PETA and the Intelligent Sea Kittens

[Pangloss]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp

 

"Bitter and insane, she spends her days plotting revenge against the Land Kittens who live such happy lives in comfortable homes, free from the terror of being eaten."

 

ROFL! Obviously some sort of children campaign, but I don't think The Onion could have written a funnier parody of PETA. Hilarious.

[ydoaPs]

Sea Kittens, unlike the Land Kittens, lack a neocortex. 'Nuff said.

[bascule]

Sea Kittens, unlike the Land Kittens, lack a neocortex. 'Nuff said.

 

Yeah, pretty much. There are some fish with complex brains (like sharks) but most fish operate through innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action patterns, which makes them little more than robots.

 

Some animals are more conscious than others. Fish do not have the neural structures necessary for awareness and the sensation of pain. A fish's "perception" of pain is no different from how a robot with damage sensors would respond. They are unfeeling.

 

I wish PETA would recognize this and concentrate their efforts on promoting pescetarianism, which is a diet which is essentially vegetarian but also includes fish and shellfish. This is arguably the healthiest diet humans can eat, because fish contain many proteins and fatty acids which are hard to get from purely vegetarian sources. Our evolutionary history seems to have included a long period of us being fish eaters, and our bodies seem to have adapted accordingly. I think it's a lot easier to sell people on being pescetarians than it is on being vegetarians.

 

If I were in charge of PETA, my message would be clear and simple: stop eating red meat (i.e. mammals). Red meat is both the most unhealthy and in general eating mammals is the most morally reprehensible as mammals generally possess a higher degree of consciousness than most other animals, especially fish. If PETA's message were this clear, simple, and defensible I think they'd succeed a lot more in lowering the carnage of some of the most intelligent animals routinely killed for human consumption, like pigs. Hell, just start there: stop eating pork.

Edited May 30, 2009 by bascule

[PoWn3d_0704]

I Like Meat

[PhDP]

If I were in charge of PETA, my message would be clear and simple: stop eating red meat (i.e. mammals). Red meat is both the most unhealthy and in general eating mammals is the most morally reprehensible as mammals generally possess a higher degree of consciousness than most other animals, especially fish.

 

ohh, that debate again

[bascule]

ohh, that debate again

 

Well, I hope you'd admit that your average mammal is a hell of a lot more conscious than your average "sea kitten"

 

As a cat owner (something else PETA considers wrong, I guess) I think it's deplorable to consider peabrained fish to kittens. There's no doubt in my mind that cats are conscious. Your average fish most certainly is not. You might be able to make a case for sharks, but what about minnows? Salmon? Tuna?

[John Cuthber]

Let's see them prove this assertion about (holy zarquon!) singing fish "Most ichthyologists—scientists who specialize in sea kitten biology—agree that this is just about the cutest thing ever."

[Pangloss]

My dog loves beef. She also likes to bark at cows. My wife is convinced that she's telling them that she plans to eat them later.

 

I find it most beneficial to domestic harmony not to challenge this belief.

[padren]

As a cat owner (something else PETA considers wrong, I guess) I think it's deplorable to consider peabrained fish to kittens. There's no doubt in my mind that cats are conscious. Your average fish most certainly is not. You might be able to make a case for sharks, but what about minnows? Salmon? Tuna?

 

Essentially the "measure" appears to be whether or not the individual person can "empathize" by projecting their own feelings, thoughts and experiences upon the animal in question and deduce that if they themselves experienced something as that animal with their own level of consciousness that they would find it bad.

 

Aside from that, they are using the "seakitten" BS as an intentionally disingenuous campaign to manipulate people's emotions and natural disfavor for hurting things that are "cute" with no regard for whether that animal is conscious. The irony, is that PETA is an organization that deplores the idea of using "cuteness" as a measure in whether an animal should have rights - they all should by their own philosophy. But since they already have no respect for what people in the general public think and feel on the topic of animal rights, I suspect they have little issue with trying to disingenuously manipulate the general public by trying to "cutify" fish in this manner.

 

I find it all rather sad.

[bascule]

Essentially the "measure" appears to be whether or not the individual person can "empathize" by projecting their own feelings, thoughts and experiences upon the animal in question and deduce that if they themselves experienced something as that animal with their own level of consciousness that they would find it bad.

 

Yes, and emotions I think are a huge factor. I think it's really bad that the mainstream media reported this paper with the incredibly oversimplified synopsis "fish don't feel pain"

 

Yes fish have pain receptors. Yes fish have brains. Yes the pain receptors of fish are wired into their brains. Yes fish react when they are in pain.

 

But if you were to take, say, a salmon and swing it by its tail, beating it on a table, would that make it feel bad? Would it get scared? Would it remember the experience? Would the lingering sensation of pain and the memories cause it to get depressed? Would it remember who caused it pain and change its behavior towards that person/animal as an individual in the future?

 

I'm no expert on fish behavior, but my personal answer to all of those for fish is no. Unless you do serious physical damage to a fish, you can beat it on a table, throw it back in the water, and it will rather quickly resume its normal behavior as if nothing ever happened. Perhaps, given enough time and regular beatings, it will learn to associate human-shaped things with getting beaten on a table, but there is no way it will ever learn which individual humans are abusive and which are benevolent.

 

My answer to all those questions for a cat, on the other hand, is yes. A cat can distinguish an abusive human from a friendly and loving one as an individual. If you hurt a cat, it will feel bad and get depressed. Cats who were abused as kittens remain permanently messed up and have behavioral problems because they remember the abuse. Pets even learn to read the state of their owners mood and react accordingly.

 

I would ask a PETA person (unfortunately our only resident one is the long-vanished IMM) why "sea kittens" deserve rights but locusts do not. Locusts are animals too! Why shouldn't we save the "grass kittens" as well?

[padren]

I'm no expert on fish behavior, but my personal answer to all of those for fish is no. Unless you do serious physical damage to a fish, you can beat it on a table, throw it back in the water, and it will rather quickly resume its normal behavior as if nothing ever happened. Perhaps, given enough time and regular beatings, it will learn to associate human-shaped things with getting beaten on a table, but there is no way it will ever learn which individual humans are abusive and which are benevolent.

 

I do agree with you, but I did run across an interesting link on new findings in fish behavior:

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/17/fish-intelligence.html

 

According to the article at least, it appears to support the idea that some fish are capable of social learning and selective use of gathered information.

[Mokele]

According to the article at least, it appears to support the idea that some fish are capable of social learning and selective use of gathered information.

 

Even if that's the case, though, that doesn't imply pain. In our case, we have both sophisticated social learning and feel pain, but there's no reason to assume both are linked.

[iNow]

A few years ago, I'd have stood up in support of PETA. I'd have focused on the fact that they have an honorable mission, and that it should be supported.

 

However, much of this stuff they do... It's just plain stupid. Flat out... ridiculous.

 

 

For example: Obama was in an interview and killed a fly. PETA? They are sending him a letter and a special device asking him to be more kind and to "catch and release" the flies outside.

 

Give me a frakkin' break.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

 

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

 

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

 

During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

 

 

Here's that video:

ORZ00OyKp0I

 

 

 

But, PETA?

Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

 

Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

 

Do they even want us to take them seriously, or do they just not care anymore?

[padren]

Do they even want us to take them seriously, or do they just not care anymore?

 

Hey - entomologists tend to agree that "pestilence kittens" are just the cutest things ever!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Even if that's the case, though, that doesn't imply pain. In our case, we have both sophisticated social learning and feel pain, but there's no reason to assume both are linked.

 

Didn't mean to imply that connection though I see how it could be - just found it to be an interesting bit of information regarding memory which Bascule had addressed, but I didn't intend to make the leap to a fish processing pain in the same manner as humans.

[Sisyphus]

In other PETA news, they're protesting the famous Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle. Not so much because they're eating fish, but because vendors often toss the fish around from display case to pick up counter, etc., which has become a minor tourist spectacle, and it's "disrespectful." If only fishmongers would be more sensitive to those fish's cultural taboos against disrespecting the dead!

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-flying-fish13-2009jun13,0,7652933.story

[D H]

For example: Obama was in an interview and killed a fly. PETA? They are sending him a letter and a special device asking him to be more kind and to "catch and release" the flies outside.

When I first heard this on the news I was quite skeptical. PETA can't be that stupid, can they? This story sounded like a fabrication. But nope, it's real.

From http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/06/obama_and_the_f.php

In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act.

[iNow]

Yeah, and as per Sisyphus' link, now they're "People for the Ethical Treatment of Fish which have been dead for a while, and which people are going to eat anyway."

 

Morons, the whole damned lot of 'em. Protecting animals is a really good cause. There are multiple exceptions, but the cause itself is just and noble. What this group is doing, though, it's just embarrassing and obscenely ridiculous.