When my grandfather came back from fishing with a live red snapper, my grandmother would throw it into the half-filled bathtub. When she was ready to cook it, she opened its mouth and poured “schnapps” into it. She did this to lessen the pain when she cut its head off.
So can we quantify the amount of pain a fish feels when it’s decapitated? And how long does it hurt before the sweet relief of death? And does “schnapps” really help?
No, but clove oil can be used as a fish anesthetic and can improve the eating quality of the fish.
thank crom this was about an actual fish and not the euphemism I first expected.
I’ve always heard and read that fish feel no pain. There’s some scientific basis to it, although no one will make a claim beyond all doubt. The schnaaps maybe placated grandma a bit, but really - she poured it into the wrong mouth.
I suppose a straight doper could take two fish and decapitate them side-by-side after pouring schnaaps into just one of their mouths to see if there’s any discernable difference, but it really seems like a waste of schnaaps to me.
Moved Cafe Society --> GQ.
Pain is part of qualia and thus it’s very difficult to say what does and doesn’t experience pain.
How much pain does a person feel when their head is cut off? Not very much. Or if it is a lot of pain, it isn’t for very long. Which has to count for something, eh?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case that pouring alcohol into the mouth of a fish actually caused it more discomfort/distress - because it’s going to come into contact with the gills.
Honestly, imagine someone pouring malt liquor in your face/eyes/nose, and then, after giving it a minute to 'take effect", they chop your head off.
Probably be less painful if they just cut your head off first.
Nitpick: Malt liquor is not the same as schnapps.
I’m always a bit skeptical about claims like “fish don’t feel pain” - it’s so convenient for us fish-eaters.
I’m pretty confident that all chordates with backbones and brains and nerves and such can register pain. It’s a negative stimuli that keeps such creatures from harming themselves. However, if they’re not self aware (i.e. can’t pass the ‘mirror test’) then they won’t be able to be consciously aware that they’re in pain (“ouch this hurts!”). Thus, it’s not immoral to cause them pain.
Conversely, causing pain to an animal that can pass the mirror test is just as immoral as causing pain to a human. There are some animals where the mirror test is inconclusive and probably not suited to them but they probably still have some degree of self-awareness. Dogs being a prime example. Causing those animals pain is just as immoral. Hopefully one day brain scans will sort all this out definitively.
That’s how I look at it, anyway.
Huh. I’ve been around plenty of critters too dumb to pass the mirror test who were nevertheless fully aware of the concept of “pain” and that they would prefer to avoid it at all costs.
I’ve seen fisher(wo)men knock fish on the head before butchering them, to kill them or render them insensate. Makes sense to me - to do it humanely.
There’s a “Bizarre Foods” episode where Andrew Zimmern eats a LIVE fish. :eek: No, thanks.
Well yes, according to a concatenation of very questionable (and widely questioned) theories about what counts as pain, what are the necessary or sufficient conditions for pain to occur, what counts as being conscious and what are the necessary or sufficient conditions for consciousness, whether the notion of unconscious pain makes any sense, and what counts as moral or immoral.
Well they won’t, not unless the unresolved conceptual issues I have already alluded to (and probably others too) are also sorted out.
Incidentally, I am with those who are saying that pouring schnapps down a fish’s throat first is likely to cause it a lot more suffering than just cutting its head off quickly (assuming fish really are capable of suffering, which seems like a reasonable default assumption to me). I very much doubt that a fish’s membranes, normally constantly bathed in water, are able to stand up to alcohol damage to the extent that a land animal’s are. Furthermore, even humans have to get used to strong liquor, and tend to find it distinctly unpleasant at first. I think it would be cruel to force schnapps on a dog, let alone a fish.
Incidentally, isn’t the red snapper a sea fish? If so, it is not going to be at all comfortable in a bathtub of tap water either.
Missed edit window:
The answers to the OP’s questions are:
No, we can’t quantify it. Somewhere from zero to lots.
If it hurts at all, we have no real idea for how long. Indeed, we have no very reliable idea about how long the pain of decapitation lasts even for humans (but probably not very long).
For a fish, schnapps probably makes the ordeal (if there is one at all) a good deal worse.
An aside: Not long ago, there was a “Family Circus” cartoon where Mommy and the kids were all coming out of a public aquarium, and the children were all in tears. The caption: “A big fish ate a little fish.” That’s nature for you.
To expand further on the relevance of brain scans, fMRI evidence has, of course, shown that a salmon is capable of empathizing with humans, even after it is dead [PDF].
snerk
I have never been decapitated but I once experienced a shock up my spine that knocked me out for a minute. Never knew what hit me.
Notwithstanding various apocryphal tales about what happens shortly after decapitation, I would find it hard to believe that consciousness would continue past the severance of the spinal cord if it doesn’t even persist when hitting a bump while riding a snow saucer. IANAD, just my $0.02.