
In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster - fmihaila
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/02/16/new-swiss-law-pain-free-deaths-lobsters-flushing-goldfish-down-toilet-breaking-law-according-new-swi/341412002/
======
tptacek
It's at this point you'd probably want to go read David Foster Wallace's essay
"Consider The Lobster", an assignment he took from (I shit you not) Gourmet
Magazine, which begins with a sort of Illinois Country Fair style travelogue
from the Maine Lobster Festival and "ends", if you can call the back 2/3rds of
an essay "ending", in a discussion of the meaning of pain and its
applicability to the specific nervous system anatomy of crustaceans.

Suffice it to say: Wallace is not convinced that the knife through the head
lets you off the hook so easily.

~~~
chr1
What is worse, causing pain or killing?

If we consider an extreme case of someone going through a horrible torture,
but the next day waking up as healthy as before, and without some kind of
mental illness, and without losing significant amount of his time, or
opportunity, would it be any different than a game? Would most people try such
a game, where they play for someone getting executed in middle ages?

My guess is they would, so fear of the pain is misplaced, and death is the
horrible part. And therefore killing painlessly doesn't let one off the hook,
since it is still killing. (And if one thinks killing is ok, then some amount
of pain should be ok too.)

~~~
mod
I absolutely, 100% would not volunteer to go through a "horrible torture."

I certainly wouldn't do it for "a game." I don't think I would do it for any
amount of money or other benefit, either. What you're proposing is (seemingly)
no benefit beyond the experience of being tortured--which coincidentally you
are going you erase when you delete the mental illness.

Anyway, you're wrong, nobody would sign up for that. People who are afraid of
roller coasters don't ride them. Everyone's afraid of torture.

~~~
chr1
> I absolutely, 100% would not volunteer to go through a "horrible torture."

Even if it was to unlock a new level in a game, or to remove a tooth? :)

More seriously though seems like i didn't manage to express what i wanted to
say in my comment.

My point was that people are afraid of torture, and many other things (like
roller coasters) because there's a large chance to die in the end. And without
that chance the whole thing is just some neurons being active, and is not a
big deal.

Your point about needing to erase all memory of the experience to not get
mental illness is very interesting. I'd expect the brain to be more stable,
but we don't know enough about the brain to say for sure.

~~~
crooked-v
> or to remove a tooth?

The point of tooth removal in dentistry is to end pain, not to cause it.

~~~
chr1
Sure, but if you do not have the proper painkillers, it's hell of a lot more
painful than the pain it ends. You are trading long term nagging pain, for
short intense one, which is totally worth it, but is a lot of pain.

------
heinrichf
It's also illegal to own a single guinea pig or parrot (because they are prone
to loneliness): [https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-
swi...](https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/guinea-pig-switzerland/)

~~~
wallace_f
I am a vegetarian, but I'm more troubled by these totalitarian laws. Yes, I
know they 'are just helping animals,' but throughout history, too often
tyrants strip your liberties in the name of of moral righteousness.

~~~
kranner
In what way does it strip one's liberties to be required to keep at least two
guinea pigs if one must keep them?

The "liberty" to keep exactly one guinea pig: that is just silly.

~~~
wallace_f
That's exactly the point. The first steps in the path to illegitimate
authority is to start legitimizing it using these low-hanging fruits.

This is just textbook play calling. Removing net neutrality starts "we just
want to help hospitals and police have faster internet, don't be ridiculous."
Drug prohibition, the War on Terror, the TSA, police militarization. It all,
every time, comes with "they're just trying to do something good and it
doesn't seriously affect you." Except maybe thre TSA, because when someone
starts searching _you_ all of a sudden everyone is a civil libertarian.(1)

The problems 1) One can always make the argument that "those are just not
worthwhile freedoms." 2) The idea that using the threat of violence from the
government to solve every problem is the actual path to tyranny.

1-[https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-
katie...](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-
article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-
selective-and-self-centered/)

~~~
staticassertion
We already have laws about which animals can be kept as pets. This is hardly
an egregious extension of that power.

The law is very plainly there to prevent guinea pigs from being abused. It is
not there to extend the government's power.

What an extremely odd thing to argue.

~~~
wallace_f
The concept is about 'what constitutes legitimate authority?' After all,
consider your argument:

>'we already have laws about which people can get married. This is hardly an
egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to protect
children.'

What you're advocating by disavowing the above, yet allowing the topic is to
say you: "agree with authority when it happens to agree with my moral
compass."

Sayinf "disagreeing with this is an extremely odd thing to argue," reveals the
fact that the original intentions of the founders of this country (assuming
you live in the States), as well as those of Enlightenment figures, that
government is only legitimate whwn it is limited, is so odd and alienating to
you makes me think that no wonder humanity always turns itself in to tyranny,
over and over again.

~~~
badestrand
You might consider that Switzerland is probably the most democratic country on
earth and "legitimate authority" quite directly means "the will of the
people". If it wouldn't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a
law change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term) and with enough
inital support everyone can vote on the issue. They vote on far-ranging things
several times a year, there can be no tyranny in this context.

~~~
lawl
> _If it wouldn 't, they could easily change it as everybody can submit a law
> change suggestion (sorry, I don't know the correct term)_

Referendum to kill an existing law, popular initiative to propose a new one.

They use different tricks when they're extending their power. This is
definitely not one of them.

Laws they suspect could be overturned by voters they create 2 simular but
separate ones shortly after each other, so people get tired of fighting it
etc.

It definitely doesn't involve guinea pigs.

~~~
wallace_f
It's not that anyone ever sat around a board room with an evil plot involving
the protection of guinea pigs. It's that it is so normal that the state act as
your parents, which was never the intention of Western democracies, that
nobody even thinks "should we really be letting ourselves hand over so many
decisions to a monopoly on violence?"

~~~
Matumio
I get the point you're trying to make, it's just that you have picked the
perfect counter-example to make it against. Both with animal protection (no
human will profit) and with Switzerland (we as citizens can force a popular
vote against any law our elected government is about to pass, or even propose
new laws).

~~~
wallace_f
You're right that Switzerland is just about the least concerning place in the
world in terms of government tyranny. However, there are problems with only
starting to be critical when the government starts confiscating your phone at
the airport, reading your email, etc. At this point you've even set precedent
that they _should_ be allowed to do those things, just so long as it can be
justified as good, or even "the will of the people." So in this case we have
ourselves to blame for this being in this mess.

And this kind of government js actually quite a shift from the type of
democracy that Enlightenment figures helped developed for us, which gave us so
much in the world.

Governments are responsible for most of the evil in the 20th century. Culling
that probably starts with thinking about what a legitimate government should
be permitted to do in the first place.

~~~
lawl
I completely agree with you in general, even in Switzerland we're not safe[0].
You just picked a really shitty example, and in europe we're in general a bit
more pro government than in the US.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal)

~~~
wallace_f
Err, the "shittiness" of the example was deliberate. Of course I could point
out violations that everyone would agree with, such as the TSA confiscating
your electronics. That threat is personally threatening to people, so all of a
sudden they're civil libertarians.

Consider another example: what benefit is there in the government spending so
much time and money giving due process, health care and other rights to
murderers, child predators or terrorists, while free, good people go without
healthcare? It's not because the criminals deserve it. If I advocated human
rights for these people when we didn't have them, you would say the same thing
you are now: "I agree with human rights, but you just picked a really shitty
example." The point is this: to consider what constitutes legitimate
government.

~~~
lawl
> _while free, good people go without healthcare?_

Doesn't happen in Switzerland.

> _If I advocated human rights for these people when we didn 't have them, you
> would say the same thing you are now: "I agree with human rights, but you
> just picked a really shitty example."_

Nope, I wouldn't. In fact I got heavily downvoted on HN before because I
advocated for freedom of speech even for terrorists.

------
smoe
The article does not do that good a job at explaining what the law going into
affect first of March actually says.

The law extends compulsory stunning ("Betäubungspflicht") before killing,
already in effect for vertebrates to certain types of crustaceans. So the
lobsters will likely be still alive when thrown into boiling water but stunned
with e.g. electric shock.

Also the media frenzy causing lobster issue is only a part of new legislation
aiming to improve conditions of animals held as pets, for sport, in
laboratories or to be eaten.

[https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-
muessen...](https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Hummer-muessen-
kuenftig-vor-Kochen-betaeubt-werden/story/14589713)

------
andrewwharton
The common procedure I was taught when growing up was chilling the crayfish
(stick it in the freezer until it goes to sleep) before killing it [1]. It
really takes very little effort and make no discernible difference whatsoever
to the end result.

It's interesting that this method wasn't one of those listed, because I was
under the impression that it was quite effective.

[1] [http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-
kill-c...](http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-
crustaceans-for-human-consumption_625.html)

~~~
petre
The Swiss probably don't cook much live lobster or crayfish anyway, so
chilling the live crustacean hasn't occured to the lawmakers. Yes, it's way
easier than electrocuting, so thank you for sharing.

------
selim_tiotoys
This has to do with the fact that we in Switzerland once voted (in the early
90s) to constitutionally recognize animals, and giving them dignity. The
dignity of the creature it was called. This is the reason also why you are not
allowed to own just one single guinea pig or a lovebird.

~~~
josephorjoe
So, if you own two and one dies, what happens?

~~~
endymi0n
> Rent-A-Guinea Pig Service Takes Off in Switzerland

[http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-
lonely-...](http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hope-for-lonely-
rodents-rent-a-guinea-pig-service-takes-off-in-switzerland-a-787336.html)

~~~
josephorjoe
Lol that is awesome. Thanks for the link.

I feel for the poor introverted guinea pigs of Switzerland though. No chance
for a peaceful quiet life free from the squeaking of another pig.

~~~
watwut
Human introverts still go crazy in solitary cell. It is kinda the same.

------
myrandomcomment
So you will crush a roach or swat a fly? I am all for humane chicken faming
methods, et.al. However we are the top of the food chain and we eat everything
below. That means it dies. My friends dogs will try to eat his chickens and it
is not pretty (he trains the dogs not to of course.) I have a forest full of
dear behind my house. I heard the very loud screaming of an animal the other
day. One of the deer was lunch for a mountain lion. This is the way it works.
If you have an issue with it then do not eat lobster or do not eat meat. I
like lobster. If you told me I could do something simple to make their death
more human I would, but it’s still going to die and I am still going to eat
it.

Edit: English is hard :)

~~~
lazyasciiart
Fascinating thoughts, maybe you shouldn't live in Switzerland.

~~~
shard972
Thanks captain obvious, Although maybe a more insightful response would have
been pointing out the contrast between the modern culture of switzerland and
that of nature which lacks major intrusions by humans.

~~~
lazyasciiart
I think the contrast is between the modern culture of Switzerland and that of
the US, where people feel that their right to kill animals inhumanely is too
important to be legislated away.

~~~
shard972
Or maybe it's a difference in a country that isn't as bought and sold on the
idea that you can fix everything by passing a law.

------
Bizarro
_That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines, and
hamsters or guinea pigs must be kept in pairs. And anyone who flushes a pet
goldfish down the toilet is breaking the law._

Say what? So in Switzerland I can go to jail for not making a play date for my
cat, or buying a little friend for my hamster?

What's next, you can't kill a spider that's creeping around your house?

People need to understand that there's always intended or unintended
consquences for all laws. And laws like this have a tendency to make nasty
precedents for other stupid-ass laws.

This is just more anthropomorphic emotional immaturity.

~~~
mudil
It's as easy to catch a spider and throw it out as to kill it. So fo the right
thing and have a respect for a little wild animal.

~~~
Tomminn
If it's poisonous, killing is considerably easier.

~~~
woodson
Venomous. Poisonous is when you die from eating it (like a pufferfish). Sorry
if I come off as pedantic, I just see this very often and think it’s a pretty
basic distinction.

~~~
shabble
But is the venom also poisonous?

~~~
IntronExon
Most venom isn’t poisonous, as your gastric juices denature the proteins and
enzymes which make them dangerous. Big HOWEVER though, is that if you have a
cut or any route to your bloodstream in your mouth or throat... then you can
be envenomated that way. In addition some animals are both venemous and
poisonous, such as tarantulas with urticating hairs.

------
ricardobeat
> and Kunfermann said offenders could land in a lot of hot water

Is there serious journalism being made anywhere these days? I feel like these
subtle puns everywhere detract from the reading experience - not everything is
for entertainment.

~~~
myopicgoat
Seems a bit overreacting dissing the whole of journalism for the odd pun seen
in an article. Eg: John Oliver’s late night show is, objectively, quite good
journalism (even if he denies it) though it’s not very “serious”.

~~~
goostavos
> objectively, quite good journalism

Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last
Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at
all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy.

The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver:

>“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the
newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case,
physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist
has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause
and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of
them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors
in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and
read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine
than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

------
unknown_apostle
This morning I looked out of my kitchen window and saw a falcon picking apart
a small animal (bird I think). It took an incredibly long time for the animal
to stop moving. That's death in nature. We can and should strive to do better.

~~~
topmonk
Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent
them from reproducing and causing more suffering.

All animals should only be allowed to be raised in captivity and killed as
humanely as possible.

And from there it follows that we must capture and enslave all humans, to
prevent them from causing pain and hurting each other as they would given
their own devices.

~~~
discoursism
> Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent
> them from reproducing and causing more suffering.

There is a fantasy series with this motif. It's called The Second Apocalypse,
by R. Scott Bakker, and the first book is called the Prince of Nothing.

------
dghughes
The weird part of all this is lobster was considered garbage only about a 100
years ago.

I live in a rural area and the farmers would use whole lobsters as fertilizer
on their fields. This only after anyone bothered to collect them from the
beaches, no fishermen were catching them.

Even when people did eat them anyone who did was poor. My mother in her mid
70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked because everyone
knew they were poor "Eww lobster".

I wonder what the Swiss law says about shellfish such as clams, mussels,
quahogs, geoducks etc. all those are boiled. Compassion is one thing but
outright lunacy is another.

~~~
anonymfus
_> My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were
mocked because everyone knew they were poor "Eww lobster"._

That explains Doctor Zoidberg

------
nixpulvis
I think the only logical solution is to learn to communicate with the
lobsters. Then we can establish diplomatic relations, and learn of their ways.
Only after we truly understand the lobster can we say what is a dignified way
for them to go.

Who knows maybe one will even run for president one day.

~~~
Matumio
Funny thing you should say this about lobsters in particular. In Charles
Stross' novel "Accelerando" simulated (uploaded) lobster brains got smart
enough to reach out for help and escape their experiment. They eventually
become a superhuman being, living in space.

------
eridius
> _That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines_

Wow, really? Why? Cats are loners, they don't need to be around other cats. In
fact, my cat _hates_ other cats, giving her daily visual contact with other
cats would basically be torture.

~~~
opencl
The law is actually far more sensible and says that "Cats kept on their own
shall have daily contact with humans OR visual contact with members of their
own species." Some people like harping on the Swiss animal protection laws as
horrible tyranny but I feel really bad for any animals whose owners don't
follow such basic standards of decency.

This PDF is the actual text of the law, the cat-specific part is section 11:
[http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiers...](http://www.zuerchertierschutz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Tierschutzthemen/pdf/Tierschutzverordnung_e.pdf)

~~~
eridius
Thanks! That sounds a lot better than what was mentioned in the article.

------
marcoperaza
The bar for infringing on people's freedom should be high. Laws should exit
only to protect human interests. That can include things like preserving
biodiversity. But to use the power of the state against people for the sole
purpose of protecting animal interests is unjustified in my opinion.

I believe we have a moral duty to treat animals well, and certainly to avoid
causing needless suffering. But not all moral duties justify state compulsion.

~~~
a_cactus
Do you disagree with most animal cruelty laws then? What about dog or cock
fighting?

~~~
marcoperaza
One of the strongest arguments for banning cock/dog fighting is that it
inculcates moral depravity in its participants. To stand there and take
pleasure in causing suffering in living things can only serve make you callous
to human suffering as well. It seems justified to ban it, at least as an
organized, large-scale enterprise.

~~~
avdempsey
By the same token, a gradual increase in the legal and customary respect shown
to animals could inculcate a growing respect for our fellow humans.

~~~
marcoperaza
I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The
strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for
depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we
don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their
dogs from running off.

I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a
legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the
people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for
social engineering.

~~~
bufferout
You're not holding much water to be honest. Pick one: a) animals are incapable
of suffering b) we shouldn't care if animals suffer c) we should care and pass
laws

~~~
marcoperaza
My argument is the option you're omitting:

d) animals suffer, we _should_ care, but we should not pass laws when their
_sole_ purpose is to prevent that suffering.

There is more to a society that what it compels at gunpoint. We can abhor
behavior without proscribing it by law.

~~~
bufferout
What is law if not the ability to arrest controversy?

~~~
marcoperaza
Are you arguing that the solution to all controversy is to pass a law? You are
proposing to solve all problems at gunpoint.

What space for different conceptions of the good, for diversity of values and
preferences, could exist in such a society?

You must have limiting principles for when we should resort to the remedy of
the law. Perhaps yours are different than mine, but I doubt that you have none
at all.

------
tzs
Question: what is the maximum water temperature that a lobster can survive in?

If that maximum is less than the boiling point of water, then another
question: how carefully is the law drafted?

If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks
bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little
below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies
but not as fast?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>If the law actually specifies boiling, is it just going to result in cooks
bring the water to a boil, taking it off the heat, letting it drop to a little
below the boiling point, and then inserting the lobster, where it still dies
but not as fast?

Yeah, make stupid rules, play stupid games. This seems like a feel-good law. I
wonder how enforcement will be.

~~~
askvictor
i can imagine heavily armed lobster police bursting in the kitchen of an
unsuspecting cook.

~~~
AndrewGaspar
Judge Trudy will handle the situation. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-
YoQj60](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpg-YoQj60)

------
ptaipale
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies
along the lines of the lobsters?

~~~
benjohnson
We also benefit - by learning to treat animals better, we'll learn to treat
each other better.

~~~
nixpulvis
If you treat me like your dog I'll probably end up punching you in the face.
Just saying.

~~~
djrogers
And on the flip side, if you treat your dog like a human, it’ll probably wind
up being a misbehaving menace.

~~~
ptaipale
That is a worthy point. Some dog owners, particularly those getting their
first dog, treat their dogs like humans, which is bad both for humans and
dogs.

------
phkahler
My first reaction was that this was silly, but I tried my best to follow along
and have some empathy for the lobster. They had me right until
electrocution...

------
bobnarizes
\- The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
its animals are treated. -

Mahatma Gandhi

~~~
nielsole
[https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-
hoa...](https://animalsmattertogod.com/2013/09/13/mahatma-gandhi-hoax-quote-
greatness-of-a-nation-and-its-moral-progress-can-be-judged-by-the-way-that-
its-animals-are-treated/) A rather lengthy article that doesn't find any
references to a primary source.

------
nickik
As a Swiss person, I would say that I don't care either way. As least as long
as they are dealing with this crap they have less budget for computer
surveillance.

------
georgecmu
I'm torn on the subject.

There's a Korean restaurant in Queens that serves live seafood (octopi chopped
in front of you; hot pots with live scallops cooked at your table):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfu9MzeEMxo)

I don't have a problem with chopping up an octopus at the dinner table, but I
probably wouldn't want to see a chicken clubbed to death before it lands in
plate.

On a different subject, I'm not sure that 'dignity' is a well-defined concept
or that it applies to death in the first place. Is bleeding out from a cut
throat as per the kosher slaughter method [1] less or more dignified than
boiling alive in a pot?

[1] [https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-
Slaughter...](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/73/Properly-Slaughter-a-
Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg/aid345855-v4-900px-Properly-
Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah-Step-6.jpg)

~~~
fiblye
Octopuses are some of the most intelligent creatures on earth. Eating or
cutting them alive is nothing short of savage, and no better than serving live
dog or chimpanzee.

I'm all for regulations that end unnecessary animal suffering, especially when
the whole purpose of it is to do nothing more than add novelty to a meal. We
evolved to eat meat. We didn't evolve to torture our meals.

------
nurettin
So some humans think they finally have the luxury of seriously considering
animal ethics while some other humans would still kill for survival.
Meanwhile, the earth or the universe continues to not care.

~~~
c_shu
I agree that we should pay more attention to people that are suffering.

But I think the rationale of such laws is somewhat valid. Can you imagine a
person who is totally emotionless when torturing an animal but is also very
compassionate towards human beings?

I think in some ways human ethics and animal ethics are connected.

Though if you ask me whether Switzerland has gone too far, I'm still hesitant
about yes/no.

~~~
nurettin
Imagine grandpa gutting fish and shooting animals with a rifle all day to come
back and give children a goodnight kiss. I am not the one lacking imagination.

~~~
c_shu
That's not the kind of torture i meant. Rifle or knife should be acceptable to
most people. (This process is simple. Experienced butchers even work fast and
clean.) Switzerland law is also about killing the lobster instantly so it's
the same.

------
nickjj
"...dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain."

So for a few seconds it will think it's being released back into its natural
habitat and then seconds later its brains are dripping down some chef's knife.

The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any form
of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally.

NOTE: I'm not some animal rights person and I do eat meat without thinking,
and no I've never seen the inside of a slaughter house (and yes I think that
would probably scar me for life).

~~~
fmihaila
> The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any
> form of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally.

The point is to minimize unnecessary suffering. If you have to kill it, don't
prolong it.

~~~
nickjj
Yes but dignity is usually related to respect and honor.

When was the last time you killed and ate something out of respect?

They should change that phrase to "reduce cruelty towards animals" and then
it's fine. Say it as it is basically.

~~~
fmihaila
> Yes but dignity is usually related to respect and honor. When was the last
> time you killed and ate something out of respect?

I don't kill what I eat, but most communities and cultures where this is a
regular occurrence have long traditions of respecting the animals being
sacrificed. One form of respect is to minimize the animal's suffering (both
when it's raised and when it's killed), another is to use all parts of it,
another is to not have an unfair advantage when hunting it, and so on. It's
not one dimensional.

One of my all-time favourite comments on HN deals with this beautifully:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655610](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655610)

~~~
kaybe
That really is a beautiful comment.

------
abecedarius
> "then it dies within seconds,” he said.

Perhaps worth keeping in mind that smaller animals tend to run at a faster
"clock speed". Seconds might feel rather longer to them. (E.g.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-
liv...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-live-in-a-
slow-motion-world/) though that's about vertebrates.)

------
IdontRememberIt
Switzerland law makers are pragmatic (most of the time). The main target of
the law is not the individuals but the industrials.

------
marcrosoft
Wtf. Should chopping the head off a chicken be illegal as well? How about
shooting a cow in the back of the skull? What if it's suffering? Is it ok
then?

~~~
daveFNbuck
They're not making it illegal to kill lobsters.

------
lucio
>The new lobster legislation that boils down to...

not the best choice of words

------
sunstone
Lobster fishing is not a big industry in Switzerland so this shouldn't cause
too much inconvenience.

------
bikamonki
Hahahaha this is too stupid. How can these be less cruel?

"Two methods are recommended: Electrocution or sedating the lobster by dipping
it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain."

Maybe the lobster actually feels a litle pleasure on the boiling water before
going main-dish, like you reader on a jacuzzi, having an exoskeleton and all
sure helps.

Stupid laws. Better fix that corrupted banking system first.

