As a fishkeeper, I've gotta disagree. Maybe it is just projection, but it would take some significant evidence to convince me that cichlids don't have the capacity to experience profound emotion. They can experience depression, at least physiologically, and this tends to manifest most obviously when a monogamous fish loses its mate. Sometimes the remaining fish will isolate itself, stop eating and lose color, and less often they will attach themselves to a small mixed species group instead. It's wild to witness these intricate social behaviors on a daily basis, and for me personally, it has made me reevaluate most of my beliefs about animal intelligence and their emotional experiences.
I think that's a very reasonable observation. Thank you for sharing. I would ask then are other species different? Are there less social/cognizant fish? Certainly shellfish in general seem less 'there' than a cichlid does. Would that make a difference?
I guess it's partly hard for me to articulate my criteria because it's a fuzzy concept to begin with, but I find myself concerned with whether a living creature has reached a high enough level of cognition that its 'pain' or 'depression' (I use these words very loosely here - whether or not what they experience can be said to constitute pain as we understand it is at issue here) is worthy of moral consideration, and if it does, to what level? We are not considering these things in isolation, we are weighing their interest among a host of others.
Part of what I think makes pain and suffering what they are is a subjective experience of it - some conscious recognition of what it is - and that's also what makes it so bad. If a creature does not have that conscious recognition then I 'm not sure if it can rightfully be called pain or suffering at all. It might be more like a pseudo-pain. The creature experiences stimuli that causes it to react in such a way to avoid more stimuli, and it may indeed be subjectively unpleasant for the creature, but that does not automatically mean it's equivalent to the kind of pain we know to exist in humans (and likely many other mammals at the very least). It might just be that we don't have the right concept for what's going on here and are anthropomorphizing the experiences of other animals given the lack of our conceptual clarity.
Next we have to think about whether or not that 'pain,' if it can be called as much, outweighs the considerations of a creature with higher cognitive function and more complex reasons and experiences? The thread starts by talking about bugs, and @Dirt_Owl considerately comes in and clarifies further their rationale (thank you comrade). We presume that feed crickets are being used as feed for other animals being kept as pets. If those animals are of a higher cognitive function, do they not deserve/need to be fed? Is the happiness and bonding brought to them and their respective humans not worthy of preservation in its own right? This kind of goes for cats and dogs too. While humans can and have bonded with MANY animals, those two have a special evolutionary history with our species. Both are obligate carnivores. To sustain pet relationships, then, we need to find a way to get them the nutrition they need to survive. Hopefully vat grown meat comes around very soon - I'll be the first to get in line when it's available to someone hovering just above the poverty level - but until then, are we wrong to prioritize these animals and relationships of a higher cognitive quality than others? It seems to me that when weighing these considerations, the creatures with a higher cognitive order deserve more the consideration. Maybe I'm just being chauvinistic and haven't considered the experience more broadly - but it doesn't seem as if we unilaterally have an obligation not to cause any 'pain' or 'suffering.' It seems to greatly depend on the nature of that 'pain,' and any other competing interests.
I'm by no means definitively decided on the matter. Thanks for contributing to the discussion and giving me more to think about.
This is a difficult conversation because it borders on the religious. Seeing sentience in a being that you can't communicate with takes a leap of faith. I've discussed this topic to death with my vegan partner and ultimately, I do think that attempting to establish the value of one life over another is inherently chauvinistic. I don't have any moral answers, though - I really just know about keeping and breeding fish.
Regarding fish intelligence, it definitely varies by species. Sharks have similar brain-to-body mass ratios to mammals and birds, for instance, and are known to exhibit curiosity and play behaviors. Watch enough diving footage and you'll begin to recognize the ways that they communicate and establish social structures.
Shellfish are actually invertebrates, and some of them - cephalopods, in particular - are incredibly intelligent. Cuttlefish and octopuses fall into the mollusk family, but they've developed their own unique form of intelligence that is both alien and immediately recognizable. How do you measure something like that? To me, this is evidence that our theory of mind is not well developed enough to make these sort of judgment calls.
It is difficult, and you're right, it does border on religious. I respect and appreciate your input and I get why you would come to that conclusion. I myself have not taken that leap but for what might be considered a similarly religious (perhaps ontological?) reasons. Another time, perhaps, it's okay to disagree in good faith and struggle against capitalism together in the meantime.
Are there less social/cognizant fish? Certainly shellfish in general seem less ‘there’ than a cichlid does. Would that make a difference?
Octopi, squid and cuttlefish are molluscs and are very closely related to shellfish (cuttlefish even still have an internal shell) and they're some of the smartest animals on the planet.
As a fishkeeper, I've gotta disagree. Maybe it is just projection, but it would take some significant evidence to convince me that cichlids don't have the capacity to experience profound emotion. They can experience depression, at least physiologically, and this tends to manifest most obviously when a monogamous fish loses its mate. Sometimes the remaining fish will isolate itself, stop eating and lose color, and less often they will attach themselves to a small mixed species group instead. It's wild to witness these intricate social behaviors on a daily basis, and for me personally, it has made me reevaluate most of my beliefs about animal intelligence and their emotional experiences.
I think that's a very reasonable observation. Thank you for sharing. I would ask then are other species different? Are there less social/cognizant fish? Certainly shellfish in general seem less 'there' than a cichlid does. Would that make a difference?
I guess it's partly hard for me to articulate my criteria because it's a fuzzy concept to begin with, but I find myself concerned with whether a living creature has reached a high enough level of cognition that its 'pain' or 'depression' (I use these words very loosely here - whether or not what they experience can be said to constitute pain as we understand it is at issue here) is worthy of moral consideration, and if it does, to what level? We are not considering these things in isolation, we are weighing their interest among a host of others.
Part of what I think makes pain and suffering what they are is a subjective experience of it - some conscious recognition of what it is - and that's also what makes it so bad. If a creature does not have that conscious recognition then I 'm not sure if it can rightfully be called pain or suffering at all. It might be more like a pseudo-pain. The creature experiences stimuli that causes it to react in such a way to avoid more stimuli, and it may indeed be subjectively unpleasant for the creature, but that does not automatically mean it's equivalent to the kind of pain we know to exist in humans (and likely many other mammals at the very least). It might just be that we don't have the right concept for what's going on here and are anthropomorphizing the experiences of other animals given the lack of our conceptual clarity.
Next we have to think about whether or not that 'pain,' if it can be called as much, outweighs the considerations of a creature with higher cognitive function and more complex reasons and experiences? The thread starts by talking about bugs, and @Dirt_Owl considerately comes in and clarifies further their rationale (thank you comrade). We presume that feed crickets are being used as feed for other animals being kept as pets. If those animals are of a higher cognitive function, do they not deserve/need to be fed? Is the happiness and bonding brought to them and their respective humans not worthy of preservation in its own right? This kind of goes for cats and dogs too. While humans can and have bonded with MANY animals, those two have a special evolutionary history with our species. Both are obligate carnivores. To sustain pet relationships, then, we need to find a way to get them the nutrition they need to survive. Hopefully vat grown meat comes around very soon - I'll be the first to get in line when it's available to someone hovering just above the poverty level - but until then, are we wrong to prioritize these animals and relationships of a higher cognitive quality than others? It seems to me that when weighing these considerations, the creatures with a higher cognitive order deserve more the consideration. Maybe I'm just being chauvinistic and haven't considered the experience more broadly - but it doesn't seem as if we unilaterally have an obligation not to cause any 'pain' or 'suffering.' It seems to greatly depend on the nature of that 'pain,' and any other competing interests.
I'm by no means definitively decided on the matter. Thanks for contributing to the discussion and giving me more to think about.
This is a difficult conversation because it borders on the religious. Seeing sentience in a being that you can't communicate with takes a leap of faith. I've discussed this topic to death with my vegan partner and ultimately, I do think that attempting to establish the value of one life over another is inherently chauvinistic. I don't have any moral answers, though - I really just know about keeping and breeding fish.
Regarding fish intelligence, it definitely varies by species. Sharks have similar brain-to-body mass ratios to mammals and birds, for instance, and are known to exhibit curiosity and play behaviors. Watch enough diving footage and you'll begin to recognize the ways that they communicate and establish social structures.
Shellfish are actually invertebrates, and some of them - cephalopods, in particular - are incredibly intelligent. Cuttlefish and octopuses fall into the mollusk family, but they've developed their own unique form of intelligence that is both alien and immediately recognizable. How do you measure something like that? To me, this is evidence that our theory of mind is not well developed enough to make these sort of judgment calls.
It is difficult, and you're right, it does border on religious. I respect and appreciate your input and I get why you would come to that conclusion. I myself have not taken that leap but for what might be considered a similarly religious (perhaps ontological?) reasons. Another time, perhaps, it's okay to disagree in good faith and struggle against capitalism together in the meantime.
Octopi, squid and cuttlefish are molluscs and are very closely related to shellfish (cuttlefish even still have an internal shell) and they're some of the smartest animals on the planet.