Philosophical Vegan Forum

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publica ... chap13.pdf

I've heard the argument that since oysters can not feel pain that they are considered to be vegan...

"The nervous system of the oyster is relatively
simple. The visceral and cerebral ganglia are
joined by the cerebro-visceral connectives; the
U-shaped cerebral commissure goes around the
esophagus; the circumpallial nerve travels along
the mantle's edge; and a number of nerves
originate from the ganglia and extend to different
parts of the body. The pedal ganglia, well
developed in many other bivalves, and the cerebropedal
connective are absent. These retrogressive
features are associated with the sedentary mode
of life of the oyster and the loss of the organ of
locomotion (foot). In the evolution of bivalves
this simplification of the anatomy represents an
adaptive change and cannot be regarded as a
primitive trait (Jhering, 1877).
The only organs of sense in the oyster are the
tentacles, along the edge of the mantle, and the
pallial organ inside the cloaca. The tentacles
are highly sensitive to changes in illumination;
they contract if a shadow passes in front of a
feeding oyster, or a beam of light is focused on
them. They also detect the presence of minute
quantities of various drugs, chemicals, excessive
amounts of suspended pnrticles, and changes in
temperature and composition of sea water. The
function of the pallial organ is not well understood;
the organ is probably concerned with the detection
of mechanical disturbances in the surrounding
water"

While they may not respond to pain oysters do have a ganglia and their nerves respond to changes in light..
If you google oyster restoration project you will find county after counties spending millions of dollars to buy oysters to clean up the water ways..

So oysters may not respond to pain but that doesn't mean they do not have a purpose in life and it seems to me that their purpose is very good; to clean up our waters from the pollution's we are putting into it.

Oyster Reef Restoration Projects

"The Oyster Reef Restoration project involves the placement of more than 30 million pounds of cultch – which is typically made up of fossilized shell, coral or other similar materials produced by living organisms designed to provide points of attachment for oysters - that will be distributed within the St. Lucie Estuary and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The purpose of the cultch is to provide habitat for oyster colonization.

Oyster habitat is vital to the health of an estuary, effectively filtering nutrients, fine sediments and toxins from the water column. They support critical fisheries and protected resources, improve water quality and protect shorelines. Oysters are an indicator species, meaning that their presence in the water can be used to gather information on the overall health of the estuary. Within the last 50 years, the oyster coverage that was historically present in the two estuaries has declined by as much as 75 percent.

This project was made possible through a $4 million grant from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."

http://www.oysterrestoration.com/

I think the cultivation of oysters to clean up the water ways is a good thing just like I think the cultivation of bee's to pollinate crops is a good thing as well.
What do you guys think?
Are oysters considered vegan to you because they lack pain sensory or are they not vegan because they contain a ganglia ?

To me oysters are not vegan because they have a ganglia.
Whether or not a being feels pain should not be the only concern; exploitation is a big concern.
To buy and eat oysters that have been taken out of the ocean is exploitation.


ex·ploi·ta·tion
ˌekˌsploiˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
"the exploitation of migrant workers"
synonyms: taking advantage, abuse, misuse, ill-treatment, unfair treatment, oppression
"the exploitation of the poor"
2.
the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
"the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits"
synonyms: utilization, use, making use of, making the most of, capitalization on; informalcashing in on
"the exploitation of mineral resources"

PrincessPeach wrote:http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publica ... chap13.pdf

I've heard the argument that since oysters can not feel pain that they are considered to be vegan...

Yes, they could be, but that's a semantic argument. It asks "what does vegan mean?"

PrincessPeach wrote:While they may not respond to pain oysters do have a ganglia and their nerves respond to changes in light..

Nerves don't actually matter. What matters is the brain that processes the signals from the nerves.

In humans, somebody who is brain dead still has nerves, which still fire, and those signals reach the brain stem which can respond reflexively (as an oyster probably does). Reflexes are automatic, and not sentience.
An oyster may or may not have some low level sentience in fact, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they do (or jellyfish, or sponges, or some very small and simple worms -- while other worms do show sentience).

Plants sense and respond reflexively too, through a cascade of chemical changes. These are just complex organic machines.

It's the difference between a scripted (by evolution) automatic response, and a thoughtful intelligent one which was decided upon by the organism based on true learning (rather than just sensitization, which is the equivalent of setting a variable in a scripted response).

Most computers, for example, can have very complex reactions to input, but are not sentient -- these are just programmed responses. Only adaptive neural networks are sentient, because they are essentially programming themselves.

PrincessPeach wrote:If you google oyster restoration project you will find county after counties spending millions of dollars to buy oysters to clean up the water ways..

So oysters may not respond to pain but that doesn't mean they do not have a purpose in life and it seems to me that their purpose is very good; to clean up our waters from the pollution's we are putting into it.

This is the best argument in favor of eating oysters. That is, sustainably farmed ones (rope grown), rather than caught from the wild.
Farming an animal increases the population of that animal.
If more people ate rope grown oysters, governments wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars to buy them -- companies would set up huge farms to grow them, and there would be hundreds of billions of oysters at any given time growing and cleaning the water.

This argument for eating oysters, is similar to the environmental argument against eating cows (that the huge population of cows is harmful to the environment). Huge populations of oysters would be good for the environment.

PrincessPeach wrote:To me oysters are not vegan because they have a ganglia.

This does not necessarily indicate sentience. It's sentience, not "pain", that important.
Although, there is a slim possibility that they're slightly sentient. It's something that would require experimentation.

Should we assume they're sentient until proven otherwise? Or assume they're non-sentient until proven sentient?

PrincessPeach wrote:To buy and eat oysters that have been taken out of the ocean is exploitation.

Exploitation is not wrong, unless it is harmful. We exploit things all of the time. It has gained a negative connotation, but that doesn't mean it's bad.
If oysters are rope grown, there's a good argument that they're doing more good than harm.

Just tell me more please!

You said nerves don't matter so what about the ganglia?

PrincessPeach wrote:Just tell me more please!

You said nerves don't matter so what about the ganglia?

A brain of some kind is required for sentience, because sentience requires dynamic and flexible information processing. It's not clear what critical density is required for that, but it has to be a pretty substantial nerve cluster.
That said, the presence of such a nerve cluster doesn't guarantee sentience.

Sentience can only be proved behaviorally, through responsiveness to conditioning (such as operant conditioning, NOT merely sensitization, which is non-sentient).

It might be easier to talk about sentience in terms of computers.

It doesn't matter how much processing power a computer has; that doesn't make it sentient.
It's the software that can be sentient. But the software DOES have certain system requirements.

Plants lack those system requirements, so they could not be sentient. It's not clear if oysters have the system requirements or not; it looks like they might. But that doesn't mean the software is installed.
The reason to believe the software is not installed for oysters is because they have no need for the software.
It would be like having printer drivers installed when you don't have a printer, or even any means to connect to one. Maybe it's left over from the manufacturer because they re-purposed firmware from another older device which did have those functions, but that would have to be a pretty incompetent manufacturer because the device we're talking about has very limited specs. That's like having a printer driver installed on a digital watch from the 90's. Not only useless, but it compromises the watch's basic functions by monopolizing resources it doesn't have to spare (to such a degree that it's not even clear that a printer driver would be capable of running on such a device).

All higher animals demonstrate the software's functions directly, so we know it's installed, and that they have the system requirements to run it. They also NEED the software to run.

A test of operant conditioning is a basic diagnostic to determine conclusively if the software is installed or not. More advanced cognitive tests will tell you which version is installed.

brimstoneSalad wrote: All higher animals demonstrate the software's functions directly, so we know it's installed, and that they have the system requirements to run it. They also NEED the software to run.

A test of operant conditioning is a basic diagnostic to determine conclusively if the software is installed or not. More advanced cognitive tests will tell you which version is installed.

I think we need to better educate vegan's and non vegans on this issues..

I have a friend who has a peta tattoo on her leg and decided to get married to this man that made her a non vegan because of the whole oyster's don't have feelings debate... :'(
She was also one of those peta activists that stood out naked handing out flyers to everyone... I wonder what people think when they see her peta tattoo while shes at the grocery store buying meat for husband and kids.. (she tells me shes on a pop corn and wine diet lol)

I'm passionate to understand this issue...

PrincessPeach wrote:I have a friend who has a peta tattoo on her leg and decided to get married to this man that made her a non vegan because of the whole oyster's don't have feelings debate... :'(

The argument was that Oysters don't have feelings, therefore you should eat beef?
And she bought into that?

Most vegans who marry carnists or enter into serious relationships with them will quickly become carnists.
Is it because the kind of vegans who would enter into romantic relationships with carnists already stopped caring about animals, and were just vegan out of habit, or because the relationship makes them stop caring about animals in order to be more like the ones they "love", because for some reason people see adopting their S.O.'s vices as romantic, or they see the partner as perfect or inherently good, therefore eating meat is O.K.?

PrincessPeach wrote: I'm passionate to understand this issue...

As people can change for the better, they can also change for the worse. People can start caring about things, and they can stop. Even people who say "vegan for life" will mostly all be eating meat again within four years.

Recidivism is a serious issue
Although I don't think Oysters have anything to do with it.

brimstoneSalad wrote: The argument was that Oysters don't have feelings, therefore you should eat beef?
And she bought into that?

::SIGH::
Yes

brimstoneSalad wrote: Most vegans who marry carnists or enter into serious relationships with them will quickly become carnists.
Is it because the kind of vegans who would enter into romantic relationships with carnists already stopped caring about animals, and were just vegan out of habit, or because the relationship makes them stop caring about animals in order to be more like the ones they "love", because for some reason people see adopting their S.O.'s vices as romantic, or they see the partner as perfect or inherently good, therefore eating meat is O.K.?

He walked into a bar saw her peta tattoo and knew all the right words to say ..
She wondered why I thought it was the most disgusting thing ever that her 'goat milk' baby sneezed right on my babies face..
Oh she also told me I should have supplement my son with goats milk instead of soy formula because the soy formula had an animal by product she goes "well in that case goats milk is more like human milk it is better for him"
Like that slipknot song always said people = shit.

brimstoneSalad wrote:
As people can change for the better, they can also change for the worse. People can start caring about things, and they can stop. Even people who say "vegan for life" will mostly all be eating meat again within four years.

Recidivism is a serious issue
Although I don't think Oysters have anything to do with it.

It sucks when a vegan stops caring.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to eat oysters to begin with, considering their texture and function in the ocean.

Then again, I don't get why people would wanna eat the fermented lactations of a cow or the menstruation cycle of a chicken either

It's hard to see how somebody would want to eat it. But we also have to take care not to confuse carnists on the reasons not to eat such things. Personal disgust is one thing, but ethics is something entirely different -- and of course the real reason.

True, but the ethics on eating oysters seem so flimsy. I think it's easy to argue in either direction. Peter Singer has even said oysters are 'OK' to eat. If someone wants to be vegan by the dictionary definition, he/she can't eat them, though. But that def. does not guarantee something is ethical. In this case with oyster I think it can be useful to ask why the f' someone would want to eat them to begin with? They are a disgusting food on several levels (they poop, carry viruses, contain heavy metals, etc). Maybe we need some objective standards on what's disgusting!