Individual wrote: termite wrote:
Individual wrote:Also, in case it's not already ridiculously and abundantly obviously clear: A lobster's faculties would not be the same as a human's faculties. They would have lobster senses including lobster mind, which does not necessarily have vedana. They might be able to see, to feel heat, pressure, texture, etc., but not necessarily the sensation of "pain" from "too much" heat, pressure, being stabbed, etc..
Do they try to run away, or not?
Lobsters have nervous systems, and their ability to sense heat, pressure, etc., are affected by the application of anesthesia. The ability to feel pain is an evolutionary advantage, and it's highly unlikely that an animal would possess a nervous system, while not possessing the ability to make use of that system!
From your second link: "Additionally, an independent study funded by the Norwegian government
found that the nervous systems of lobsters are too simple to process pain. " A fine example of an independent and unbiased source...
It seems to me that those who "find" that lobsters don't feel pain are those who are interested in believing that to be the case.
Running away or not is not relevant, because it might merely be an instinctual, automatic response, not something done "consciously" out of a reaction to pain.
More importantly we should ask: Do they have a well-developed nervous system capable of actually sensing
injury as a feeling of pain, rather than merely reacting instinctually when certain potential threats are detected? And if they are capable of sensing injurry, is their nervous system well-developed enough that they have a capacity for "suffering" (the emotional anguish associated with pain)?
This can be demonstrated by examining their neurology and by experimenting on them, by seeing if there is any difference between the response to painful
stimuli (i.e. acid poured on them, having a limb sliced off, being boiled in hot water) and merely agitating
stimuli (i.e. pouring a non-acidic control solution on them, pinning them down, shooting jets of water at them). With human beings, if you pour a nasty smelling but harmless substance on them, there would be a difference than if you dumped sulphuric acid on them... If you merely pin them down, there'd be a difference there than if you sliced a limb off. And, again, if you boiled a human in hot water, there'd be a different response than if you merely shot jets of water at them or put them in a lukewarm jacuzzi.
But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain". If the same holds true for lobsters, being invertebrates, then they do not feel pain either.
Hello, Individual, why would it be important to you to believe that lobsters feel no pain?
Do you like to eat them and would feel less guilty about their death in boiling water?
So, if they can't feel pain it would be a good excuse?
But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain".
No, sorry. If a spider loses a leg they writhe and curl up and stiffen in pain, and hide to recover from some overwhelming shock. I see it every time I happen to unintentionally hurt one, sweeping the kitchen.
To be honest with you, it never occurred to me that they wouldn't feel.
To muse if it's more or less for some, is unethical imo, and suffering still remains suffering, so for a Buddhist it is a No Go, no matter which studies scientists bring up, possibly paid by the lobster industry.
Especially when this suffering leads to the death of an animal.Death is always suffering.
Pali and Chinese canon text
1. The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering;[boiling water] separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
2. Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.
So, as the Buddha explains, a lobster, trying to run away from "union with what is displeasing" =boiling water=, is suffering.
Not having liberty in the ocean's cool water is suffering: "not to get what one wants is suffering".
Fearing death and *craving existence*,( by trying to crawl out of boiling water) is suffering .
This said, scientists may claim that the standard of pain and thus suffering is not fulfilled, while Buddha says it is fulfilled.
So, whose judgment do you trust more?
The speculations of guessing, unenlightened scientists?
Or a Supreme Buddha?
Please tell me. Thank you.