So here we have a device (which sells for £2,500 — or roughly $4,400) that kills lobsters almost instantly by electrocution rather than forcing them to endure the 3-4 agonizing minutes they typically spend being boiled or roasted alive. Is this a step forward? Will it lead to more lobster consumption — a prospect fraught with ethical and environmental complications — or will it simply ease the agony of those already destined for dinner plates?
In short, this issue is a microcosm of the incrementalism vs. abolitionism debate. So, what do you think? Do such inventions advance or retard the progress of animal advocacy?
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal ethics, diet, environmental ethics, marine animals | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal suffering, animal welfare, environmental advocacy, environmental ethics, environmental law, lobster, lobster consumption, veganism, vegetarianism |