More like doctors reject inconvenient truth in favor of useful lie

Interesting, too bad the article doesn't go deep enough and doesn't explore the psychological effects.

I mean, they certainly don't understand it yet. They absolutely feel it and react instinctively to it, though. It might even form a traumatic memory of a sort that will affect them later in life.

The real question is, does it matter? If pain doesn't change future behavior or outcomes, especially with having no memory of that pain, what does it matter?

Same for boiling someone alive... How you die doesn't really matter, because if you aren't going to survive, the experience didn't impact anything.

It's only environmentally friendly to eat humans with a net worth over a certain amount.

Oh but you always suggest that Johnny.

ends justifying means is pretty well known to lead to bad means.

It's actually not, the average industrialized nation human requires several tons of carbon in upkeep per year, so if you're harvesting them at 20 years you're adding dozens if not hundreds of tons of carbon into the environment.

Sounds like something big boiling pot would say.

You need to define what the word alive means first.

If you cut a roach's head, it stays sort of alive in that the body responds when trying to touch it or expose it to harm but it won't do anything if left alone. just standing still until eventual death.

A decapitated roach might still be able to "feel" pain but in my personal opinion - I am no expert in the matter - it doesn't feel stress, trauma or have bad memory of the incident. Just pain and an appropriate reflex to it.

I think the most basic respect you can offer an animal is to just not kill it.

Babies don't have a notochord, though. It disappears earlier in fetal development in vertebrates.

It doesn't actually kill them, and it's so small that you're likely to miss it anyway.

This is weirdly distrubing and morbid to read. Not that it matters.

Oh thank god. I thought they would die.

Wait, do the lobsters scream? :(