
Why Not Eat Octopus? - samclemens
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/eating-octopus
======
aaron-lebo
It strikes me as rather bizarre to oppose eating octopus because they are "too
smart", but to continue to eat other animals because they "aren't smart
enough". That's a really arbitrary line to draw.

An analogy I like to use is that there presumably could be aliens out there
that would like to eat humans. You could imagine said aliens landing on Earth
and trying to eat us, and even imagine some argument among themselves that
humans aren't smart, and thus can be eaten - something that we'd all obviously
find issue with.

Now obviously animals cannot think of or cannot communicate with us that they
do not want to be eaten the same way we could with another species, but I
believe part of the responsibility of having any kind of power (whether
intellectual or otherwise), is to take the utmost care of those who are
somehow weaker than you. To do otherwise is to take advantage (might makes
right), and that notion is disturbing.

In those terms, I have a very hard time justifying raising, keeping, and
killing (and in most cases causing incredible suffering) to animals purely for
our pleasure, when it is both entirely possible and likely more efficient for
us to not eat them.

Basically, the only reason we eat animals today is because we've always done
things this way. I do not mean to be offensive, as putting it this way
suggests that those eating animals are wrong or doing evil, but instead I just
think it is one of the many little things that we as society and individuals
do without much thought.

~~~
NhanH
A bit of a rambling, since I'm basically just thinking out loud.

We'd all obviously find issue with being eaten not because we think it's
unethical that the alien wants to eat us (it's unlikely that the ethics
question would even come up), but because we don't want to die, as an
individual and as a species (I'm trying to say that it's NOT obvious that the
issue we would have with such a scenario would have anything to do with
ethics, not to make a judgement whether it's ethical or not). And so your
argument looks like it's saying "we don't want it to happen to us, therefore
it's unethical (for anyone to do that to us, or for us to do that to others)".
I know you probably doesn't mean it that way.

Now, whether it's ethical to eat meat itself. As someone else have mentioned,
I've always wondered where do you draw the line? Pigs and cows seem obviously
out of the questions, but how about cockroach, caterpillar, corepod, hydra[0]?
Event certain plants do sense distress signals when they're being attacked.

Do we actually know that it's possible for us, as a society as a whole to
survive entirely on non-animal products, food or otherwise? Additionally, even
if it might be just historical accident that we have a heavy meat-eating
society, and another society that starts out without ever using animal
products can advance to where we are right now and have a perfectly
functioning society, it doesn't mean that it's ever feasible to actually
switch to such a no-animal product society. In _our_ terms, that would be a
switch from not just from one programming language to another, but probably
from silicon-based chips to germanium-bases chips.

[0]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_\(genus\))

~~~
bane
> Do we actually know that it's possible for us, as a society as a whole to
> survive entirely on non-animal products, food or otherwise?

Yes, we know that we virtually can't, at least not in a long-term multi-
generational societal context. Humans are superbly evolved to eat a little bit
of just about everything, and terribly evolved to eat a lot of one kind of
thing for a long time. There are millions of years of evolution built into us
and inherited from our ancestors that determined that a modern _homo sapien_
is destined to require some animal products in their consumption inventory.
Meat was important enough that if we had an herbivorous ancestor, that
ancestor is unknown in the fossil record. We purposely spent so much time
finding animal sources, despite plentiful plant life nearly everywhere, that
we even evolved brains, tools and fire and actually evolved away in-situ
nutritional synthesis of various critical nutrients (that all other herbivores
enjoy) all almost purely to take on the higher risk task of eating other
animals.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763330](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763330)

In _theory_ it _might_ be possible to craft a healthy, sustainable, long-term
diet that uses no animals whatsoever, and would last generations with no ill
effects on population health.

However, there's overwhelming evidence that, in practice, the kind of diet
around 90% of practicing vegans practice is not that diet. In numerous serious
studies, 70-90% of all tested practicing vegans test as B12 deficient, which
is not a sustainable long term dietary deficiency over generations.
Theoretically, after just a few generations of this kind of deficiency, if
anybody is alive at all, they'll suffer from severe congenital neurological
deficiencies that would make sustaining a modern society impossible. B12
sufficiency would be a non-optional part of any non-animal diet, and it
appears that practicing vegans are not able to construct an alternative
herbivorous diet that provides even single-generational sufficiency.

Other typical deficiencies found in large vegan population studies suggest
that humans are generally poorly adapted to long-term, sustained, plant-only
diets: with neurological and cardiovascular issues presenting as long-term
consequences of the diet.

There's other challenges, some nutrients are pitifully rare or not as
bioavailable to humans from plant sources as from animal ones: B12, DHA (and
some important varieties of O3FAs, Vitamin A compounds, Arginine, Creatine,
Carnosine, Vitamin D, Heme, and the list goes on.

There's other issues to, as the nutritional balance of vegan diets isn't what
we're evolved to process, humans suffer from various absorption issues as
plant sources provide high quantities of some food components that prevents
absorption of some critical minerals: e.g. phytates block zinc for example.

One of the significant challenge for Vegans is the incredible amount of
"sciency-sounding", but completely wrong nutritional advocacy advice available
in the vegan community. The science is _so_ complex, almost no vegan
understands enough of the science of human biology, nutrition and agriculture
to properly assemble a diet for themselves (as demonstrated through dozens of
studies). Various critical dietary issues are often waived away or minimized
(just eat yeast extract!) and major deficits are often covered up under a
handful of dietary supplements (many of which are derived from animal sources)
for long-term adherence.

The flip side of the problem is that modern food practices _also_ provide
animal sources _far_ in excess of what we evolved to need nutritionally. You
could probably eat a vegan diet 4-5 days a week, and eat a healthy omnivorous
diet just for dinner the other 2-3 and easily satisfy all your animal sourced
nutritional requirements and come out extremely healthy with none of the Vegan
diet associated health problems. And I don't mean a huge steak for those
dinners. I mean just a regular old meal with a few ounces of some animal
sourced protein.

~~~
robotresearcher
Around 1/4 of Indians are vegetarian [1]. That's 300 million people today. The
vegetarian traditions of Hinduism date from a few hundred years BC. How do/did
these people get B12?

[1]
[http://www.thehindu.com/seta/2004/10/21/stories/200410210011...](http://www.thehindu.com/seta/2004/10/21/stories/2004102100111600.htm)

~~~
bane
Animal sources of protein. Vegetarianism does not preclude this. Most
vegetarian Hindus (Brahmins mostly) are lacto-vegetarians and quite a few are
ova-lacto-vegetarians.

[http://forbesindia.com/article/recliner/being-vegan-in-
india...](http://forbesindia.com/article/recliner/being-vegan-in-india/4482/1)

Jains are often also pointed to as long-term Vegans in Western Vegan circles,
but it turns out most Jains are a particular kind of lacto-vegetarian, with
some other peculiar restrictions (no root plants). For example, most Jains
will still cook with Ghee.

Some Jains live a Vegan-like lifestyle (there may be up to 500 in all of
India), but wax-on and wax-off getting periodic B12 during lacto-vegetarian
times (B12 is fat soluble and can stay in your system for up to 3 years).
Still, B12 sufficiency is a major topic in modern Jain literature.

However, and this is important, several recent population studies in India
have shown that as many as 81% of Indians are B-12 deficient. Current dietary
guidelines for Vegetarians in India is driving the need for consumption of at
least 4 glasses of milk per day or change to an omnivorous diet to cover the
dietary B12 deficiency.

Because of cleaner food handling and the widespread introduction of
antibiotics, B12 deficiency has also been demonstrated to be increasing in
India and many local urban doctors report seeing multiple patients with B-12
deficiency per week.

In most Western studies, Vegetarians have far lower incidents of B12
deficiency than do Vegans. Vegan populations test as deficient at 70-90% of
the population. B12 deficiency is trivially treated with animal protein
sources.

------
adrianN
While I agree that we should think twice about eating sentient animals like
octopuses, pigs are quite intelligent too (more so than many dogs!) and few
people hesitate in front of a hot dog. Unlike the pigs we eat, the octopuses
at least had a nice life and weren't cramped into tiny, dirty pens.
Furthermore, octopuses have a very low life expectancy, they die after
reproducing, and eating them is ecologically more sensible than many other
seafood, tuna for example.

~~~
tootie
I think the case of dogs is very interesting. Any dog lover will readily admit
their dog is intelligent and emotional. Is owning them and keeping them on
leashes not therefore slavery?

~~~
vinculuss
The domestication of dogs was something that was mutually beneficial at the
time. The use of leashes on a walk is for the sake of safety, not because the
dog wants to escape.

If you're talking about abused dogs being chained up and not taken care of,
you're right. That is unethical.

~~~
goldfeld
Dogs all around the world today live more often than not on small cramped
apartment demarcations (or kennels), much like a baby's playpen even though--
and as opposed to how owners tend to treat cute ones--dogs are not babies
forever. They're pretty much kept "on notice" for whenever owners feel like
playing with them, at the end of a hard working day. I tend to think that's
pretty close to slavery, you could make a case for Stockholm's syndrome at the
least, since owners normally end up preventing dogs from interacting with
other dogs at will (!) or even castrate (!!) them. You know, smoke a joint,
have kids--find some other stress reliever and bonding mate, and as a bonus
you get not to feed a reckless breeding industry.

~~~
Stratoscope
Point well taken - for people who abuse and mistreat their dogs. But I hope
you're not tarring everybody with the same brush.

We rescued our three dogs through a wonderful no-kill shelter here in Redwood
City, Pets in Need:

[http://www.petsinneed.org/](http://www.petsinneed.org/)

I don't know what industry we were feeding with our modest adoption fees and
donations, other than Pets in Need's mission of rescuing dogs from kill
shelters.

So here's an example of how badly we abuse our dogs. Meet ThinkPad Dog:

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/12356111084/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/12356111084/)

~~~
goldfeld
I guess my bigger point is that if you're someone whose work day involves the
dog (a farmer, a policeman, blind people), that's great, "man's best friend"
for me is exactly in this sense of the dog thinking of you as peer, not owner,
of being side-by-side helping along and being an active dog. If you're gonna
keep your dog in close quarters for the limited time you can see him and walk
him, I don't think that's to be encouraged--dogs as house pets, that is. Of
course, much like adopting abandoned kids, what you do is very noble and
lessens the suffering of dogs, but I don't think that leads to being
supportive of "pet culture", especially where people buy brand new pups and of
races breeded for quality X that end up with all sorts of cruel diseases--
that's feeding the industry.

------
undershirt
It's interesting to me that the dolphin and octopus seem to be separated from
us by some missing feature. The Dolphin is social and intelligent, but lacks
graspers (for tools). The Octopus is intelligent, has capable graspers, but is
not social and doesn't live long. I wonder if having those missing features
would cause critical tipping points toward civilization.

~~~
GuiA
Both animals live underwater, where it would be really hard for any advanced
civilization to form (no fire, much harder to extract raw resources, much
harder to build shelters out of dirt/straw/etc.), etc. It's probably not a
coincidence that all civilizations (for a perhaps loose definition of
civilization- bees, ants, termites, humans, etc.) live on firm ground.

~~~
boulos
I was with you until bees and such. In what way do you feel bees are more of a
"civilization" than say a pod of whales or dolphins? Is it a "has a structure"
requirement?

~~~
robotresearcher
Cetaceans don't have technology - they don't build things, adapting the
environment to themselves. Their niche doesn't afford placing and combining
materials like others do. So as Douglas Adams observed, all the dolphins seem
to do is muck about and have a good time.

------
SoftwareMaven
Humans became human by eating meat. We aren't nearly as good as we think we
are at creating fake replacement foods (see the number of people who have
health problems clear up after going Paleo). Some day, we may be able to
replace real animal protein, but we aren't there yet. In the meantime, I think
we owe it to the animals and the environment to give the animals that will
sacrifice their lives to propagate our own a happy existence. My goal for the
past year has been to convert to sustainably raised, pastured meats
exclusively. I'm not perfect, but I try. And I am grateful for the sacrifice
these animals make.

On the specific topic of Cephalopods, I think our highest moral imperative is
to ensure the survival and continued evolution of the species. If that
requires farming some, fine, but we may find the intelligent life on earth in
the next two million years belongs to them. Breaking that branch of, either
trough ignorance or gluttony, is intolerable.

~~~
limsup
We can live perfectly healthy lives without meat. That said, I have no problem
killing an animal that lived a full non-tortured life for food. I do think we
owe more than buying the expensive whole foods meat. I think we should all go
through the experience of killing a cow, pig, lamb, and chicken. Killing
animals shouldn't be completely abstracted away from society - we need to
understand what we are doing in a hands on way.

~~~
voidlogic
>>We can live perfectly healthy lives without meat.

Perhaps and with great care a diligence. Ask anyone who has tried to body
build vegan, getting complete ammino acids takes planing. All the reverted
vegans I know say they feel much better now. And being a vegan can be more
unhealthy _if_ you replaced the meat that was in your diet with carbs/sugars.

It is far more healthy to eat a diet without grain/carbs IMHO if you are
choosing one thing to improve health.

Want to be in fat burning mode (ketonic)? Done. Want to cure your type II
diabetes? Done. Want to lower your blood pressure? Done. Want to raise your
HDL and lower your triglycerides? Done. Want to lower your cancer risk (est.
60-90% of tumors can't run off ketone bodies, but require sugars)? Done. Want
to have better dental health? Done. Want to have consistent energy all day?
Done.

Based on everything I have read and learned it is my strong (but open to
change) opinion that the natural human diet was consistent daily consumption
of vegetables/leafy greens (esp. low starch ones), occasional fruit and
occasional gluttonous consumption of animal products as community members made
kills.

That is to say, I think humans evolved for a ketogenic diet (< 20 grams of
carbs/day) and that is why it makes so many people healthier, independent of
choosing to have a caloric deficit.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/)

------
DodgyEggplant
As Benjamin Franklin famously noted, even animals eat animals. The problem is
quantity. Never in human history, even modern times, meat was served daily, in
mass. For most people, it was an expensive food, affordable once or twice a
week. And that before population increase we see. If people consumed meat once
or twice a week, the diet, and for those who like it - taste, were OK, yet
many many problems would be solved. Much more food, and less cruel
industrialisation of animals to food.

(full disclosure: vegan)

~~~
aaron-lebo
That's a good observation by Franklin, but in so many ways we like to think of
ourselves as superior than animals. An animal doing something is a poor
justification for a human doing something.

(This is probably obvious to you already being a vegan).

~~~
meowface
Agreed, that's a very flawed line of reasoning. Many animals rape, torture,
and kill other animals. Just because they do that purely by nature doesn't
mean it's ethical for us to do so as well.

------
davidw
If anyone stops by Padova, Italy, (I have a standing invitation like
patio11's: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/standing-
invitation/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/standing-invitation/) ), there's a
fantastic seafood street stand that serves octopus:

[http://www.tripadvisor.it/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187867-d3...](http://www.tripadvisor.it/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187867-d3185414-i66002712-La_Folperia-
Padua_Province_of_Padua_Veneto.html)

It's so good even my kids love it! "More tentacles, please!"

------
GraffitiTim
Reminds me of this (surprisingly powerful, IMO) video of a kid who doesn't
want to eat an octopus:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNntUXyWvw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNntUXyWvw)

~~~
geuis
Wow great video. Thanks for sharing.

------
Jun8
I found the "bargain with humanity" argument mentioned to justify eating pigs
disturbing, since it was also used many times to rationalize human atrocities,
too and many a situation that is disguised economic slavery, e.g. "Yes, their
condition is bad but wouldn't they be worse off if we weren't doing this to
them?".

------
alelefant
Okay between this and the lobster story you guys and gals are really starting
to make me feel bad about the seafood Christmas my family does ever year
(we're each responsible for a different seafood dish). I'll surely bring this
up at the dinner table and I can tell ya right now, grandma isn't going to
agree! :)

Back on topic though, this was another good read. The debate about how to cook
it was hilarious:

 _He insisted that there was an art to cooking octopus correctly. His includes
a Neapolitan trick: a wine cork in the cooking liquid. Éric Ripert and Harold
McGee dismiss this step as mere legend—to which Pasternack gleefully responds,
“Éric Ripert is full of shit!”_

------
nodata
I wanted to like this article, but it didn't address or resolve the pig versus
octopus debate adequately really.

------
wyager
I honestly can not come up with a comfortable moral basis for eating meat
derived from sentient animals. I do it anyway, mostly out of practical
concerns, but I really hope artificial growth technology picks up over the
next few years and tank-grown meat becomes viable.

------
jessaustin
More cladistic thoughts:

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/kvk/the_octopus_the_dolphin_and_us_a...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/kvk/the_octopus_the_dolphin_and_us_a_great_filter_tale/)

Octopus is definitely on _my_ menu.

------
dmritard96
Rather than assessing a species intellect, I tend to look for things to eat
that are healthy, nutritious, delicious, environmentally sound/sustainable and
most importantly, low carbon.

------
zorrb
Just started reading the article but Jaron Lanier has a whole section on this
(surprisingly) in his book, You Are Not A Gadget.

------
gweinberg
Octopuses may be much smarter than any other invertebrate, but does anyone
seriously think they are as smart as pigs?

------
Gys
Great article !

------
tom_devref
I've been a strict vegetarian for close to 5 years. While I support any
reduction in meat consumption, grading the edibility of animals by our
perception of their intelligence is Nazism.

~~~
sgk284
As a vegetarian you do the same thing. You kill living things to eat them, you
simply choose to kill living things that don't have a nervous system. That is,
you kill living things that you perceive are unable to appreciate that they
are alive. Although plants do transmit electro-chemical signals across their
regions, which could be argued as a rudimentary nervous system. They also get
damaged and heal, they get sick, grow, reproduce, and respond to interactions
with the environment.

We're not talking about whether or not killing is wrong, but rather where on
the gradient of developed nervous system-like behavior is it ethically okay to
kill something. Many people have chosen a higher point on the gradient than
you have, but that by no means implies that it's okay to kill anything along
the full spectrum. You've simply chosen a lower cut off point than others.

~~~
adventured
Either direction is entirely arbitrary. There is no objective basis to claim
it's morally better to kill plants instead of animals. These moving lines are
being made-up as people go along, and it's almost strictly an issue that
exists in the very wealthy first world (ie it's invented by people with
nothing better to do, who believe they're superior to the rest of the planet).
The best that can be said is: vegans have arbitrarily created a personal moral
line, wherein they are ok with killing plants but not animals. Anything else
is just subjective argumentation.

And the obvious reason why vegans and others do what they can mentally to
avoid facing the plant vs animal hypocrisy, is because if you take that to its
logical conclusion, you end up with nutjobs that claim it's as evil to kill an
ant as a human baby.

