No eyelids???
Okay, so we can sort the different flora and fauna by how mature their nervous system is.
Living things like fish are only reactively conscious, and don't feel agony for this reason, although they will flail and make expressions because they have some very small processing of the stimulus. It is nowhere on the level of magnitude of more intelligent animals.
Trying to put one's self in their shoes is mistaken, because their consciousness isn't much better than some human body parts.
Humans have the most mature nervous system on our planet, so they filter everything they react to through their beliefs, voluntary response system, etc. There are a lot more buttons on the console, and there are much more complex reactions in humans because there is a lot more grey matter to deal with, and the brain has other bits of hardware in there.
Now, let's move on to the practical aspect. Why take the time and energy to feel bad for a fish, when there are much more significant things, like work, friends, etc. ? Are we to pretend that the life of a fish was meant for something better than feeding a human?
It's very hard to make the case that another animal besides a human is of more value, since humans seem to be the most capable of stewarding our planet.
You have a typo. It should read "humans seem to be the most capable of DESTROYING our planet". Which, by the way, is every reason why the animals are better suited for life here than humans are. Also, the non-human Earthlings are here for their OWN reasons. We don't own them and we don't have a right to enslave, imprison, exploit, or murder them. I mean, unless your brain and ethics are stuck back in the dark ages.....
All you're doing is playing with the normative-descriptive barrier, and trying to assign a non-existent political context to the language at hand. It's not even remotely worthy of actual consideration. If I say that there is a plant growing somewhere, does it become a point of argumentation, to you?
If you think that the major decisions that humans make are best left to what are even less intelligent than small babies, then fine, but your idea has long been ruled as stupid.
It's clear that you have no interest in actual rational communication, and would rather spout off about your personal sentiments about animals. Maybe you lack a nutrient or something?
Wow. Your pseudo intellectualism is amusing. While my nutrition is fine, I'd much rather lack a nutrient than a heart.
Perhaps it's because, unlike fish, many people don't have feelings
Best response! I'm with you.
I had 2 fish in my living room that died from a contaminated tank my daughter ignored. I was upset and cried.
Not sure,
But I've also noticed that a lot of people don't consider fish to be meat.
Not sure how they figure that either, but maybe it's linked to not feeling sorry for them.
@Bierbasstard I support Sushi Tuesdays. (Or any day really).
Dammit, now I want sushi!
I lost my mustard tang a few weeks ago (I have a marine tank). He was 23 years old and had come to understand my every move.
We had a set of signals. I would hold up my index finger 3 feet from the tank and, if he was hungry, he would turn tight circles.If he wasn't hungry he wouldn't. When I showed him the food tub (or handful of snacks) he would go to the top front left corner of the tank which is where I fed him. He would take food from my hand. I tried him on all sorts of things and he had definite tastes. It seems weird but he liked chocolate cake.
I once told a friend about this and showed her the signals and told her what the fish's responses would be. He understood but turned one cicle, stopped and stared, turned another circle, stopped and stared and so on.
My friend said that she had never before had a conversation with a fish and that, although he was hungry, he made it clear that he neither trusted nor liked her.
He also had a good and long memory when I would replace rocks in the tank with ones that had been taken out to 'de-algae'. He tried to back into a 'cave' in tufarock that he used to inhabit when he was little. He looked a bit miffed that he could no longer get in it.
What fish? I don't have a personal relationship with many of them.
I do. Fish feel pain. Shopping in rural Indonesian food markets 10-years ago my local hosts were buying the evening's dinner. Refrigerators were very rare. The big red carp were swimming around in a huge vat of water and the buyer would say how many and someone would scoop them out. Instead of killing them, they dropped them into black plastic bags (no water) and tied them off. It took the fish an hour to stop writhing and by then we were about home. I asked why not kill them? "Because we want them fresh and the heat and black bags in the sun just hasten decomposition." I didn't enjoy my meal at all and stopped eating 95% of animal flesh on return to the US. They don't have to be cute to feel pain.
If I am intending to eat a fish (there are several delicious freshwater species and practically all sea fish) then I kill it immediately using a proper 'priest'. This is a wooden truncheon with lead inside it. Traditionally you hit the fish on the head three times but the first blow usually kills, or at least stuns, it.
The name derives from the fact that it is used to administer the 'last rites'.
I am quite prepared to accept that fish feel pain, which could be a problem as I am an angler.
However, I have been hooked more than once. Once, while fly-fishing, I stupidly cast in a blustery wind without wearing glasses. I felt a knock between (thankfully) my eyes and thought I had been hit by a stone. Reeling in the line the leader could be seen arcing up to my face. It was only then that I realised I had been hooked (and it is a difficult job to remove a barbed hook from human skin.
I have been hooked on a few more occasions and, after the initial prick, it doesn't hurt - the hooks are very fine.
So it is probably the same for a hooked fish.
What bothers the fish, though, is that it is caught and is being pulled where it doesn't want to go.
I was told many years ago that, in some backwaters of the river Thames, there were large bream who would fight for a couple of seconds and then go limp and allow themselves to be dragged to the landing net, taken out of the water, lie still while being unhooked and stay quiet for their time in the keep net (used to retain fish during a contest).
The theory was that these fish got fat by hoovering up groundbait and regarded being occasionally caught as a reasonable trade-off.
How do you know?
Good starting point
It´s probably the same reason why most people don´t feel sorry when a land creature dies...?
Fish have never been warm and cuddly to me. They taste good but I have no emotional connection to them.
It's all about how humans can relate. Humans make it about themselves and how they feel. Fish don't have the same characteristics of the animals that we relate to the most. You can't see a fish's emotions. I won't even go to the other conversations we've had (in general) on the moral high ground with stuff like this. It's kind of like how it's so easy for people to kill bugs like ants and roaches.
We haven't bonded with them maybe?