Hacker News Reader

Comment by tree_of_item | Hacker News Reader

Lots of people are saying this is absolutely awful but I really don't get it.

> There are currently no quotas on how many crabs one can bleed because biomedical laboratories drain only a third of the crab's blood, then put them back into the water, alive.

If it's just a needle insertion, why is this such a big deal? The crabs shouldn't be bleeding after, and I don't see why they would be very damaged.

It's saving human lives. I don't think it's ridiculous to say that human lives are worth more than some momentary discomfort for crabs.

View on HN

> I don't think it's ridiculous to say that human lives are worth more than some momentary discomfort for crabs.

Well: says the human.

Well, yes. Whose side are you on, anyway?

You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood.

> You're right, people would never accept a regime where humans were drained of some of their blood in order to give other humans medical treatment with that blood.

Yes, that'd be due to the fact that we see humans as equals, and the same is not true for humans and horseshoe crabs.

Well, it's OK if it's voluntary. But that gets murky for prisoners, who arguably can't freely decline.

Even setting aside statistics about various communicable diseases, prejudice would make use of prisoner blood a tenuous thing.

(I mean beliefs about prisoners being "bad" or "tainted" or whatever and people not wanting to receive their blood)

Few whole-blood transfusions occur in a setting where the patient can inquire in detail as to provenance.

Of course. That doesn't mean people wouldn't react to news about blood being collected in prisons.

Well, it is a bad idea, for both human-rights and health reasons.[0,1]

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(United_...

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_...

Obviously. Are you really going argue that humans aren't worth more than crabs? Would you genuinely let your own family members suffer a preventable disease because you didn't want to injure a crab?

It's not "injure a crab" though.

It's an interesting philosophical question, I think. You can apply to all sorts of different scenarios - say milking a cow.

We seem to be a species that likes to destroy entire environments and extinguish other species. We can always say, "but it was for our well-being".

Where do you draw the line, then? Some people live a vegan lifestyle (I don't), some will not wear fur, or like to buy products that are tested on animals - or other products that are mass produced by wiping out entire forests for a mono crop.

To further the philosophical debate, what if you apply the same emotional attachment you have on a loved one, to the animal? Would you harvest an organ from your family dog, if it meant your brother had a 50% chance of living? What if the dog had a 50% chance of surviving the operation to remove the organ? What if those chances were greater or less?

>momentary discomfort for crabs.

I agree that the benefit for humans is there, but it's often times a bit more than than just 'momentary discomfort' for the crab[0]

[0]: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10236244.2011.642...

Just for the tl;dr:

"Overall mortalities of bled horseshoe crabs were 17.8% (male = 18.75%; female = 17.2%), while mortalities of unbled crabs were 3.5%."

So it appears it indeed affects the crabs.

Its not "just" a needle insertion. There's no measurement of how much blood is taken from each crab, so there's no way to know how much damage is done on an individual basis. Imagine any other animal bled this way (https://www.thedodo.com/horseshoe-crabs-blood-tests-15310140...) and then "released" with claims of no harm done.

I did field work to study horseshoe crabs' near-shore behavior as part of my master's work. Fortunately we weren't bleeding them.

> If it's just a needle insertion, why is this such a big deal?

The article talks about how there's a bit of evidence to suggest that it may be a big deal, but that we really don't understand these animals so we're not really sure.

In the article it says they don't know exactly how many survive. Their original estimate was 15% died, but now think its closer to 30%. They also suggest that many have their reproduction impaired as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com