4th August 2021
There is a famous, six-word short story, attributed to Ernest Hemingway:
‘For sale: baby shoes, never worn’
The story even has its own Wikipedia page.
A powerful, poignant six-word story.
And here is another powerful, poignant short story, contained in a single tweet:
36 pence for a dead baby octopus, one of the most amazing creatures to ever swim the seas.
I swear we do not deserve this world. 😢 pic.twitter.com/ln0yjeQcpv
— Justin Wookey Webb (@RainbowWookey) August 3, 2021
*
’36 pence for a dead baby octopus’
*
Now take a few minutes to watch either or both of the following videos.
The octopus is perhaps, after the great apes, the most intelligent creature on our planet.
We have so much to learn from the octopus about the nature of intelligence and practical problem-solving.
We have so much to respect about how a creature, so utterly different from the great apes, can – by adapting to its own environment – develop over millions of years an intelligence comparable to ours.
The octopus should be as cherished a species as the gorillas, the chimpanzees and bonobos, and the orang-utans.
But such is human folly we package them up, and we say instead:
“For sale: baby octopus, thirty-six pence”.
**
Thank you for reading.
Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
I cried when I saw that tweet today. Devastating in its simplicity and sadness.
Me too, really got to me.
“For sale: baby octopus, thirty-six pence”.
We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I’ve seen octopus close up while scuba diving and they are truly remarkable creatures. But then I think so many species of wildlife are. Maybe nowhere near as intelligent or adaptable but still capable of giving us new insights into our own existence. They should all be valued because you never know what might be destroyed by their extinction.
Thank you David. Intensely thought provoking. The ‘Octopuss are ridicuously smart’ is a life changiNg clip. I had no idea.
Pigs are pretty smart too – perhaps more than dogs. But bacon, gammon, sausages, etc., all remain quite popular.
It is sad that no one wanted to buy the baby octopus at full price (just £1.41) but given has been caught, killed, packaged already: would it be better for it to be sold for 36p for someone to eat, or just thrown away?
Or not be caught at all.
Would you say the same of a slice of chimpanzee?
Chimpanzee? Probably not, any more than whale, or dog. I’m not from one of the human cultures in which each would be normal and acceptable. But I might change my mind if the alternative was to starve.
Would you draw a moral line between animals of greater intelligence that we should not eat, and others that we can? Which side would pigs or sheep lie? Guinea pigs? Chickens? Cuttlefish? Prawns? Mussels? Maggots?
I commend people who take the decision to be vegan or vegetarian for moral reasons. And I can see health and environmental and climate reasons why we would want to encourage everyone to eat less meat. I’m not going to condemn someone for eating calamari or pulpo a la gallega.
What is your view on Dudley v Stephens?
Well, on the whole, I am against human cannibalism. But I think there is a difference between gleefully murdering a cabin boy to eat him, and reluctantly consuming parts of the corpse after he has died, if there is no other way to survive. I couldn’t eat a whole one anyway.
What is your view of the survivors of Flight 571?
Various other animals have been observed eating their own species on occasion in nature, including octopuses and chimpanzees incidentally. But perhaps humans can aspire to be better than than.
I’ll go back to my initial question: if octopuses are off the menu because they are too intelligent, should we eat pigs?
As Octopuses quite like Humans you could say that this is a betrayal. My Octopus Teacher on Netflix refers
Thank you for your thought-provoking post.
I read somewhere that octopuses are the closest we can come, on earth, to knowing what it might be like to encounter intelligent aliens.
To be strict about it, it is well known among marine biologists and related researchers that the octopus is the most intelligent invertebrate. This has been known for a long time.
True.
The intelligence and self-awareness of crows and parrots has long challenged the notion that we’re the only intelligent, problem solving, self aware – even apparently altruistic – species, too.
Indeed it has, but not by the general public, who regard octopuses simply as food, insentient and disposable. Which was the point made by the tweet David refers to.
I skipped that tweet until now because lt made me feel so sad but it was our little suckery friend that was influential in making me become a Vegan.
It was my first overseas holiday without parents. My friend and l were sitting by some rock pools. A man who had been snorkeling walked by us carrying a harpoon with a writhing Octopus or Squid. It was horrific. He was parading his catch like a trophy and looked so proud. The man didn’t look as though he was desperate for food either. I hated him and thought he was a prick.
It was a totally unnecessary kill and so was the poor 36 pence baby Octopus *Sighs*
Devastating. As it is for all animals reduced to meat.
Certainly not aesthetic and gets us into uncomfortable questions about what is OK and moral to eat.
Which leads us into what would be a non damaging size of human population and its relationship to the rest of nature. Not a discussion the major political parties will be keen to join in.
I don’t think the moral question is that hard to work out. The issue is whether we will face it; and then accept the consequences of our conclusions.
Eating meat is unnecessary.
Farming and killing animals for food causes them pain, fear and suffering.
Causing unnecessary pain, fear and suffering is wrong.
Therefore we should not eat any animal that suffers or that experiences fear or pain in the process.
Hence l became a vegetarian and later a vegan.
“Increase sovereignty and reduce living standards.”
When you have an iPad this six word rule is very useful.
If you cycle too you will understand the word “Mamils”.
This thread could so easily become your oyster.
What has been done here is to sentimentalise it, which I think is the origin of a lot of “animal rights” thinking. We eat a lot of Bambi and Thumper, I mean deer and rabbit, in our household. But a lot of people don’t because they have sentimentalised them as Bambi and Thumper. Our cat eats lots of small animals, up to the size of a rabbit, and dealing with the remains helps reduce sentimentality. My teenage daughter is aware of the popularity of veganism among her peers, but she likes meat and is relatively immune to such sentimentality.
So I’m happy to eat octopus. I’m also happy to eat animals that many British people choose not to eat, like horse, goat and pigeon. I have some goat in the fridge just now.
“The octopus”. There are about 300 species, doubtless of much greater diversity than the apes, given how long each has been about. I suspect there has been some over-generalisation here. Some birds, eg, New Caledonia crows exhibit tool use, and parrots can learn to “talk”. But chickens seem to be much less intelligent. Though maybe this is us imposing our idea of intelligence. And maybe we wouldn’t mention it if we cultivated parrot to eat. (Though many of our domesticated species have been selected for stupidity, so they don’t escape.) Is the variability of intelligence by species of octopus relevant? How much does it vary?
Most humans eat animals. Those who don’t, now mostly do so by explicit choice rather than limitation of choice. And it may be an available choice for many only because of modern global trade. For hunter-gatherers, it was a question of what you could find. For pre-industrial agricultural societies, it was a question of using otherwise unproductive land and smoothing out supply over the year, especially in more seasonal and drier climates.
Some animals are taboo to eat, but this varies by culture and individual.
Many people object to eating apes and monkeys. But they are eaten as “bushmeat” in some places. And some other species of ape will eat ape, even indulging in cannibalism.
Many people object to eating horses and dogs because they are “our friends”. Sentimentality raises its head again. An acquaintance who kept ducks had to ban the children from giving them names, as it is apparently difficult to eat Donald for dinner.
Many people object to eating whales. Though the main argument that led to international moratoriums has been the rareness of over-fished species. “Traditional peoples”, like Inuit, are permitted their “traditional catch”. Minkes are now exceedingly numerous, and demand is far below what could be taken in a sustainable fishery. But we don’t like acknowledging that, it seems. Intelligence is cited. But where do we draw the line? How much more intelligent are whales than pigs, and how does that vary by species of whale?
There are 4 modes by which animals can store information for intelligent application:
– Genetic coding – all animals have innate behaviours coded in their genes
– Self-learning – an animal can have learning abilities encoded, and thus increase its information store and skills by self-taught learning.
– Direct contact teaching – an animal can learn from its parents and other members of its society. This is a significant mode of learning in many vertebrates, and many cannot survive without skills passed on from their family. Social invertebrates could potentially do it too, but it is at best uncommon.
– Distributed information dissemination – an animal can learn from recorded messages left by others. Scent-marking is the most basic example of this. But humans have taken it to a totally different scale with the invention of writing, and then technologies to distribute copies of the recorded information at increasingly high speed and low cost. To my mind, this is the trick that sets humans apart from all other animals, enabling information distribution and learning with an efficiency and scale unavailable, anywhere near, to any other species.
Octopuses have only achieved the first two of these. They have no social care. Their intelligence is innate and self-taught only.
Other issues that may be relevant in harvesting them are:
– They lay thousands of eggs, very few of which survive to adulthood. So a very high death rate is part of octopus existence.
– They have short lifespans. The common octopus lives about 2 years, and other species vary from 6 months to 5 years.
– If not over-fished, they would be exceedingly numerous enabling a high sustainable catch.
So, I’m happy to eat octopus, and the closely related squid and cuttlefish, though octopus is nicer. Along with numerous species of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusc, crustacean, cnidaria and echinodermata that I have so far tried. Perhaps I should mention also fungi, as apparently those are closer related to animals than plants.
It is always impressive how easy any argument is to win by just calling the countering view ‘sentimental’.
If I professed to subscribe to jainism could I say it was religious and not sentimental?
Following up to Ivan’s comment about fungi. There are creatures that are more like animals but also have the ability to photosynthesise. Part of the plankton in the seas. Right at (or extemely close to) the bottom of the food chain. Fungi recycle (mostly dead) plants and animals.
“Most humans eat animals. Those who don’t, now mostly do so by explicit choice rather than limitation of choice.”
I’d suggest most humans don’t eat animals. Not by explicit choice but simply because they can’t afford it.
That there are hundreds of species of octopus does not diminish the high intelligence of at least some of them. Similarly only having two types of intelligence does not make it of less value.
It’s good that minke whale numbers are increasing but it’s not yet time to reduce protection of whales generally as a food source. During WW2, whale meat was used to supplement meat supplies. It wasn’t much enjoyed by all accounts.
I eat meat too, but I don’t find octopus remotely appealing. Not because of their intelligence but just the appearance before and after cooking. I’d far rather watch them in the sea, alive and colourful.
To paraphrase, “Many people object to eating humans because they are “our friends”. Sentimentality raises its head again.
“Other issues that may be relevant in harvesting [humans] are:
– A human female is born with approx. 1 million eggs, very few of which survive to adulthood. So a very high death rate is part of human existence.
– Without modern medicine, humans have short lifespans. (The common human in 1800 could expect to die by age 30, long before an Asian elephant, blue and yellow macaw, or Greenland shark).
– They are exceedingly numerous enabling a high sustainable catch.”
“The octopus should be as cherished a species as the gorillas, the chimpanzees and bonobos, and the orang-utans.”
Are the great apes really cherished? If so, why are they in decline? Tough love?
Ivan observation extension.
Octopuses (octopi is also accepted in English, as is the – more historically correct – Greek plural) can interact with other species, beyond and across classes, to increase positive outcomes for both. Another example of intelligence.
The Greek plural would be “octopodes”, I believe, whereas “octopi” would be more Latin in character, and “octopuses” consistent with regular English usage.
Certainly in modern English, “octopuses” is more common than either of the others. More at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octopus
In Colin Tudge’s book The Variety of Life, the author considers why cephalopods might not be more dominant in the seas despite their intelligence: “… the pigment that carries oxygen in molluscan blood is not the iron-based haemoglobin favoured by vertebrates, but copper-based haemocyanin. Haemocyanin is not nearly so efficient. It gathers oxygen well enough, but does not readily surrender it again to the suffocating tissue. It is better at storing oxygen than distributing it, like a librarian who hates people to borrow books. So cephalopods … are spectacularly lacking in stamina … Perhaps if it were otherwise, this book might have been written by a cuttlefish.”
Then again, given that the greater part of human intelligence appears to be dedicated to building and maintaining an escape-proof methodology for suiciding our entire species, a project requiring centuries of sustained effort, it could be argued that evolution has done octopuses a favour. The race may just go to the wheezy (if they can survive acidification).
At the moment solar panels are more efficient at capturing sunlight and turning it into energy than choroplasts. The current balance of releasing sequestered carbon captured over millenia by chlorplasts in a few centuries is my root cause analysis.
Current (and historic) deforestation outstrips any current commercial attempts at carbon sequestration of tree planting.
Investment companies are buting up farmland (to plant trees), As investment companies they will be looking to sell on their investements to interested parties. Accounting could see the investments cropping up on multiple books.