> just because it doesn't solve literally all problems.
one would be nice. But I'm ignorant on how many untrained experts are de-humanaizing (de-crustationizing?) crabs to begin with.
one would be nice. But I'm ignorant on how many untrained experts are de-humanaizing (de-crustationizing?) crabs to begin with.
Stops grocery stores from selling live crabs to home cooks. That is one.
Stops kitchens from boiling lobsters alive without stunning. That is two.
Stops the practice of destroying the eyestalks of female shrimp. That is three.
If you belive that they can experience pain any of these is terrible.
I've quite a bit of experience on the subject. I've caught and cooked crabs and lobsters since I was a teen.
I generally don't trust the quality of pre-cooked crustaceans.
And while I agree that it is best to reduce the overall suffering of animals, I don't think that boiling is the worst part. They die in less than two seconds.
The humane way would be to avoid eating crabs and lobsters off-season.
Killing with a knife or boiling water really is quick, unless you really don't know what you're doing.
Certainly, that is worse.
There seems to be some uncertainty over the speed at which boiling will kill. From [1]:
> Scientists have found that it can take lobsters between 35 – 45 seconds to die when plunged into a pot of boiling water — and if they are dismembered their nervous system can still function for up to an hour.
This wasn't the only one, another claimed hours (and it wasn't an animal welfare page either). Difficult to track down the source of any claims though.
[1] https://cookchefgirl.com/boil/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-lo...
For usual crabs and lobsters the volume is low enough and the contact surface quite large, their bodies are not sealed, boiling water enter directly inside.
I think it can take a few seconds longer for huge crabs, especially if the water volume is not so large.
If you cut the head of a lobster, I think it can suffer for an extended time before dying, but not if you cut it in half longitudinally, as this is usually done when cooking them grilled.
I've carefully observed the process, and there is no question about it.
Sure, I believe they experience pain. I don't see these as major issues, however.
- who cares if it's the butcher or the home cook who kills the crab? I imagine the kinds of cooks buying live seafood care about that freshness (I have never bought live seafood). If they torture the food afterwards, that's on the cook, not the vendor.
- I don't have strong feelings about how the metaphoical sausage is made out back. I am aware that I am eating a once living being. As long as it's dead and properly cooked to not make me sick, what a chef in the backrooms does what they need to do.
- Same as above. They are being killed, they probably do need to take out the face before serving. I'd rather do it quick and painlessly, but I'm not on that side of the industry.
So yea, not strongly convinced here.
Interesting argument. It's kinda Main Character Syndrome though. There is a counter-argument which goes: "Bad things happen even when you're not around to witness them. We should probably do something about them".
no, it's more along the lines of "I don't see the larger impact being imparted here". the counterarguments here haven't given me reason as of now to see it either. I just see it as some way to pretend to be nice to animals while proceeding to mass fish them to extiction regardless.
Did that really need to be said?
But then again, by then we'll be the metaphorical boomers, and a lot of our generation eats meat very casually. We may not see such reform in our lifetime as zoomers/millennials start to become the main body forming law. But probably some shifts in that direction.
any metric you use other than the selfish “but it tastes good” shows that this is an absurdly negative thing we keep on doing casually and defending.