> given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem.
Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish. The conditions we keep them in and the impact on the wider environment is seperate
Did you intentionally remove the first part of the paragraph ? They are talking about the environmental impact of octopus farming which creates artificial strain on the environment.
> The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself and, given that octopuses are carnivorous and live on fish oils and protein, rearing them risks putting further pressure on an already over-exploited marine ecoystem.
The calories spent on raising and consuming animals higher in the food chain is exponentially more than consuming those lower in the food chain. This is the point they are trying to make. It wasnt about the ethics of eating Octopus itself, but the means in which they are being raised / procured.
> Did you intentionally remove the first part of the paragraph?
Yes, it seemed a little superfluous given the last third of the paragraph makes the point that farming them is putting undue stress (in comparison to alternative food sources) on the environment.
> They are talking about the environmental impact of octopus
They're talking about both the environmental impact and the ethics of carnivores.
> Farming octopuses is not only unethical but deeply damaging to the environment, scientists say.
>There is already a wealth of research that suggests octopuses are one of the most complex and intelligent animals in the ocean. They can recognise individual human faces, solve problems (and remember the answers for months) and there is some evidence they experience pain and suffering. Numerous videos on the internet of octopuses escaping from their tanks or stealing fishermen's catches have fuelled a human fascination with the only invertebrate that the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness considers sentient alongside mammals and birds.
> Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish
Ignoring the farming and catching practices used to get most octopuses from the sea to the plate, which most certainly are unethical since they are unnecessary and cruel, and only look at "eating another being", I still think you are missing the point that octopuses has to eat the fish to survive since they are mostly carnivore's and don't have modern farming practices and supermarkets available, whereas we are omnivores and have those things available where we can get all the things we need from non-animal products.
I say that makes a big difference between us and octopuses eating fish, not to mention the fact that as far as we know, octopuses are not capable of understanding ethics like us, which also makes a big difference (if it were unethical for the octopus to eat fish, which it isn't since it needs it to survive). Just like we don't blame a human baby for unethical behaviour, but still hold ourself up to ethical scrutiny.
We eat cows not wolves in large part because carnivores require vastly more land for the same protean. This argument is about efficiency, though we also eat carnivorous fish.
To simplify The amount of feed needed to sustain and grow an octpus is three times the weight of the animal itself where feed is delicious protein.
I'm with you, but it seems that the article & many in the comments are more concerned with the ethical implications of killing a thinking creature for sustenance than they are the environmental impacts of farming a carnivore.
Trust me. We, sea farmers, would love to breed only strictly herbivorous fishes. Would made our life much, much easier and exponentially increase the benefits. Feeding fishes is really expensive.
The small problem is that the taste of this fishes is plain awful and _nobody_wants_to_buy_it_.
There are plenty of cow breams in the wild, but you rarely will find it in your fish shop. And if you eventually find it, will be a really cheap product. Try it. Most people will not buy it twice.
Investors aren't stupid. They risk a lot of their money and put incredible efforts to breed carnivorous fishes for a logical reason. Everybody loves its taste and are willing to pay good money for it!.
So, in practice it’s more a question of feed stock ratios. Salmon for example can be fed a low percentage of soybeans to lower costs. However, as you can’t replace even 50% of the feed stock with plants the overall argument is still valid.
Inherently it’s no less ethical for us to eat them than it is for them to eat fish. The conditions we keep them in and the impact on the wider environment is seperate