lobsters and oysters and other simple creatures are, from a pain consciousness point of view, most similar to plants, then I don't have any trouble believing that.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 15 February 2005 04:44 PM
Hmm. An ad hominem argument directed at an entire country."Well, you know Norwegians, they would say that, wouldn't they?" [ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 15 February 2005 05:03 PM
This is certainly interesting, insofar as it kind of relegates lobsters and other primitive animals to the same category as plants (living, react to stimuli, but don't "feel" pain). I wonder if vegans can eat lobster now?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
alisea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4222
|
posted 15 February 2005 07:20 PM
Yum, snow crab ...Crab, lobsters and other crustaceans aren't related to the molluscs (oysters, clams, mussels, etc.), by the way. They are, however, in the same phylum as insects, millipedes, centipedes, spiders, scorpions and ticks. Yum
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 15 February 2005 08:03 PM
quote: As humans, with big brains, we'll feel the pain later, but for an animal whose brain is about the size of a mung bean, there may very well be no point in "remembering" or "feeling" the pain, if the reflex is sufficient to trigger an avoidance activity on the part of the lobster. All that really matters to the lobster is "move away from the possible source of pain". Being conscious of this, or even aware of it, is unnecessary.
I think it's preposterous to conclude that lobsters and other animals "don't feel pain". As Rufus pointed out, pain is far too useful a survival tool. I'm not a "Peta" type, but I don't think it's very honest to adopt these rationalizations. I'm the "Carpenter" and not the "Walrus". Cut us another slice. I like lobster. Let's not fool ourselves. Consider, Magoo, the spider. With a brain much, much smaller than a mung bean, it is able to reason out where to construct a web. Or, if it's not "reason", then an astounding amount of "instinct" is programed into that tiny, tiny space. Animals feel pain. They feel terror. Many experience love. And many are quite tasty. About the only human capacity I've never seen demonstrated by any other animal is our talent for self deception.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 15 February 2005 08:17 PM
it doesn't matter if lobsters feel pain. it matters if we feel pain. do we worry when we eat chicken, lamb, pork, beef or prawn? what do we think about when we see the lobster picked from the tank and taken away to be boiled?
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 16 February 2005 12:57 AM
quote: Let's not fool ourselves. Consider, Magoo, the spider. With a brain much, much smaller than a mung bean, it is able to reason out where to construct a web. Or, if it's not "reason", then an astounding amount of "instinct" is programed into that tiny, tiny space.
Actually, the complexity of the spider web is deceptive. You can develop quite complex patterns from very simple growth functions. Subtle, but simple ones.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 February 2005 01:24 AM
quote: It was pain that those lobsters felt.
quote: Animals feel pain. They feel terror. Many experience love.
Imagine how silly those researchers must feel now. All those years of undergrad, graduate, and perhaps even post-graduate studies. All those hours spent designing the methodology for an experiment that might have to pass peer review. All the observing and data recording and the writing and the editing... And all along, all they had to do was take their personal opinion — their "gut feeling" if you will — and declare it as fact. This can't be a happy day for the Science forum. quote: Let's not fool ourselves. Consider, Magoo, the spider. With a brain much, much smaller than a mung bean, it is able to reason out where to construct a web. Or, if it's not "reason", then an astounding amount of "instinct" is programed into that tiny, tiny space.
Consider also the chicken whose head has been cut off. Even a small child would realize that its body has no head, no brain, and therefore no possible mind and nothing with which to feel pain, assuming that it ever could. And yet this headless body, whose brain is smaller than a mung bean by exactly one mung bean's worth, is still able to locomote. It is able to flap its wings just as it could with the brain still attached. The complex behaviours of the chicken are simply reflexes. If reflexes can allow a headless torso to run around the yard (consider that a baby human cannot run around the yard) then ya, I'm willing to believe that complex behaviours can exist outside of a consciousness. Spider, chicken or lobster. Naturally, I'm not trying to go higher on the tree. I've no doubt that animals with larger brains and more cerebral cortex are quite capable of feeling not only pain but emotion. But lobsters? Large insects, for all intents and purposes? On what specific grounds should I doubt this experiment?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 February 2005 10:33 AM
quote: Wow. That is essence of anti-scientific attitude.
Have you been into the catnip? On the one hand you have an actual study, with an actual experiment, carried out by actual researchers, who presumably have actual training and degrees in Biology, Neurobiology, Zoology, etc. On the other hand you have people giving their opinion as fact. No, not "being skeptical". Giving their personal opinion on the matter as though it were a fact, on par with the results of an actual experiment. And you're telling me that if I don't see any specific reason to doubt the actual experiment then I'm not being scientific?? Let me be clear here: I'm not suggesting that once a study is conducted, it gets carved into stone and must never be doubted. But you doubt a theory or the results of an experiment when you have a good scientific reason to. Not because you'd rather believe something else, or because the results challenge something you hold dear, or because the results of the experiment "don't feel right". And I'm sorry, but unless anyone who wants to assert that lobsters feel pain can come up with an actual scientific challenge to this experiment, I see no reason why I should take their word for it. Do you? Tommy_Paine was not a true skeptic, and if you don't understand that then please, keep to the Humanities side of this forum. He didn't "doubt" the results of the experiment. He simply proclaimed them incorrect, and provided no scientific support for this whatsoever. If you think that that represents some kind of proper scientific method then I'm afraid you should stick to the non sciences.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 16 February 2005 10:38 AM
Ye gods, Magoo. A scientist does not continue to doubt because she has scientific proof against; she continues to doubt until she has scientific proof for!Sheesh. You go back, read that link, and tell me you have proof for. And then you survey all the "studies" done of brain and mind over the last generation and tell me they are not heavily interpretative. And your sneer at the Humanities is simply evidence of where your own ignorance and prejudice come from. [ 16 February 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 February 2005 10:48 AM
quote: Ye gods, Magoo. A scientist does not continue to doubt because she has scientific proof against; she continues to doubt until she has scientific proof for!
Anyway, your idea of "doubt" seems to mean "simply give your opinion as fact", so maybe we aren't talking about the same thing here. You do understand, don't you, that simply saying "lobsters feel pain" based not on any kind of scientific method, but rather solely on one's opinion of whether or not lobsters feel pain isn't actually "doubt"? I don't see much point in trying to discuss doubt when you don't know what it is, Skdadl. Seriously. It's not simply saying "that experiment is wrong because I don't want it to be right!".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 February 2005 11:20 AM
Well, it might have been nice to be able to see a bit of the actual study, particularly the methodology. I suspect the researchers were wise enough to say "probably" simply to hedge against, well, accusations of arrogance but considering the nervous system of a lobster, I don't think it's because they were overwhelmed by complexity.I can appreciate what you said higher up about the huge gaps in our understanding of the human brain, and that's certainly true. I'd extend the same to cats and dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, or any higher mammal as well, but it's because our brains are simply orders and orders of magnitude more complex than that of an invertabrate. I suspect it's like the difference between studying the guts of a computer versus studying the innards of a simple clock. I also know that much research has been done on the various cognitive abilities of animals. Cats and dogs, for example, cannot recognize themselves in a mirror. It's cognitively impossible. I know that many pet owners will find this uncomfortable to believe, but it's true. Most animals cannot "lie" or deceive us, because cognitively they do not have the ability to perceive a world in which they can know something that others can't. This has also been studied in children, and it's evident in very young children and then we grow out of it and become Liberals. But I do believe it's possible to study these sorts of things without having to "read minds" or swap brains or some similar. If the experiment is properly designed, and if it's built robustly on the backs of other robust experiments and their observations then I believe they have plenty of merit. So in this case I guess I tend to think that with an animal that is basically a very large cockroach, with a brain that's proportional and a very simple nervous system, and armed with the knowledge that as the brain gets smaller the cognitive functions — the functions where pain would be perceived or "felt" — diminish, I believe it would be entirely possible to test for, and rule out, those cognitive processes that would be involved in feeling pain. And perhaps I should state, because I'm not sure everyone's on the same wavelength on this, that when you're talking about "feeling" pain, you're talking about a cognitive process. An awareness, if you will, that takes place in the brain. Certainly most animals will react to what we imagine would be painful stimuli (eg: poke the animal with a pin and it moves away from the pin) but this does NOT mean that the animal has any awareness of the pin or the pain. It may, as when you poke a human, but this cannot simply be assumed for lower animals. A chicken with its head cut off is capable of reacting to stimuli too, like when you try to grab it and it wrestles away and keeps on running, and it should be clear to us that the lifeless head and brain feel nothing and are aware of nothing. The body reacts, but that's not the same as "feeling" pain.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 16 February 2005 05:52 PM
maestro I'll believe lobsters can feel pain when they start writing country music. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RealityBites
That would only prove they can cause pain.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 16 February 2005 09:40 PM
quote: On what specific grounds should I doubt this experiment?
I can think of several. Before that though, I will say that the difficulty we have here is that we can't as yet and the forseeable future actually climb into the brain or consciousness of another being so we can see for ourselves empirically. But, I think I'm going by more than a "gut" feeling on this. For one, our sceptical hairs should be standing up on the back of our necks whenever we hear of a study that tells us something that we'd like to hear or salves our guilty feelings. And, as pointed out above, it seems reasonable to believe that pain, and a large field of emotions are handy survival tools, so much so that to declare that something like a lobster doesn't feel pain needs a whole lot of garlic and butter for me to swallow.....er...evidence... I meant to say evidence for me to swallow. [ 16 February 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 16 February 2005 11:22 PM
Well, as Magoo more or less pointed out, lobsters are arthropods, i.e. in the same category as insects and spiders. The fact that they're larger doesn't make them more susceptible to pain. Interestingly the study did conclude that honeybees and other eusocial insects might well be able to experience pain, though the articles I've seen hedge on the subject. They also believe, as do I, that octopi are likely sentient.The problem is, it's very hard to tell when an organism's reaction to something goes beyond reflex. Does a Venus Flytrap feel an insect landing on it, and snap hungrily shut, or is it simply a much more complex version of a mousetrap? I'm inclined to think the latter. Do unicellular algae experience distress as they recoil from a spreading plume of iodine in the water? I kind of doubt it. Of course these organisms don't have nervous systems, but a nervous system is simply a much more efficient version of the endocrine system, if you think about it. Sure, electrical impulses are used along with classic chemical signals, but does a jellyfish experience anything, or is its network of neurons simply a mechanism that allows it to have reflexes? Of course, at some point the nervous system becomes complicated enough that, for whatever reason, the organism becomes capable of experiencing pain, pleasure, fear, etc. The hard part is in deciding what level of complexity is high enough for this. The Norwegian study is hardly the last word, but I think the research is important, if only as a way of providing guidelines (since, as others have pointed out, we are dealing with a problem which is primarily philosophical rather than scientific in nature). Edited to add: The point about this being primarily a philosophical issue comes from Ron Webb, in this thread. [ 17 February 2005: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 17 February 2005 07:04 AM
Interesting stuff, and thanks Mike for making the point about octopi, as I was going to take Magoo to task on it.Perhaps we can agree the principle that 'pain' be defined as a remembered sensation. As Magoo pointed out, snatching your hand back from a lit burner is a reflex, and a very useful one, but it occurs before the sensation of heat and pain reaches the brain. So to automatically and violently retreat from dangerous conditions such as fire isn't a function of detecting pain, but just a reflex that enhances the fitness of an organism within it's environment. 'Pain', then, occurs when an organism is either complex enough, or has the structures available, to sense and recognize a particular set of conditions from previous experience and avoid them. Note that I said 'has the structures available', so arthropods could still feel pain if they have the structures within them to experience dangerous conditions and avoid them, and continue to avoid them. Obviously you can't boil a lobster twice, perhaps a way to test this would be to expose a lobster to a tank within which there was a stream of boiling-hot water (I'm not sure that's entirely physically possible/practical), then see whether and at what point the lobster avoids the dangerous area. Consider: it's said that a frog dropped into boiling water will jump back out again, whereas one that's slowly heated will cook, never realizing what's going on. And that's a fairly advanced lifeform. Consider also: even organisms that feel pain aren't equipped to feel pain at some conditions that could prove fatal. Even humans can be struck down by internal complications that have no prior pain-warning. So feeling pain is adaptive to survival, but even in the highest organisms it isn't guaranteed.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 February 2005 10:50 AM
quote: as I was going to take Magoo to task on it.
How so? I wouldn't lump them in with crabs and shrimp and lobsters for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they're a little bit further up the tree, brain-wise. I once saw a video clip of a small octopus in a tank with a corked bottle. It crawled onto the bottle, removed the cork, and crawled in, completetly filling the bottle. For an invertabrate, it sure looked smug in there. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that octopi 'feel' pain either, but since they appear to have plenty more of the necessary neurological hardware, it seems a little more likely.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 17 February 2005 10:58 AM
Fair enough, but previously you lumped all invertebrates in together as being nor very highly developed in the brain department.If I could talk to animals, I think I'd start with an octopus. I'm more curious to hear your thoughts on the rest of what I wrote. More on smart octopi [ 17 February 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 February 2005 11:26 AM
I'm in agreement. I think it's necessary, in a case like this, to make a clear distinction between response to "painful" stimuli, and "feeling" pain. "Feeling" anything, whether pain, hunger, or ennui, requires certain cognitive abilities that I believe can be studied without having to "read minds" or perform other scientifically impossible feats of observation. I would suggest that one of these cognitive capabilities would be the conscious awareness that one is distinct from the environment, ie: a realization of the self, in some manner. I think that's the coginitive point of separation between simple reaction to the environment and actual "feeling" of anything. quote: Obviously you can't boil a lobster twice, perhaps a way to test this would be to expose a lobster to a tank within which there was a stream of boiling-hot water (I'm not sure that's entirely physically possible/practical), then see whether and at what point the lobster avoids the dangerous area.
I recall a similar test done with birds. The birds were given either water, or water with quinine in it to drink. I believe they could not taste the quinine, but it did act as an emetic and make the birds vomit (my Psych text actually had a rather comical photo of a bird, barfing). The regular water was clear, the quinine water was tinted blue, and had a flavouring added. The same birds, tested later, didn't mind drinking any clear water, and any water with the flavouring added, but they wouldn't touch the blue water with a ten foot pole. Clearly they had learned a fairly complex lesson: just say no to blue water!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|