Clams, oysters, scallops and mussels

[Mahk]

I didn't know you were vegan for health reasons.

I'm not. For me personally it is 99% about not harming sentient beings. Plants are not sentient beings. I kill them and eat them routinely, as do you (assuming you aren't a fruitarian). I get your point that animal food wastes more plant life than killing just plants as a direct food though.
------------------------------------------------------------
Porifera (sponges) were the first multi cell animals and if you believe in evolution (and the current DNA evidence supports a single common ancestor to all animal life, according to that previous link I gave) then this is our family tree:

Notice all life is descended from the evil, gobble-you-up character from Ms Pacman^

[ALexiconofLove]

Sorry I dissappeared from this discussion for ages (wedding and honeymoon! ).

For me personally it is 99% about not harming sentient beings. Plants are not sentient beings. I kill them and eat them routinely, as do you (assuming you aren't a fruitarian).

Ah, but Haniska said that according the definition she found of "sentient," plants were in fact sentient?

There's a blurb on Wikipedia about the book "The Secret Life of Plants" that discusses the idea that plants might be sentient (in the form of releasing chemicals to protect themselves and the like): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants.

And here's a blub from the article "Plant Defense Against Herbivory":

"There are four basic strategies plants use to reduce damage by herbivores. One strategy is to escape or avoid herbivores in time or in place, for example by growing in a location where plants are not easily found or accessed by herbivores or by repelling herbivores chemically (also termed non-preference or antixenosis). Another approach is the plant tolerates herbivores, by diverting the herbivore to eat non-essential parts of the plant, or developing an enhanced ability to recover from the damage caused by herbivory. Some plants encourage the presence of natural enemies of herbivores, which in turn protect the plant from herbivores. Finally, plants protect themselves by confrontation; the use of chemical or mechanical defenses, such as toxins that kill herbivores or reduce plant digestibility (also called antibiosis).[1] These defenses can either be constitutive, always present in the plant, or induced, produced in reaction to damage or stress caused by herbivores."

Note the last sentence in particular.

From the same article, here's a blurb about a mechanical defense that one plant has:

"Thigmonastic movements, those that occur in response to touch, are used as a defense in some plants. The leaves of the sensitive plant, Mimosa pudica, close up rapidly in response to direct touch, vibration, or even electrical and thermal stimuli. The proximate cause of this mechanical response is an abrupt change in the turgor pressure in the pulvini at the base of leaves resulting from osmotic phenomena. This is then spread via both electrical and chemical means through the plant; only a single leaflet need be disturbed.[33]

This response lowers the surface area available to herbivores, which are presented with the underside of each leaflet. It may also physically dislodge small herbivores, such as insects.[32] Thigmonasty is not only useful in discouraging herbivores, however. For instance the venus flytrap makes use of it to catch its own food."

Many plants have some kind of defense to avoid being eatenor over eaten. Anything else would not be advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint. But that doesn't mean they don't "want" to be eaten or that they "fear" being eaten, because the states of "wanting" and "fearing" require a central processing unit. Right...?

I think the question at the heart of this thread (which Mahk has pointed out!) is... what exactly is the difference between plants and animals that makes it okay to eat plants and not to eat animals?

When people ask me, I always says that plants don't have brains, but my best friend's husband called me on the clam/mussel/oyster/scallop thing. So I don't know.

I don't eat them, but primarily because the way they are harvested is bad for the environment, and because it removes animals from the food chain (there are other animals in the ocean who need to eat clams/mussels/oysters/scallops to live, whereas I do not). The good thing about agriculture is that you are not taking food out of the wild that other animals will need (of course, you are taking land that could be growing food for animals and acting as habitat for animals).

[Mahk]

Ah, but Haniska said that according the definition she found of "sentient," plants were in fact sentient?

There isn't a singular definition of "sentient", there are a few. In our context, when I say I try to avoid harming sentient beings I mean living beings that are aware and have thoughts and feelings. Plants, like rocks, aren't aware and have no thoughts or feelings. This is generally accepted by 99.9999% of the scientific community. The people who believe otherwise are paranormalists who might also believe in Big Foot, space aliens living among us, gremlins etc. Their views are not science, they are pseudoscience. The fact that some layman idiot conducted some shoddy experiments and there's a best selling book about it called The Secret Life of Plants doesn't sway me. People just love to anthropomorphize the world around them so the book was a huge hit with the lay public. The "testing" wasn't conducted by a scientist, he was a polygraph technician for Pete's sake, and had absolutely no training in botany, cognition, or any other related science. The book also talked about lots of other mumbo jumbo including: aura, psychophysics, orgone, radionics, kirlian photography, magnetism / magnetotropism, bioelectrics, and dowsing.

If you drop a tablespoon of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) into a half filled cup of vinegar you will see a "reaction"; the baking soda will toss and turn violently as it "writhes in pain" from the exposure to the acid. Does this prove the baking soda has feelings and thoughts? Reaction and motion do not prove thought.

I thought I linked to this earlier, no?

Also:

In the scientific community as a whole, paranormal biocommunication has been subjected to much criticism, and is largely regarded as a pseudoscience. Overall, there is little concrete, universally verified evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory, and it is therefore apt to receive a great deal of contempt among scientific circles, often disdainfully called 'the Backster Effect'.

source.

what exactly is the difference between plants and animals that makes it okay to eat plants and not to eat animals?

Simple. Plants don't have thoughts and feelings. They don't "want" or "fear" as you say. They do have reactions to stimuli just like the baking soda reacts but there isn't any thought process going on.

Best wishes on your nuptials!

[ALexiconofLove]

But how can clams, mussels, scallops, etc. have thoughts and feelings if they have no brain?

ETA: you say "there isn't any thought process going on" for plants, but surely there isn't for mussels either?

[Mahk]

But how can clams, mussels, scallops, etc. have thoughts and feelings if they have no brain?

ETA: you say "there isn't any thought process going on" for plants, but surely there isn't for mussels either?

I'm not sure about clams, etc. but I'm dead certain about plants; they are not aware.

From my earlier research the acid test to determine the ability to perceive pain seems to be as follows:

A) Expose creature to a noxious stimuli such as an electric shock, poke it with a sharp knife or pin, sear it with a red hot iron, etc.

B) See if there is any reaction or avoidance behavior. If there is then

C) Inject the individual with an opiate such as morphine and repeat the noxious stimulus test.

Conclusions:

If the earlier reaction or avoidance behavior is gone, then it is assumed that the opiate has successfully acted as a pain inhibitor. Only a sentient being has pain. If the opiate has no effect then the reaction exhibited may just be an evolutionary adaptation that benefited the survival of that strain such as the chemical process that causes a plant to turn toward the light as I explained in an earlier post which has no thought process involved, what so ever.

I don't know if such tests have ever been carried out on clams but will attempt to research that later, got to go. Ciao.

P.S. Clams do have nerves and ganglia so I'm pretty sure the opiate will work. Sponges however.....

[YOUTUBE]HrBijKf0Ywk[/YOUTUBE]

P.P.S. In this video it would be hard, although not impossible, to explain that these following thought processes have not occurred: "I think now, as opposed to a random time, would be a good time for me to bury myself in the sand. My outer shell has no nerve sensors but I can sense which direction is up and through evolutionary selection perhaps know to dig down (the opposite of up). Push! Push! Push! Push! OK now I will take a break and assess how far I am covered.... Hmmm... almost there, just a little more. Push!" There seems to be a lot of thinking going on, no?

[ALexiconofLove]

I'm still confused on how a thought process goes on without a brain, as everything I know about thought and thought processes involves brains. But I too will research!

[ALexiconofLove]

For those who care, here is Peter Singer's take: http://www.wesleyan.edu/wsa/warn/singer_fish.htm.

And yeah, I know he's not a real vegan/vegetarian.

[Mahk]

I'm still confused on how a thought process goes on without a brain, as everything I know about thought and thought processes involves brains.

Me too. Also is it not "the brain" that sends the signal to the heart to beat faster when oxygen in the blood is running low, etc.? Remember all those similar internal organs to ours I showed here? Are they all running independently on "auto-pilot"?

I'm thinking either the ganglia clusters can do primitive "thinking" or there is a brain but we haven't found it yet. Hard to believe right? Well check this out (that I learned yesterday): If asked which was larger a human penis or a human clitoris how many would respond penis? WRONG! They are about the same size! In only the past few years we've come to realize that the part of the clitoris we see on the outside is just the tip of the iceberg! The full organ is quite large, 95% internal, has two long legs called cura, other larges parts called vestibules and "rivals the size of a penis!" I'd post a pic but just in case some might be sensitive to that I'll provide a link instead. It's an anatomical drawing and not pornographic or anything. How we could have only discovered this in the past few years boggles my mind. [God damn, @#$%, male dominated, male centric, patriarchal, misogynist medical industry!]

[ALexiconofLove]

Oooh, good point. Hadn't even thought of that. Hm.

[Haniska]

Hi Haniska, what is it that's different between plants and animals that makes it OK for you to eat plants but not OK to eat animals?

Korn,

That is what I am asking. When I first became "vegetarian" I continued to eat clams for a while until I learned that they try to escape danger. This said to me that they were sentient creatures, but WHAT IS the difference between a clam escaping and a plant expressing toxins?
What is it for you?

I also felt that sexual reproduction was key, but plenty of *sentient animals* do not engage in sex.

[Mahk]

WHAT IS the difference between a clam escaping and a plant expressing toxins?

For me the answer is simple: Thought. Plants don't think.

For example, when you accidentally cut yourself certain elements of your blood (white blood cells and some other things if I recall) automatically go to address the problem, clot the hole, start the healing process and patch you up. This is all done without any thinking on your part. It would happen even if you were asleep or in a coma. When a plant releases auxins due to a stimulus it is the same thing as when our white blood cells go off to attack an infection; both reactions are automatic and have no "thinking" going on.

I also felt that sexual reproduction was key, but plenty of *sentient animals* do not engage in sex.

Individual beings perhaps, but all sentient animal species have sex at least sometimes. Am I missing one?

All animals species have to have both the ability to (at least occasionally) sexually reproduce and a gastrointestinal tract to digest food.

[ALexiconofLove]

For me the answer is simple: Thought. Plants don't think.

I have yet to see proof that clams, mussels, etc. think, which seems like it would be very difficult without a brain. Internet research mostly indicates that they do not think or feel pain, but I don't trust the sources I've found that say that. I need to find a biologist or something....

[Mahk]

I'm dead certain plants don't think, feel pain, or are aware, much like rocks. Like many things, including baking soda and vinegar, they have reactions to stimuli but that doesn't prove sentience.
The verdict on clams is still out, I agree. The complexities of how they sense direction to dig (in humans that would be determined by the cochlea in the inner ear but processed by the brain), decide to bury, sense burial depth so they know when to stop digging, eat (or decide they are full and stop eating), sense predators and evade attacks, release sperm (or eggs) at the right time, etc seems very hard to explain without "thought" going on.

In researching them I think the scientists who would address this would refer to them as "bivalves", so an internet search on "bivalve +intelligence +pain +perception" would yield better results than "clam +intelligence". So far for me no luck, but I continue.

[xrodolfox]

Consumption of marine animals, including mulusks, is not nessesary for me to thrive. In fact, since they are animals, and have a discrete nervous system, I see nothing but the potential to cause suffering in killing those animals unessarily.

To me it matters not if mulusks have brains or not. Avoiding them is easy, and I suffer nothing by avoiding them. So, I avoid them, along with sponges and consuming other simple animals.

[Haniska]

I'm dead certain plants don't think, feel pain, or are aware, much like rocks. Like many things, including baking soda and vinegar, they have reactions to stimuli but that doesn't prove sentience.
The verdict on clams is still out, I agree. The complexities of how they sense direction to dig (in humans that would be determined by the cochlea in the inner ear but processed by the brain), decide to bury, sense burial depth so they know when to stop digging, eat (or decide they are full and stop eating), sense predators and evade attacks, release sperm (or eggs) at the right time, etc seems very hard to explain without "thought" going on.

I doubt plants think when leaning towards sunlight. Just the same. I feel bored on the topic now

[ALexiconofLove]

Consumption of marine animals, including mulusks, is not nessesary for me to thrive.

I don't have to consume bean sprouts to thrive, but that doesn't make eating them wrong.

To me it matters not if mulusks have brains or not. Avoiding them is easy, and I suffer nothing by avoiding them. So, I avoid them, along with sponges and consuming other simple animals.

I can easily avoid eating bean sprouts, and suffer nothing by doing so. But again, that's not an argument that it's wrong to eat bean sprouts. The arguments "X is easy to avoid" and "X is not necessary for me" aren't arguments that you should not do "X." There are all sorts of things I do that are not necessary and would be easy to avoid.

In fact, since they are animals, and have a discrete nervous system, I see nothing but the potential to cause suffering in killing those animals unessarily.

What do you mean by discrete?

The ability to sense a stimulus and react is not unique to animals. Some plants can do so as well (like the venus fly trap). The issue is whether or not the animal or plant "feels" the stimulus, and I have always heard/been taught that the interpretation of a stimulus as pain occurs in the brain.

I am getting bored with the discussion too, Haniska. I think Mahk is right... it seems like the only way to know would be to see if sponges and mollusks responded to opiates, but it wouldn't be right to perform unnecessary tests on an animal if there was even the possibility that it would feel pain. If they had already been done, we could interpret the results (as they have been done for fish with the obvious result that fish feel pain). But I can't find any information anywhere about such tests with clams, etc.

[RubyDuby]

I think rodolfo's point is that they are animals, we don't really know if they can feel pain, but since it is questionable there is no reason to eat them bc they are easy to avoid them.

there isn't any question of whether a bean sprout has a nervous system, unless I missed something...

[Mahk]

But I can't find any information anywhere about such tests with clams, etc.

An internet search on the words "bivalve nociception" got me some articles but when I went and looked at them they were way over my head. Lots and lots of medical techno jargon that was beyond me.

One of them seemed like they had tested a clam with a cannabinoid (is that that the word? a marijuana like THC compound I mean). Us vegans would have problems with testing animals for pain, but I see no problem with testing for pleasure!

"Hey, Mr. Clam, want to get baked?"

[ALexiconofLove]

Nice.

[Haniska]

Eee! How would a clam imbibe? Would she sit in the bong?

I'm back on the topic now. We don't know if plants feel pain and we don't know if clams feel pain. There might be some weird dividing line like potatoes do but tomatoes don't. Who knows? I'd like to know.
To me, this conversation is philosophical. I'm just curious. I'm not going to find out some little thing and then say "Oh, well, time to eat clams." Just a thought on where we draw the line at sentience.

My official stand if I haven't mentioned it before, is that there is no reason for plants to feel pain. They can't run so feeling pain is of no benefit to them. Though, in my old age I've found that just because things make sense doesn't make them true.
Clams can run. Can sponges run? Are there plants that "run"?
Thats the thing. Shooting out thorns seems like something that a creature that fears for its life would do. There had to be a long winded evolutionary process to come to that. The clam seems to react in this way too. Its doing stuff to stay alive and have more babies. We do stuff to stay alive and have more babies. What is the difference? The difference *is* that we have feelings but how do we know that plants do not have feelings? What draws the line between clam and plant?

[Haniska]

For me the answer is simple: Thought. Plants don't think.

For example, when you accidentally cut yourself certain elements of your blood (white blood cells and some other things if I recall) automatically go to address the problem, clot the hole, start the healing process and patch you up. This is all done without any thinking on your part. It would happen even if you were asleep or in a coma. When a plant releases auxins due to a stimulus it is the same thing as when our white blood cells go off to attack an infection; both reactions are automatic and have no "thinking" going on.

This post was incredibly well put I must say. Made me pause.
However, my point was how are our emotions any different than those white blood cells clotting our blood? Does anyone know what I am saying? Is it simply the level of sophistication/complexity, and if so, where do you draw the line?
People scratch in their sleep without thinking, reacting to a stimulus you know? People fall in love without thinking also. We have the capability to think and learn and know better. Is that the line?

Individual beings perhaps, but all sentient animal species have sex at least sometimes. Am I missing one?

All animals species have to have both the ability to (at least occasionally) sexually reproduce and a gastrointestinal tract to digest food.

Oh, btw, was too lazy to post before:

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

[Mahk]

Eee! How would a clam imbibe? Would she sit in the bong?

Hash brownies, perhaps?

I'm back on the topic now.

Yay!

We don't know if plants feel pain and we don't know if clams feel pain.

How about rocks? How about the mold that's alive and growing under your sink? [well my sink anyway] For me personally there's no uncertainty regarding plants thinking; they don't. Clams are the only ones I'm unclear on. But I respect your opinion.

I'm not going to find out some little thing and then say "Oh, well, time to eat clams."

Agreed. I might consider using a sponge though. From my understanding what we call a "natural sponge" is really just the skeletal remains of an animal. What I don't know is if it is alive when we harvest it. Anyone? That's the key question to me. Did an animal life have to be killed to get the product?

[Mahk]

Do sperm think? They're one celled right? Are they an animal? They're not a plant! They move, they swim, but is that all they do? Is it just blind luck that some have "blind" head on collisions with an egg or do they have some form of sensor system to look for an egg? Do they behave differently when they hit an egg (as opposed to a uterine wall) or do they just continue to just "swim blindly" and that causes the penetration?



Is this along the lines of your point? :

However, my point was how are our emotions any different than those white blood cells clotting our blood? Does anyone know what I am saying? Is it simply the level of sophistication/complexity, and if so, where do you draw the line?

Sperm and white blood cells seem pretty smart, but in the end I think it is an illusion that I just can't explain right at the moment.

[Mahk]

All animals species have to have both the ability to (at least occasionally) sexually reproduce and a gastrointestinal tract to digest food.

The key word in that sentence is "both". True, plants reproduce both sexually and asexually but none have a GI tract. In the venus flytrap which "eats", the mouth, the stomach, the intestines, and the anus are all the same place. No "tract".

[Qaxt]

The easiest solution would probably be that they have animal cells, and thus are animals. No? Their cells have plasma membranes, not walls.

[Haniska]

How about rocks? How about the mold that's alive and growing under your sink? [well my sink anyway] For me personally there's no uncertainty regarding plants thinking; they don't. Clams are the only ones I'm unclear on. But I respect your opinion.

Like I said, its my personal stand that they don't think because they have no need to. I'm arguing because I did too many drugs when I was younger

Agreed. I might consider using a sponge though. From my understanding what we call a "natural sponge" is really just the skeletal remains of an animal. What I don't know is if it is alive when we harvest it. That's the key question to me. Did an animal life have to be killed to get the product?

Same here.

Do sperm think? They're one celled right? Are they an animal? They're not a plant! They move, they swim, but is that all they do? Is it just blind luck that some have "blind" head on collisions with an egg or do they have some form of sensor system to look for an egg? Do they behave differently when they hit an egg (as opposed to a uterine wall) or do they just continue to just "swim blindly" and that causes the penetration?



Is this along the lines of your point?

Yep. That's my point. The best sperm may not think, but sperm are programmed in some way to find the egg quickly and not bump into each other or swim in circles. That way the best sperm wins. How is that any different than us? Excluding the fact that everyone gets laid and makes babies, success is at least somewhat determined by our *program* of cognitive ability etc. The way I imagine it, life started with single celled organisms that evolved. How is our ability to grab the brass ring any different that the sperms ability to find the egg? How many cells does something have to have to be considered as having its own being/sentience/worthy of life etc? Maybe the line is drawn at "animal cells". I could go with that, but I continue to spill seed on the ground.

[philfox]

Yep. That's my point. The best sperm may not think, but sperm are programmed in some way to find the egg quickly and not bump into each other or swim in circles. That way the best sperm wins. How is that any different than us? Excluding the fact that everyone gets laid and makes babies, success is at least somewhat determined by our *program* of cognitive ability etc. The way I imagine it, life started with single celled organisms that evolved. How is our ability to grab the brass ring any different that the sperms ability to find the egg? How many cells does something have to have to be considered as having its own being/sentience/worthy of life etc? Maybe the line is drawn at "animal cells". I could go with that, but I continue to spill seed on the ground.

Can I get all feminist and philosophical on this bit here? Sperm really isn't as proactive as it has been suggested in Western metaphors regarding reproductive functions. This is a gender imagery relating more to the way we as humans regard gender roles (ie males proactive and strong and females as submissive and weaker). Researchers at John Hopkins University concluded that the sperm and the egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surfaces of each. The egg traps the sperm. The trapped sperm continues to wiggle ineffectively. If the digestive enzymes released by the trapped sperm start to soften the zona i.e.the outer layer of the egg, the fragile sperm can get oriented in the right direction and make it through it. http://www.shvoong.com/social-scienc...ucted-romance/

Instead of moving forwards sperm move side to side, the egg is able to 'trap' them. The zona essentially having egg 'catching' properties. Modern biology has shown that the 'relationship' between egg and sperm is far more mutual than the old metaphors. Although many texts still use gender metaphors for the reproductive cells of men and women.

So in the case of cells, even 'smart' cells like white blood cells and sperm cells, there is no behaviour as such. These cells do what they do but rely on other cells in the body. We are pretty complex. (I'm sitting here now imagining all my cells in my body having their own lives and wondering if we as humans are just cells in another 'body' out there. I've distracted myself now...) But there is no 'design' to these cells, they don't have intentional acts. Neither do newly fertilized foetuses. But that's what makes us as humans and even clams or oysters different to the cells in our bodies, it is just that: the cells are 'inside us', as part of us, they cannot exist independently.

[Oysters] have extremely strong adductor muscles to close their shells when threatened.

Oysters feed by extracting algae and other food particles from the water they are almost constantly drawing over their gills. They reproduce when the water warms by broadcast spawning, and will change gender once or more during their lifetime.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...es/oyster.html

Mollusks include clams, oysters, scallops, mussels, snails, squid, octopuses, slugs, nudibranchs, sea hares, and several classes of deep-sea wormlike creatures.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-mollusks.htm

I wouldn't eat a squid, therefore I won't eat clams etc, no matter how 'basic' they appear to us. I also wouldn't use sponges as they are basic animals and I don't use animal products. There are questionable effects on the ecosystem that comes from harvesting sponges, as there are coral etc.

Some sponge facts:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6827

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...brates/sponge/

They also live in pineapples and have friends called Patrick....I wouldn't want to deprive their friends of their square friends now...

Sorry for the huuuuuge ramble!

[Mahk]

Can I get all feminist and philosophical on this bit here? Sperm really isn't as proactive as it has been suggested in Western metaphors regarding reproductive functions. This is a gender imagery relating more to the way we as humans regard gender roles (ie males proactive and strong and females as submissive and weaker).

I went looking for a video to witness the process and this was the first one google video linked me too:

[YOUTUBE]YO4GmUrQt0M[/YOUTUBE]



But seriously, do scientists anthropomorphize sperm (as this video does) as "looking" for eggs? Are they really just dumb, blind swimmers going randomly in all directions and just by a fluke one or two have collisions with sticky eggs?

[philfox]

I think so, otherwise men would produce far far less and women would end up pregnant far more. If you look at a lot of medical texts which have shown the more proactive role of the egg, they *still* place a gender bias upon them, ignoring their research results and skewing public conceptions. The same as white blood cells; they don't *know* what they are doing, they just do it, as part of the system of our bodies. Same as the cells in a plant which process the sunlight and C02, those cells don't 'know' what they are doing, they are just part of the greater 'whole' of the plant which is part of the building blocks which make up the plant we see, thriving on our window sill etc. Please don't think I'm trying to sound as though I know what I am talking about...I'm rambling...

However, even though I don't think plants can feel pain as such, as living creatures I do believe in respecting them more and have recently started considering when I waste plant foods. I am making far far more stock then normal because of that

[Mahk]

There was a recent Norweigan study on lobsters that concluded they, like other invertebrates, probably can't feel pain. That sounds fishy to me because I know they are smarter than most people give them credit for. This study for instance showed that they can recognize individuals they've had fights with in the past and have a memory span for such individuals for at least a day if not 1-2 weeks "for some animals" (ambiguous wording there). They then act subserviently toward them if they lost that prior fight and have a very hierarchal social network it would seem.

Looking for pain and morphine alleviation studies I found this paper which shows they do indeed manufacture their own "morphine" after painful events or "stress trauma" they call it ["pereiopod-ablation or lipopolysaccaride (LPS) - injection" translation: ripping their legs off or injections of something nasty] just like in mammals. Like clams they have no brains, just nerves and ganglia, so I'm thinking ganglia are all you need to think, recognize, associate, remember and I would assume feel pain.

I also found this:

• The nervous systems of lobsters and crabs produce opioids, which in mammals are chemicals that mediate pain. They also possess opioid receptors, which appear to function the same way as in other animals. Studies in crabs show that their defensive reaction to electric shocks or to being struck is reduced by morphine, that this effect is dose-dependent, and that the effect can be counteracted by naloxone, an opioid antagonist, as is also the case in mammals. It is implausible that lobsters would have pain-mediating chemicals and receptors and respond to painkillers just as other animals do if they could not feel pain.

But I couldn't find the source paper Peta is taking this from so we have to take their word for it.

[philfox]

Taking Peta's word for something

Those links were quite interesting. The Norwegian study sounds a bit bias towards the fishing industry. However I'll take peta's with a pinch of salt also

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/invert.html <<Kids site I know! But it helped me understand better about ganglia.

Regarding attitudes for lobsters etc and eating them I found this Daily Mail (I know, shocking!) article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ke-humans.html quite good for summing up Descartes' views as I'd rather gouge my eyes out than write anything about Descartes ever again.

So it's got me thinking, whereby, just because an animal doesn't have the same anatomy as we do, doesn't mean that they can't feel some sort of pain, environmental stimulus etc. Just look at a picture of a lobster, there is something in it's eyes which shows much more than mechanistic existence. The fact that they can run away and nip me with those claws makes me more inclined to think there is something going on behind those beady eyes.

Even watching spiders at work on my washing line, or even the snails munching on my salad left overs makes me think that they can't just 'exist' I mean I know that the snail isn't thinking 'mmmm this romaine lettuce is simply marvellous, could do with some dressing though...' but when you watch them, they remember things, they avoid things and although I wouldn't say they enjoyed things like we do, it must feel nice to be watered and they come out of their shells and the slugs scoot along the tray to re moisture themselves.

So I won't use, hurt, kill etc animals different to me on the off chance they don't feel the same as I do. I might be wrong, I might be over anthropomorphising the rats I share my home with, the cows in fields, the spiders on my washing line and the snails in my seed tray, but I'd rather do that, and avoid causing unnecessary pain, than to tuck into a prawn salad or swallow some oysters. If I'm wrong, I've hurt no one, but if I am right, then it scares me to think how many could be suffering out there.

Even if these animals do not feel any pain (which I highly doubt, they must at least feel stimulus) then avoiding eating them is still the vegan option. Because of the fine environmental balance in the seas as it is. Omnivores always throw the 'circle of life' and 'food chain' arguments in my face, but surely, if that is what they found important then they would look at the delicate, food chain involved in the seas and oceans we rape, pollute, steal and murder from and perhaps not tuck into their prawn salad after all...


/epic ramble with no real meaning

[Korn]

If there's one thing all humans have in common, it seems to be that we don't want to suffer and feel pain. Why kill those few who have abilities we don't have?

Would we have accepted that someone killed and ate us if we couldn't feel physical pain? Nope.

[philfox]

If there's one thing all humans have in common, it seems to be that we don't want to suffer and feel pain. Why kill those few who have abilities we don't have?

Would we have accepted that someone killed and ate is if we couldn't feel physical pain? Nope.

Korn, are you saying these creatures cannot feel pain for certain? or that it doesn't matter if they cannot feel pain? or at least pain as we feel it. I am in the middle I do not think they feel pain like humans, or even mammals, but I do think they can feel pain, at least on some level, regardless of whether it's 'like' the pain that we feel.

And indeed, I certainly wouldn't accept it if someone killed and ate me if I couldn't feel pain. Look at those people (and I assume animals?) that cannot feel pain, just because they cannot feel it does not mean they cannot be damaged. The inability to feel / react from pain doesn't mean you suffer any less, or mean your body cannot be harmed / die from that damage. I can't remember the name of the condition now which stops people from feeling pain, but it's certainly something which means as children they can do severe damage to their hands from putting them in fires etc.

Feeling pain or not, I'm not eating disabled people, lobsters or clams. *munches delicious delicious lettuce*

[Korn]

Korn, are you saying these creatures cannot feel pain for certain?

No - I don't even think pain should be considered criterion for "when we can abuse" - or own - others (animals or humans). I don't think we should abuse or own others at all.

I don't want to eat anything that seems to have a life, a will, feel pain or who possibly may have a will or the ability to feel pain. For me (and pretty much everybody else) this does not include plants, unless they are able to escape when I make an attempt of eating them or picking them - or scream/yell at me (loud enough for me to hear it) if I "kill' them...

[Sare-Sare]

I found this thread when looking up vegan oysters, and joined just to answer.

The argument that vegans can eat bivalves is the exact same as the argument that vegetarians can eat fish.

I'm not going to go into a lengthy discussion about bivalve sentience, but consider this:

Vegans are vegans for three main reasons:
- Human health
- Animal suffering
- Environmental impact

So, even if bivalves somehow did not suffer when attacked and killed, it is still terrible for your health, terrible for the environment, and terrible for the animals you consider sentient which are harmed in the process. The only reason you eat bivalves is for taste. Nobody goes vegan because they don't like the taste of rotting flesh - they go vegan based on health, environmental and ethical reasons.

Moreover, whenever someone tries to justify meat consumption, they usually bring up plant sentience. Their claim is that plants are sentient, so there is no moral difference between eating plants and animals. This has been brought up several times in this thread, saying that eating a bivalve is no different from eating a potato. I've found numerous articles on the internet based on this, criticising vegetarians and vegans because we condemn plants and love animals.

But nobody in these articles who is "concerned" about the ethical treatment of plants has ever considered fruitarianism. They say we eat plants, so we may as well eat animals, when if they were truly worried about plants they wouldn't eat them along with sentient creatures, but instead adopt a fruitarian diet. These arguments are hypocritical and plain stupid.

[MCMLXXXVI]

Even if I weren't vegan I wouldn't want to eat these animals. Personally, slimy salty goop is a turn-off.