http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ine-news_rss20
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/38ou7h

09 November 2007
Colin Barras
Magazine issue 2629
It could prick the conscience of seafood chefs everywhere. Prawns, lobsters
and other invertebrates may feel pain, a controversial finding that could
open up the debate on animal welfare.

Robert Elwood at Queen's University Belfast in the UK and his colleagues
claim they have found convincing evidence that prawns do feel pain. When
they dabbed an irritant - acetic acid - onto one of 144 prawns' two
antennae, the creatures reacted by grooming and rubbing the affected antenna
for up to 5 minutes. This focused reaction is similar to that seen in
mammals exposed to a noxious stimulant (Animal Behaviour, DOI:
10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004).

Elwood says the results show a centrally organised response to the irritant.
"The prolonged, specifically directed rubbing and grooming is consistent
with an interpretation of pain experience," he says.

Most researchers believe that only vertebrates feel pain, but Elwood argues
that this is unlikely because of ...

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:08:13 -0000, "Brass Extrusion" > wrote:

>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ine-news_rss20
>or
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/38ou7h
>
>09 November 2007
>Colin Barras
>Magazine issue 2629
>It could prick the conscience of seafood chefs everywhere. Prawns, lobsters
>and other invertebrates may feel pain, a controversial finding that could
>open up the debate on animal welfare.
>
>Robert Elwood at Queen's University Belfast in the UK and his colleagues
>claim they have found convincing evidence that prawns do feel pain.

Duh.

>When
>they dabbed an irritant - acetic acid - onto one of 144 prawns' two
>antennae, the creatures reacted by grooming and rubbing the affected antenna
>for up to 5 minutes. This focused reaction is similar to that seen in
>mammals exposed to a noxious stimulant (Animal Behaviour, DOI:
>10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004).

What a clue. Another one is that crabs jump out of pots of
boiling water if they can. It's really pretty damned obvious.

>Elwood says the results show a centrally organised response to the irritant.
>"The prolonged, specifically directed rubbing and grooming is consistent
>with an interpretation of pain experience," he says.

If this is a breakthrough, then it's truly a wonder that researchers
have ever managed to learn a damn thing.

>Most researchers believe that only vertebrates feel pain,

How incredibly stupid.

>but Elwood argues that this is unlikely because of ...

Whatever about Elmo... They can see, and they can hear,
and they can smell, and they can taste. Only incredibly stupid
people would "think" they can experience all of the senses
EXCEPT FOR what is probably the most important one. For
everyone who is just now getting a clue, here's a great big
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
for you!

Now about that domestic animal elimination/veganism thing:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
"Cattle are the scourge of the Earth."
................'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:08:13 -0000, "Brass Extrusion" >
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ine-news_rss20
>>or
>>http://preview.tinyurl.com/38ou7h
>>
>>09 November 2007
>>Colin Barras
>>Magazine issue 2629
>>It could prick the conscience of seafood chefs everywhere. Prawns,
>>lobsters
>>and other invertebrates may feel pain, a controversial finding that could
>>open up the debate on animal welfare.
>>
>>Robert Elwood at Queen's University Belfast in the UK and his colleagues
>>claim they have found convincing evidence that prawns do feel pain.
>
> Duh.
>
>>When
>>they dabbed an irritant - acetic acid - onto one of 144 prawns' two
>>antennae, the creatures reacted by grooming and rubbing the affected
>>antenna
>>for up to 5 minutes. This focused reaction is similar to that seen in
>>mammals exposed to a noxious stimulant (Animal Behaviour, DOI:
>>10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004).
>
> What a clue. Another one is that crabs jump out of pots of
> boiling water if they can. It's really pretty damned obvious.
>
>>Elwood says the results show a centrally organised response to the
>>irritant.
>>"The prolonged, specifically directed rubbing and grooming is consistent
>>with an interpretation of pain experience," he says.
>
> If this is a breakthrough, then it's truly a wonder that researchers
> have ever managed to learn a damn thing.
>
>>Most researchers believe that only vertebrates feel pain,
>
> How incredibly stupid.
>
>>but Elwood argues that this is unlikely because of ...
>
> Whatever about Elmo... They can see, and they can hear,
> and they can smell, and they can taste. Only incredibly stupid
> people would "think" they can experience all of the senses
> EXCEPT FOR what is probably the most important one. For
> everyone who is just now getting a clue, here's a great big
> DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
> for you!

Yes, there are incredibly stupid people that belive invertabrates can't feel
pain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...408050,00.html

http://ask.yahoo.com/20070516.html

In article >, dh@. wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:08:13 -0000, "Brass Extrusion" > wrote:
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-pain-may-pric
> >k-diners-consciences.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
> >or
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/38ou7h
> >
> >09 November 2007
> >Colin Barras
> >Magazine issue 2629
> >It could prick the conscience of seafood chefs everywhere. Prawns, lobsters
> >and other invertebrates may feel pain, a controversial finding that could
> >open up the debate on animal welfare.
> >
> >Robert Elwood at Queen's University Belfast in the UK and his colleagues
> >claim they have found convincing evidence that prawns do feel pain.
>
> Duh.
>
> >When
> >they dabbed an irritant - acetic acid - onto one of 144 prawns' two
> >antennae, the creatures reacted by grooming and rubbing the affected antenna
> >for up to 5 minutes. This focused reaction is similar to that seen in
> >mammals exposed to a noxious stimulant (Animal Behaviour, DOI:
> >10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004).
>
> What a clue. Another one is that crabs jump out of pots of
> boiling water if they can. It's really pretty damned obvious.

What is obvious from their behaviour is that they see to avoid certain
aversive stimuli, which is clearly an evolutionary Good Thing. But that
doesn't tell us anything about their subjective experience (if any).
For example, one could build a simple wheeled robot that seeks to avoid
extremes of heat, cold, light, etc., but such behaviour does not in
itself indicate that the robot feels *anything*.

> >Elwood says the results show a centrally organised response to the irritant.
> >"The prolonged, specifically directed rubbing and grooming is consistent
> >with an interpretation of pain experience," he says.

It's also consistent with the prawns being biological machines which are
complex enough to behave like that but not complex enough to have any
subjective experiences at all.
>

> If this is a breakthrough, then it's truly a wonder that researchers
> have ever managed to learn a damn thing.

They don't say it's a breakthrough. In general, most research results
are pretty minor.


> >Most researchers believe that only vertebrates feel pain,
>
> How incredibly stupid.
>
> >but Elwood argues that this is unlikely because of ...
>
> Whatever about Elmo... They can see, and they can hear,
> and they can smell, and they can taste. Only incredibly stupid
> people would "think" they can experience all of the senses
> EXCEPT FOR what is probably the most important one. For
> everyone who is just now getting a clue, here's a great big
> DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
> for you!

It certainly is a "DUH!" to "discover" that prawns have pain receptors.
What is very far from a "DUH!" is the issue of whether or not triggering
their pain receptors results in some subjective experience analogous to
our experience of pain.

And the same issue applies to vertebrates too. In a painful situation,
Fido or Fluffy certainly *act* like we would, but again that does not
give us a clear window into their subjective experience (if any). We
can certainly empathise with Fido or Fluffy's plight, but that does not
imply that they themselves are having a subjective experience similar to
what we would have in the situation which we are mentally projecting
ourselves into through empathy.

Here's what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the "pathetic
fallacy" <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058718/pathetic-fallacy>:

"poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature,
inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of
personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been
common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds,
brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by
John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843-60)."


Someday we may know enough about how brains generate subjective
experiences to be able to settle the question of whether prawns, dogs or
cats have any subjective experience of pain. But until then, it's grist
for the mill of philosophers, theologians, etc.

[snip]

[added sci.philosophy.tech]

--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------

"Barb Knox" > wrote in message ...

> It certainly is a "DUH!" to "discover" that prawns have pain receptors.
> What is very far from a "DUH!" is the issue of whether or not triggering
> their pain receptors results in some subjective experience analogous to
> our experience of pain.

'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting
the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain
evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an
experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed
an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted
adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural
systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the
cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably
evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous
system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999).
.........'
http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf

Do that also apply to crustaceans? I think you'll find that it does.

> And the same issue applies to vertebrates too. In a painful situation,
> Fido or Fluffy certainly *act* like we would, but again that does not
> give us a clear window into their subjective experience (if any). We
> can certainly empathise with Fido or Fluffy's plight, but that does not
> imply that they themselves are having a subjective experience similar to
> what we would have in the situation which we are mentally projecting
> ourselves into through empathy.

'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other
animals."[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket.

After I read Griffin's book, my quest for a context into which an
understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of
luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington
DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University,
South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished
manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind,
which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology
since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested
a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted.

The implications of Bossley's survey could upset many. He insists
that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling
evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and
those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its
imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part
of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent
and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical
literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several
generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the
Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view
our place on this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other.

Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced
to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists.
In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence.
...'
http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm

> Here's what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the "pathetic
> fallacy" <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058718/pathetic-fallacy>:
>
> "poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature,
> inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of
> personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been
> common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds,
> brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by
> John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843-60)."
>
> Someday we may know enough about how brains generate subjective
> experiences to be able to settle the question of whether prawns, dogs or
> cats have any subjective experience of pain. But until then, it's grist
> for the mill of philosophers, theologians, etc.

'Anthropocentrism
By Penelope Smith

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole,
called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences
himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest,
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind
of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand
or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has
some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called
anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the
universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human
superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the
pinnacle of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non-
human beings that are most like human are usually considered more
intelligent, for example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language
or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through
touching electronic devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms
that don't express themselves in human ways by language or in terms
easily comprehensible by common human standards are often
considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic,
and usually of less importance than humans.

This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for
human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb,
unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated,
killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their
existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind.

Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in
patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect
them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However,
this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase
harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy
of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species.

The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which
many humans have discriminated against other humans because they
were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others
as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify
domination, cruelty or elimination of them.

Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb,
or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of
being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or
animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand
their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.

Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap
it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their
environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human
disruption of the earth's ecology, causing the disintegration of health
and harmony for all including human life.

Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence
and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that
they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and
therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only
to prove that point.

Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals
according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do
with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals
according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and
environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and
methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit
human-like behavior.

This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and
intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle
class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less
intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not
comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not
able to express their intelligence through them.

When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow
beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective of
life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a new
balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part.

http://animalliberty.com/animalliber...pe/pene-2.html

"pearl" > wrote in message ...

<..>

> Do that also apply to crustaceans? I think you'll find that it does.

Ack! Incomplete edit. Should of course be "Does that also apply......"

<...>