James D. Rose.

In terms of ethical advancement, James D. Rose (the obscure professor who keeps claiming that animals can't feel pain if their brain is different from that of humans) is one of the most dangerous people on the planet at the moment. Every time scientists make progress and give empirical proof for the fact that fish are sentient and cognitively complex vertebrates, this guy appears out of somewhere and distorts the conversation with his braindead claim that "No! They are not humans! Only humans feel true pain!" It's just so ridiculous and dark and unscientific.

The worst thing is that so far, people have actually been buying this. To general public, Rose's 'contribution' makes it seem like there's some great disagreement within the scientists who've actually studied fish. When Rose writes yet another article (really, it's always the same article) about the fact that fish are not humans, newspapers run headlines like "Do Fish Feel Pain? Finally, Science Says No!" as if he'd actually somehow invalidated scientific research.

The problem is that Rose is trying to justify animal abuse by proving that fish are different from mammals. Of course they are different from mammals. Their cognitive reality is undoubtedly different from that of ours. Yet, it seems to be complex and compelling on its own. Fish intelligence is fish intelligence, and it matters. Fish suffering is fish suffering, and it matters.

The empirical facts are very strong, and then there's this one guy with opinions. Opinions. Opinions. Are. Not. Science.

It's amazing how much damage one person can cause. I'd like to stand on rooftops and tell the whole fucking world: "If it has something to do with the name James D. Rose, do not take it seriously. This is not science. This is opinions. If you look at the man's arguments, they don't make much sense. This is shaky bullshit from a person with extremely questionable motives."

Why can't people go near water and not hurt animals?
(Well, they do. The other day I saw an old woman standing on the riverside with a small boy. They were smiling and feeding seagulls. Feeding seagulls. It was quite beautiful.)
Why do people fish or hunt in modern society where these activities are no longer necessary? I may know the answer. After all, I think that it has quite little to do with fishing or hunting. When you ask people who fish or hunt why they love fishing or hunting, they usually come up with things like this: the beauty of nature, and the peace and quiet, and how exciting it is to be in the wilderness, and physical exercise. And more than anything else: friendship; hanging out with people that you care about.
The interesting thing is that you could erase the animals from the picture. People do this stuff because they want to experience the things listed above. But in modern society doing something without a proper 'task' or 'meaning' is considered strange and lazy; it would feel odd and sort of embarrassing to ask your friends if they'd like to come and join you and just hang out in the forest and drink beer and enjoy the peace, the friendship and the beauty. And this is why the animals must suffer. The animals must suffer so that we can have a legitimate reason for enjoying nature and hanging out with our friends. Sad. There are things that must change.
Can I suggest something? No? I'll do it anyway:
Go canoeing. Simply go canoeing. Or find a nice place and go skateboarding there. Give it a try.

Why would somebody want to spend their life trying to keep the darkness in, and the light out?

Something must be done. I think that I may know some great ways. It would be nice to get to a situation where the mere name of 'James D. Rose' in an article would serve as a scientific trigger warning: do not bother; there's more to it than this.

Then, we could actually continue moving forward.