this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
842 points (99.0% liked)

World News

51429 readers
1898 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Boiling lobsters while they are alive and conscious will be banned as part of a government strategy to improve animal welfare in England.

Government ministers say that “live boiling is not an acceptable killing method” for crustaceans and alternative guidance will be published.

The practice is already illegal in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. Animal welfare charities say that stunning lobsters with an electric gun or chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling them is more humane.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

With enough evidence. The presence of cortisol doesn't prove a lobster's subjective experience is equitable to humans. Furthermore, that consensus can shift again so even current science isn't settled, science is never settled.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose I didn't really express my point. Is it just not better to err on the side of caution? I'm not saying to not eat lobster, people dictating what others should and shouldn't eat is a massive pet-peeve of mine, but it's not hard to find alternative prep suggestions that don't really add much in the way of effort, that's thought to be more humane.

Personally, I don't think lobsters experience the world the same way we do. The notion is ridiculous from a physiological standpoint. But it's equally ridiculous, and reeks of a more or less biblical human exceptionalist perspective, to assume that humans alone possess various traits that are evolutionarily advantageous, like for example the sensation of pain.

And if we're down to splitting hairs about "well the way other animals feel pain is different" then we're in purely philosophical territory. Rather akin to "how do I know that the colour I view as green is the same thing you view as green?"

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Better how? It's has zero impact on anything. The lobster dies in seconds and the moment is past. All this effort to satisfy the overactive empathy of a minority of human beings with big, judgemental mouths. Suffering is everywhere and inevitable. Much of it caused by humans. Life is very capable of enduring suffering and it helps shape and grow organisms in important ways. I don't see suffering as an inherent evil that needs to be eliminated.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 1 points 5 hours ago

Ah. Well there’s our core difference then. I view suffering as an inevitability that we should do our best to minimise wherever possible. You clearly don’t.

Interesting.