
Evidence that fish have feelings - JohnHammersley
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160220-do-fish-have-feelings
======
sharp11
If you're interested in this topic, I heartily recommend Carl Safina's Beyond
Words. It presents compelling evidence for the thesis that the default in the
animal kingdom is conscious & feeling.

~~~
proc0
Just took a glance at this, and it doesn't seem the book suggests that the
whole of the animal kingdom has consciousness, right? Could we attribute this
to a spider or a scorpion? Of course this depends on the definition of C, but
we can agree there's a "higher" form of consciousness, which the book is
mostly exemplifying by using elephants and wolves. These larger creatures seem
obvious, but serve no evidence to whether or not the simpler lifeforms like
insects, and even small fish have anything more than basic instincts.

~~~
sporkenfang
I have a betta. It's pretty easy to tell when he's feeling something; if
you've ever had or seen one, you know they're pretty expressive little guys.
Granted, he mostly seems to be anticipating being fed (or the possibility of
lady bettas wandering by the nests of bubbles he builds), or getting pissed
off (which he displays by war-dancing -- just youtube it) at the snail living
in his tank, but he's fully capable of interacting with humans at the level of
most other sorts of pets. I'm not anthropomorphizing. If he could breathe air,
he'd be doing his very best macho impersonation of a tomcat (or small yippy
dog that thinks it's approximately the size of a great dane).

If we go one step up and think about the average high schooler, I still am
having trouble differentiating what (the high schooler) he or she might feel
from what the betta might -- hunger, sexual frustration, happiness, annoyance,
loneliness... the betta probably can't do trigonometry, doesn't have opposable
thumbs, and has a different set of instincts tailored to his environment.
We've simply evolved to do different things; that doesn't mean humans cannot
observe emotions analogous to our own in other creatures.

Spider-wise, I've never observed one for periods of time long enough to do
much more than remove it from my house, but who knows.

------
throwaway60453
I would not be surprised if fish have feelings or even emotions.

The link is worth reading. Despite being short, it summarizes several reasons
why non-humans are likely more similar than not to humans that have been
developed in the past 2 decades, with no published counter-examples.

------
wantreprenr007
I almost felt guilty for taking fish oil and eating sushi, but then it's clear
that a fever reflex doesn't equate to missing Jane the cute fish next door,
writing Leaves of Kelp or being jealous of Henry's dorsal fins, although I
must admit they are quite impressive. It might seem anthropocentric (it's
definitely anthropomorphic), but Jane was really tasty with soy sauce and
wasabi.

~~~
alexashka
Don't feel bad - fish eat other fish. We eat animals, animals eat us.

Circle of life.

~~~
noondip
Non-human animal activities should not provide a logical or moral foundation
for our behavior and it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet
they do, especially as most of them are obligatory carnivores killing for
survival, whereas humans physiologically resemble frugivores. Also your
reasoning would justify killing companion animals and also humans - after all,
"circle of life".

More importantly, we recognize that unlike animals, we cannot justify taking
the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary
preferences. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of fish
when making decisions about our own behavior.

~~~
alexashka
People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

Are we living on the same planet? Why do I have to give eating salmon any
thought?

Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe
meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better,
right?

That's created by humans, FOR humans, that we want to get along with!

For everything else, I don't really understand.

I am nice to squirrels, I just happen to like them. Rats, I don't like.
Cockroaches I really don't like - when I see one in my house, I take a slipper
and kill that sucka.

Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this
moralizing end?

~~~
noondip
> Why do I have to give eating salmon any thought?

The same reason you would give thought to killing a Golden Retriever for food.
Due to indoctrinated beliefs, people think it's alright to kill certain
animals for food, but not others, and when asked why, the logical
inconsistencies become very apparent. See
[http://www.carnism.org/](http://www.carnism.org/) and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4)

> Am I supposed to justify stomping on a cockroach too? Where does this
> moralizing end?

Any killing is self-defense in always justified. However, if there's an
opportunity to practice non-violence, why not take it?

~~~
unprepare
To play devil's advocate:

I see from another comment that you are Vegan, so how did you make the
distinction of what living things are acceptable to eat, and which are not?
Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects; so if it isn't 'life'
that you are preserving, what exactly is it? some idea of consciousness?
intelligence? How does something like Honey fit into your view of this issue?

Further, how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant
underpaid labor? Is human suffering for your nutrition preferable to animal
suffering?

Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a
nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?

~~~
noondip
> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects

Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many
times more plants than vegans do. So if you truly regard plant and animal life
to be the same, it would behoove you to immediately stop eating animals! It's
very obvious how this argument falls flat on its face when brought to the
light of critical thinking.

> how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant
> underpaid labor?

This is just conjecture, but I'll try and answer anyway. You can be vegan
_and_ care about how workers are treated. Those two things aren't mutually
exclusive. Personally, I grow most of my food myself, but obviously this isn't
practical for most people. Why not turn this question around and ask, how are
slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like?

> Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a
> nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?

Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be
superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. It's not a game of
semantics - in fact, it's not a game at all. Animal agriculture is the
_leading_ cause of climate change. You can be coy all you want, but you are
actively contributing to the problem by consuming animal products.

~~~
unprepare
>plants aren't sentient

Is a venus fly trap sentient? Is a cricket sentient? Is a starfish sentient?
Is a worm sentient? How about trees that communicate with other trees
nearby?[1][2]

>and animals also eat plants

Plants also eat animals[3] animals also eat other animals, so i dont
understand how this is an argument.

>This is just conjecture

61% of all farmworkers have incomes below pverty level, average life
expectancy subtanstially lower than rest of population[4]

cites migrants earning 7500$ per year, 52% having no legal status in US[5]

>Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers
treated and what their experience must be like?

you could certainly make that argument, but i dont think its likely to mirror
agricultural migrant labor

>Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be
superior to animals, and justifies their destruction.

Thats quite a label to apply to someone you've never met and whose never said
anything like that.

You seem to believe you are superior to plants though...

[1][https://karban.wordpress.com/research/](https://karban.wordpress.com/research/)
[2][http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-
hidden...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden-
internet)
[3][http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_na...](http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_naturalists/insectivores/insectivores.pdf)
[4][http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html](http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/migrants.html)
[5][http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-
worker...](http://articles.extension.org/pages/9960/migrant-farm-workers:-our-
nations-invisible-population)

~~~
noondip
You're making straw man arguments. Humans don't breed, enslave and kill
billions of starfish, crickets and worms. Do you see what you're doing? Rather
than acknowledge we're harming many animals which are no doubt sentient,
you're appealing to fringes to bolster an illogical argument. I'm not
surprised - many carnists take refuge in the plant-killing argument as a last
resort. It's fascinating what lows the human mind will reach to justify
cruelty. And so what if animals kill other animals? Do you really think that's
a reason to act the same? Why pick this behavior, and not the one in which
animals commit infanticide or sniff each other's rear ends?

> You seem to believe you are superior to plants though

The only one I'm superior to is myself when I still paid for the abuse of
animals.

~~~
unprepare
>Humans don't breed, enslave and kill billions of starfish, crickets and
worms.

But we do breed, enslave and kill trillions of carrots, apples, potatoes,
tomatoes, etc

But again, you have made it clear you feel that some life is not as valuable,
namely plant life - so it is morally acceptable from your view to kill plants
but not animals because of the difference in the value of life.

Thats good for you but i am interested in hearing arguments from someone who
doesn't just ignore uncomfortable facts.

~~~
noondip
The plant-killing argument is extremely trite and appealing to it to justify
the animal holocaust just shows you are desperate for any reason to keep
engaging in animal abuse. Please - do have the humility to read again and see
just how ridiculous your arguments have been. Claiming vegetables are enslaved
and killed is just silly and you know it. What's more, I've repeatedly told
you more plants are killed for livestock feed, but somehow you choose not to
address this apparent contradiction.

~~~
unprepare
you actually completely fabricated what you think my views are, i'm justifying
nothing and my position is still unstated.

I'm simply exploring a philosophical question, while you are obviously
defending your lifestyle choices.

That philosophical question being how can one type of life be valued more than
another, or how do you justify a moral position of life is precious while
simultaneously ending life daily for nourishment. this is a quandary literally
every human on the planet faces, no one is attacking veganism, or you , or
your choices.

How you are missing that this is my argument, and continually projecting me as
some one dimensional 'vegans are even worse than meat eaters' is quite
confounding to me.

------
doctorstupid
Exhibiting a basic survival instinct in a situation of simulated danger is
weak evidence for emotion.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Exactly. I think authors understand this too. The problem is that they want to
make their article popular and get more citations, that is why they add this
BS about consciousness to their article.

What is sad is that most comments on HN are about "feelings" that their pet
fish has and how fscking happy they are when fed.

------
ars
The article does not support the HN title.

~~~
ridgeguy
I think it does. The study authors present evidence that fish, as measured by
a stress hyperthermia response, respond in a manner consistent with an
emotional response.

As a recanted neurobiologist, I find that surprising and I'm willing to go
along with the headline. It would be even more surprising (to me, at least) to
find that something as fundamental as emotional response were not to be found
in more primitive branches of the phylogenetic tree.

~~~
lisper
I don't buy it. If I attach a switch to an incandescent light bulb, then the
bulb will get hot if I press the switch. If I press the switch enough, the
light bulb will burn out. But it would not be accurate to say that the light
bulb "died of stress" or that this was evidence that the light bulb could
"feel" anything. It certainly doesn't prove the light bulb is conscious.

~~~
ivanca
Humans try so hard to believe consciousnesse is boolean, like "humans have it"
and "every other living thing does not" is almost funny. I have news for
nerds,, conciseness is a float, imprecition and all.

So cannibalism and eating dolphins is way more closer than the average human
is comfortable with, so people like to err on the lest uncomfortable side.

~~~
proc0
Is there no C line in the animal kingdom? If so we're saying spiders and
cockroaches are conscious? Surely there's a distinction, and nobody really
doubts elephants, dolphins and great apes, but we can clearly see the
difference in quality of C. So if there is some kind of line or distinction
within the animal kingdom, where would it be? Are insects the end of
mechanical behavior? Or could that line extend to small fish and crustaceans?
I think the article is using the word "feeling" a little too freely here. By
the same measure, There could be an experiment suggesting cockroaches get
stressed, and if so, would we be so quick to say they have feelings?

~~~
marcoperaza
The problem is that consciousness is such a loaded concept. It can mean
higher-order thought, self-awareness, ability to feel emotions, the phenomenon
of subjective experience itself, and more. I find that most conversations
about it involve lots of talking past each other.

------
ekianjo
> We weep for the blood of a bird, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed
> are those with a voice.

From Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

------
autoreleasepool
Looks like Kurt Cobain was wrong about that one.

See: "Something in the Way" \- Nirvana

~~~
tribby
Would have been his birthday when this was published, no less.

------
dwd
For anyone interested, an article on studies into fish intelligence:
[http://www.vox.com/2014/8/4/5958871/fish-intelligence-
smart-...](http://www.vox.com/2014/8/4/5958871/fish-intelligence-smart-
research-behavior-pain)

Previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131772)

------
kriro
This is interesting. A good counterarguments against one of the most
inconsistent diets I know of. Vegetarians that reject meat but do eat fish.

Edit: I guess only stress == hyperthermia but it's still a step in the general
direction.

~~~
pherq
Speaking as one, I don't avoid meat because I oppose in all cases the killing
of animals for human consumption. I'm a pescetarian because I think the
environmental impact of industrial agriculture, both in emissions and in land
and water use, is unnecessarily large. Similarly, I try to mostly avoid milk
for the most part, which a lot of vegetarians who wouldn't touch fish don't
seem to have any objection to...

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
I gave up fish before I gave up meat for reasons of sustainability (there are
only so many fish in the sea).

------
hellofunk
How is this a surprise? The world learned this years ago with Finding Nemo.

------
iconjack
Define "feelings".

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
The whole article is about undefined "consciousness". As the article itself
says, it is "loosely defined as an ability to experience thoughts and
emotions".

I wonder why HN would discuss "mind", "consciousness", "being an observer",
etc. All these terms are no different from religious "soul", philosophical
"qualia", they are equally undefined.

At this point of progress in AI and computing I would expect hackers to study
how intelligence invents these terms [2], not falling for this mistake
themselves. It was suggested that AI would become "confused and as stubborn as
are men in their convictions about mind-matter, consciousness, free will, and
the like" at the beginning of AI development [3]. I would be more interested
in study of how AI or more intelligent animals, such as monkeys, develop
religion and "mind"-like terms.

The article itself [4] is about stress-induced hyperthermia (SIH). It proves
that fish increases temperature and moves to more warm water in response to
stress. It is not too interesting for HN. Instead, synonym "emotional fever"
is used for SIH and the conclusion is made that fish is capable of emotion and
everyone happily discusses meaningless "emotions", "consciousness" and the
like.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions)

[3]
[https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/doyle/gallery/minsk...](https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/doyle/gallery/minsky/mmm.html)

[4]
[http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/2015...](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/20152266)

------
mixmastamyk
Of course they do, our Betta gets as excited as a puppy every morning when we
show up to feed him. Each one we have had over the years has had a distinct
personality.

~~~
kbenson
> our Betta gets as excited as a puppy every morning when we show up to feed
> him

I don't think that really supports the theory of fish having feelings. I'm not
sure it requires feelings to respond to repeated stimuli in a way to generates
a more advantageous outcome. That's not to say fish don't have feelings, just
that I'm not sure this is necessarily good evidence.

> Each one we have had over the years has had a distinct personality

That seems more likely to be indicative of feelings/consciousness in my eyes.
Personality, specifically different personalities in the same type of
organism, would indicate to me complex learned behavior (what else is
personality but that?).

~~~
_yosefk
How can one support the theory of _people_ having feelings, except for
assuming that people feel more or less what you feel yourself? Unless you can
experience others' feelings yourself somehow, you can always call everyone
else's behavior "responses to repeated stimuli in a way that generates a more
advantageous outcome." Personality is no different (so different fish, or
people, have a different strategy of generating advantageous outcomes -
learned or innate, it indicates some degree of complexity, but not
"feelings.")

The whole subject of "feelings" is kinda thorny as long as you either
subscribe to a worldview where there's no real difference between inanimate
and living objects (it's all just a bunch of atoms, it just so happens that
some bunches move and some are stationary), or, alternatively, if you do
believe in such a difference but have nothing but a gut feeling to rely on
when defining the limit between "machines" and "feeling beings." Which means
it's a thorny issue for, well, most of us.

~~~
jxdjsks
There is a third option, its all just matter, but matter is inherently
conscious. I subscribe to this view.

~~~
_yosefk
It's not without its merits, but the question then remains whether emacs
suffers when closed if it accumulated enough state for Steve Yegge to consider
it "conscious" the way humans are.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Doesn't everyone understand that Emacs is an evolving symbiotic life form?

------
cscurmudgeon
It is easy to accept popular sensational science if I turn off my brain and
any critical thinking.

~~~
SalmoShalazar
What exactly do you take issue with in the article?

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Just read the abstract of the article [1]: "It has been suggested that the
capacity for emotional fever evolved only in amniotes (mammals, birds and
reptiles), in association with the evolution of consciousness in these groups.
According to this view, lack of emotional fever in fishes reflects a lack of
consciousness."

The article is about "emotional fever", defined as "a transient rise in body
temperature shown in response to a variety of stressors". Article shows that
fish can show this behaviour. On the other hand, the "lack of consciousness"
or its existence, is not proven. It is just a hypothesis, based on some
"view", expressed in [2].

[1]
[http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/2015...](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/20152266)

[2]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2170/jjphysiol.49.1](http://dx.doi.org/10.2170/jjphysiol.49.1)

------
stevenjgarner
I feel wet

------
redtuesday
Maybe I'm too empathic, but I would always assume animals have feelings, feel
pain etc. and try to prove otherwise. Not the other way around.

~~~
azeirah
Perhaps, but do plants? Bacteria? Insects? Where do you draw the line? Is
there a line?

~~~
vinceguidry
> Is there a line?

There's good reason to believe that there isn't. Which means it's ultimately a
political question and will always have an arbitrary answer.

~~~
hodwik
What is that good reason, pray tell?

~~~
vinceguidry
These things evolved, piece by piece, over millions of years.

~~~
hodwik
As did quadrupeds and bipeds, but if asked to draw a line about their
locomotion that is quite easy to do.

Have not seen a convincing argument that we will not find an evolutionary line
in the sand between sentient and automaton animals.

~~~
vinceguidry
If you look at both quadrupeds and bipeds, you'll see around the time they
evolved an interrim period in which creatures existed that were not really
quadrupeds or bipeds.

Evolutionary success creates only the illusion of lines, none really exist.

~~~
hodwik
You take the word 'line' too literally here, it just means a boundary.

Reality has very few lines.

Using an unnecessarily strict definition for line, you'll find there is almost
nothing in the universe that is perfectly distinct:

There are no species, no genders, no living things, dead things, no discrete
individuals, not even any discrete objects, no colors. Nothing is high,
nothing is low, nothing is dark, nothing is bright; nothing is anything.

We can obviously draw a _boundary_ between quadrupeds and bipeds -- we're
doing it the second we use the words. Whether that boundary is absolute is not
valuable.

The interesting question isn't "Can we argue for a continuum of awareness
between insects and humans?" That part is easy.

The interesting part is, "Do we know enough about consciousness to describe a
meaningful boundary between them?"

