Consider the Lobster in the Microbiocene

David Foster Wallace, a novelist, essayist, and professor of creative writing, published an article called “Consider the Lobster” in Gourmet magazine exploring the Maine Lobster Festival and the lobsters there as an assigned subject. The original subject assigned to him was simply to write a piece about the festival itself, focusing on the event's atmosphere, activities, and perhaps some of the culinary aspects, because the Maine Lobster Festival is one of the biggest and well-marketed festivals. However, Wallace took a more introspective and philosophical approach in his essay, delving into the ethics of boiling lobsters alive and questioning the morality of consuming them. He found that lobsters might feel pain when they are cooked while still alive. Subsequently, he questions whether lobsters feel pain during that boiling process and questions humans’ “justifications for eating lobster, and indeed, our eating of animals altogether” (Wallace 364). I believe the intricate relationship between humans and nature emphasizes that nature cannot be seen as something “out there” for human beings as Rees proposed. Rather, we are an integral part of it. Therefore, I agree with Rees that a better future would look like humans realizing we live in the age of the Microbiocene - acknowledging our interconnectedness with nature and other creatures like pangolins, bats, viruses, and bacteria (Rees, 298). However, I don’t fully agree with either Rees that humans are “un-differentiated” with all the other creatures in the natural world, nor Hobbes’ ideas in Rees’ essay that humans should use our special ability to rule the natural world and all the other species. I believe humans are special in some aspects among other animals, such as cognitive ability, morality, etc. Therefore, humans should utilize these specialties as guardians or helpers to protect nature as a whole, instead of trying to change nature, rule other species, or interfere with the whole natural world. Based on that, because humans are the protectors and helpers, but also still the predators in nature, it would not be an ethical problem for humans in nature to consume lobsters, unless it is being done inhumanely on purpose.

My first response to Wallace’s question would be that it’s not an ethical problem to boil live lobsters if they don’t actually feel pain in the boiling water. As Wallace mentions in the essay, it is still possible that lobsters don't feel pain during this process. In that case, it is not meaningful for us to talk about whether we should kill live lobsters in this way. According to Wallace’s essay and the current databases, there is no evidence to prove that lobsters definitively feel pain when they are boiled alive in steaming water. As Wallace argues in the essay lobsters don’t seem to have the faculties of “making or absorbing natural opioids like endorphins and enkephalins, which are what more advanced nervous systems use to try to handle intense pain” (Wallace 374). Therefore, lobsters’ actions in the steaming kettles, including hooking their claws over the kettle, the sound of cover rattling and clanking, etc. might simply mean lobsters have emotions that do “not even deserve the term “pain” (Wallace 374). Wallace also proposes an example in responding to this possibility that maybe lobsters, lacking frontal lobes like those who have undergone frontal lobotomies and experience pain differently from us, might not experience distress or aversion towards physical pain, similar to patients who neurologically register pain but feel neither liking nor disliking towards it (Wallace 374). This suggests that lobsters, devoid of frontal lobes, could be detached from neurologically perceiving injury or danger. In this way, my response to Wallace’s question would be if there is no actual pain for lobsters in this cooking process, it is not ethically wrong for humans to consume lobsters.

However, I do believe that it is an ethical problem to boil lobsters alive to simply please humans if they know there are other ways to cook them without torturing them. Humans should utilize our special aspects to protect and benefit the future and the other creatures around us, instead of hurting them, especially in this case, when this action is glorified in a festival which encourages others to follow suit. In the essay, Wallace mentions that some scientists propose lobsters can receive pain by their “primitive system of nociceptors and prostglandins that are managed by the brain stem and thalamus” (Wallace 371). Wallace cited T. M. Prudden’s arguments in his industry classic about lobsters, “that although encased in what seems a solid, impenetrable armor, the lobster can receive stimuli and impressions from without as readily as if it possessed a soft and delicate skin” (Wallace 374). Therefore, if all of the statements Wallace cited above are true lobsters do feel pain during this boiling process, and humans also know this fact. I agree it is an ethical problem that humans still cook them in this brutal way, because Wallace mentions there is indeed another way to kill a live lobster right before eating it while still keeping fresh. For example, one could cook it with a “sharp heavy knife point-first into a spot just above the midpoint between the lobster’s eyestalks (more or less where the Third Eye is in human foreheads)” (Wallace 373). Yet, Wallace did mention the problem in this practice: “lobsters nervous systems operate off not one but several ganglia, a.k.a. nerve bundles,” which means killing lobsters more mercifully requires high-technique cookers with the correct knife method. Overall, although this looks more violent for lobsters, they don’t feel as much pain as in boiling water for 40 seconds while they are alive. Based on this, I personally believe in the current relatively stable society in most places, if there are choices in the state that humans do have the capacities of cognitive ability to moral and choose, we don’t have to torture the lobsters in this way, although we might just need more training for those cooks to practice the better way in the future.

Yet, I don’t agree that because humans have special capacities of cognitive abilities, it is necessary for every human to be a vegetarian or not eat any other animals anymore. Delving into the cognitive ability humans have, I believe humans are ethical animals. Therefore, humans have a special morality, which means we have the duty to think. Reflecting on this notion, our duty to think doesn't preclude our ability to end the lives of lobsters or grant us the inherent right to do so. For instance, in the context of COVID-19, it does not impede our ability to combat the virus due to humanity's unique morality. In the pursuit of self-protection, humans need to eliminate the virus. Moreover, as integral parts of the natural world, and in line with my argument positing humans as guardians and protectors of nature, it becomes imperative to kill harmful viruses to safeguard both nature and ourselves.

This does not imply that lobsters pose no threat to us, so we can’t consume lobsters because of cognitive ability or morality. Instead, I always pay attention to the natural law and the laws of the jungle. Therefore, even if we don’t kill other animals anymore, carnivores, such as tigers and lions, need to kill other animals to be alive. This is the rule of the ecological pyramid. Tigers and lions can’t and won’t imagine that they could torture other animals. While survival instincts might justify consuming animals for sustenance, deriving pleasure from causing harm, especially when alternatives exist, raises ethical concerns. In situations where humans have minimal sustenance options, the consumption of lobsters or other animals might be deemed acceptable for survival. However, the ethical quandary arises when individuals, possessing cognitive capabilities distinguishing them from other creatures, derive pleasure from inflicting harm upon them for personal satisfaction.

Furthermore, I believe acknowledging the ethical considerations surrounding both plant and animal consumption will bring a more balanced and sustainable dietary framework. Some people sympathize with the pain of animals after they killed, however, the recent research suggests that vegetables may also possess some form of subjective experience. There are scientific audio recordings that might prove vegetables “cry” as well when they died. As Wallace proposes “since pain is a totally subjective mental experience, we do not have direct access to anyone or anything’s pain but our own; and even just the principles by which we can infer that other human beings experience pain and have a legitimate interest in not feeling pain involve hard-core philosophy” (Wallace 371). Some researchers are starting to indicate vegetables do feel pain too. Moreover, this would lead to a food shortage and global problems if everything started eating vegetables. Therefore, it's more productive to consider a balanced and sustainable approach to food consumption. This involves recognizing that both plants and animals are part of interconnected ecosystems in the ecological pyramids, and our dietary choices should aim to minimize harm while ensuring food security for all.

The complexities of pain perception and the larger implications on resource utilization necessitate a balanced approach toward addressing these ethical dilemmas. Humans should be protectors or guardians of nature. Through our special abilities, humans should try to protect nature as a whole and follow the laws of nature, instead of trying to change them, rule other species as Hobbes suggested, and interfere with the whole natural world. It will cause a bigger problem if we only care about a single animal’s pleasure or pain, in the case of the lobsters’ pain, and ignore all of the other animals. It might influence the balance of the whole biodiversity. I already talked about how vegetarians for humans can’t happen. That is why I don’t think humans should just be vegetarians to stop eating other animals or even interfere with other animals such as tigers as an example, to guide them not to eat or kill other animals. In reality, we can’t tell tigers what to do or what not to do as well. Take the invasive lionfish in Caribbean waters as another example. In the Caribbean and Atlantic, invasive lionfish wreak havoc on native marine life and coral reefs. With their unchecked population growth and predatory habits, these fish disrupt the ecosystem balance. However, conservation initiatives have sparked a solution: humans are stepping in as lionfish hunters. By promoting the consumption of these invasive species, we're not just enjoying a new delicacy; we're actively managing their numbers. Through fishing and culinary interest, we're curbing their population explosion, safeguarding native fish, and nurturing the health of the reefs. It might seem merciless for the deaths of these lionfishes, but this human intervention aids in restoring harmony to these invaded marine habitats.

In a nutshell, I agree that humans live in the era of the Microbiocene, but the only thing humans can do in this ethical question is not to torture other animals inhumanly on purpose to simply please ourselves and follow the natural laws to protect the natural world as a whole. As I agree with Rees, humans shouldn’t be the rulers of nature. Instead, we should be the custodians of nature and biodiversity. Hence, our responsibility lies in preserving the natural order without imposing undue disruption on ecosystems. Our task is to understand and appreciate the intricate relationships within ecosystems, working collaboratively with nature instead of attempting to dominate or alter its fundamental laws. This holistic perspective ensures the well-being of all species while maintaining the integrity of our planet's diverse ecosystems.

Works Cited

Rees, Tobias, “From the Anthropocene to the Microbiocene.” Emerging Contemporary

Readings for Writer. Edited by Barclay Barrios. Fifth Edition. Bedford Books, 2021. Page 298-309.

Wallace, David Foster, “Consider the Lobster.” Emerging Contemporary Readings for Writer. Edited by Barclay Barrios. Fifth Edition. Bedford Books, 2021. Page 364-376