A seafood firm wants to farm octopus. Activists say they're too smart for that

So if algae feed smaller fish, the smaller fish feed salmon, and the salmon feed humans, to double our salmon, we'd need 20 units of smaller fish and 200 units of algae (edit: oops, math is hard).

That's a lot. Climate change can increase algae productivity, but not by that much unless we want to barbecue the world. Of course there are other avenues (like simply harvesting more of it, or growing crops in areas of land/ocean not suitable for other uses). But there are always knock-on effects too, like algae blooms can be poisonous or deplete nutrients in an area.

The on-land agricultural revolution and improved/modified genetics gave us access to much more edible food, but a lot of that is only 1-2 trophic levels (we eat grains directly or feed grains to livestock that we then eat). The ocean tends to have a lot more layers, and is also not as easy for us to till and fertilize, and not all of it is equal... much of the edible parts are concentrated in certain areas, with a lot of empty water in between.

In general we probably shouldn't be hunting apex predators in the ocean anymore than we hunt them on land. It took 'em millions of years of evolution to reach a relatively stable carrying capacity, but we can drive them to extinction in a few years.

But, hell, realistically there's probably no stopping any of this. One day our kids will read about whales alongside dodos in the history books =/

Personally though, Octopi are too smart for me to eat. I'll always pass on it now.

Some species even bridge freshwater to salt. Sockeye come to mind, a few populations are completely landlocked.

This. It's a propaganda angle to try to get non-activists to support their group's demands by adding a spin to their claims that makes it more engaging.

The same blend of propaganda also includes things like showing a picture of a pig showing only its eyes, devised to underline their similarities with human eyes. They then proceed to draw a parallel between slaughtering pigs and humans. Another take is portraying cattle as pets, and you wouldn't kill your own pets now would you?

In the end it's just propaganda to try to convince non-militants to unwittingly support a cause. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary or outlandish. The goal is to sway you to do the militant's bidding.

Off-topic, but why not? I would actually legalize every substance; enforce safety measures (e.g. no driving while high) and services like NA.

Let people do what they want.

Interesting, but I bet it’s no bull when they say el toro is tough. I don’t know the average age of the toro but generally you don’t want the animal to be full of adrenaline and flight/fight hormones as it makes the meat taste weird and tough. At least that’s what it says in our homestead books.

What’s the reason why science would dismiss it? That the animal doesn’t fill out a survey afterwards?

What is suffering?

If you (as sometimes happens to farmers) drop dead in a pig sty after not long the pigs will eat you because you're food and they're hungry.

Certainly not. I'm not sure why this myth keeps propagating.

That’s hardly a justification for what humans should and shouldn’t do.

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge- reasoning, problem solving, etc. This is readily observed in many experiments with octopuses.

I am much more aligned, however, with sustainable harvesting (hunting) than industrial farming these days. There is nothing natural about the modern slaughterhouse.

It is the order of Nature that things eat each other in order to survive, but you don't need to eat animals, so you don't do that.

I like this!

> In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations. In different Asian religions, the word "sentience" has been used to translate a variety of concepts. In science fiction, the word "sentience" is sometimes used interchangeably with "sapience", "self-awareness", or "consciousness".

Cars are aware of its own self. Know for example its own inner temperature. They know if they are too hot and warn us about it. Know if they are stopped or moving, and how fast. Know in real time the position of many of its parts and take delicate complex actions with this info.

Cars are also aware of the environment. Don't have eyes, but know if is dark or sunny. Don't have ears, but can echolocate. Don't have touch, but register the pressure of the air at real time, or react to our fingers on a screen.

They are as sentient as animals are.

If this proves something is that "sentience" was not used before, because is a term totally useless.

Should we jail somebody if it crashes a car "killing" it?

What if he/she scratches a key against a door, torturing the poor paint layer and creating a permanent scar?

I can't see why two decades of sociology articles about how playing violin to octopuses make them more lively, should count more than two decades of biology articles looking for cures again each octopus disease known and found by farmers. One of this approaches helped greatly to reduce pain in octopuses, the other just wasted our time.

2) They cherry-pick facts relentlessly.

Evidence that goes against their agenda are systematically ignored and the authors mocked. They have a tunnel vision about the themes or interpret the facts as is better for them. See point 1.

3) They pick random facts to push random taboos on some organisms, but declare other similar organisms moral to eat

Just because they rank lower in their personal preferences or cultures. Cricket pie anyone?

4) They attribute malice or incompetence to their targets by default

People trying to domesticate octopuses "moved by greed". Maybe they want to help alleviate famine? We don't speak about this. Only our acts are pure, they say, while keep asking for money.

5) As their science is weak, they are unable to foresee the holes in their plan, or the collateral damages of their acts.

6) Even worse, they know but choose to ignore the consequences

After researchers spend their time informing them again and again of the collateral effects that their actions will have, they proclaim that is for a bigger cause and couldnn't care less about the consequences. They act by a sort of pseudo-religious ideology with random dogmas that can't be changed a Milimeter, even after proven false. Check the history of grey squirrel in Italy, or racoons on Japan.

7) They never, ever, will offer help to fix their own ecological disasters

After they cause economical damages of millions of dollars and waste the time of everybody, then shrug and just change their target.

8) They are prone to be deceived and manipulated from outer agents with their own agendas, that treat them as disposable.

People "against oil", are happy to be economically supported by oil companies. Are we sure that this activists aren't funded by <nice company killing lots of wild octopuses> to boycott <evil company farming domesticated octopuses>? or by somebody aiming to gain time to build their own farms?. I wouldn't bet my money against this.