So why is one tolerated but not the other? :brow: — IanBlain

Custom and convention - the real answer to almost anything.

Lots of people don't fish for sport for precisely this reason.

@IanBlain

I hate killing anything...until it stings me. Then I swat it until I knock its head off its thorax...as I did this morning with a yellow-jacket.

Depends on the sort of animal: if it’s just annoying, rescue it. If it tries to bite you, kill it!...unless it’s human.

I think you are right... but the personal logic that people use to condone one activity while condemning the other is pretty terrible.

"Fishing is different; it's relaxing." Maybe for the fisherperson...

So why is one tolerated but not the other? — IanBlain

I don't know anyone who condemns others for killing bugs. I'm sure there are some. I don't kill them unless they're causing me trouble. I had a friend who said he was willing to spray for cockroaches in his apartment, but he didn't step on them. He said it didn't serve any useful purpose and it didn't make him feel better about having bugs.

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat. I recognize that my life, and those of most people I know, are based on killing animals, including fish. I hunted ducks, geese, and dove with my family when I was a kid, although I haven't in a long time. We ate what we shot. I never had the patience for fishing. When you hunt or fish, you take direct responsibility for the meat you eat. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't have much respect for people who kill large animals for trophies. I don't have any particular desire to see animals die. Whatever your thoughts on catch and release, it seems a relatively benign sport. Whether or not it's reasonable, I have more empathy for other mammals than I do for fish. Even if a lot of the fish die, a lot don't. They will go on to repopulate the fishery.

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it.

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it. — IanBlain

The pleasure you seem to take in killing bugs and your willingness to unnecessarily anger your friends does not reflect well on you.

The difference is in the intention behind the act. At least, the intention that is assumed to be the cause of each act.

As one alternative example, it's the difference between killing a snail by covering it in salt for the kicks of it and putting salt on escargot because it tastes better that way. The snail gets killed either way, but the intentions are different.

Personally, I can't stomach even so much as watching another put salt on snails for the mirth of it (and, in all honesty, feel like becoming aggressive toward that human; why, because I disdain their sadistic pleasures), but I have no significant qualms in personally eradicating an excess of snails from my backyard by poisoning them, which is second best to using carnivorous snail species for the same purpose.

Same can be said to feeding seagulls alkaseltzer tablets so as to see them blow up ... its a long list.

Edit: don't mean to be harsh on you. (yet, at least :wink: ) Stepping on a bug kills them quickly, unlike burning them alive with a magnifying glass.

Short answer: Ignorance

Long answer: Ignorance elaborated. We don't or for some, like myself, can't comprehend realize the full import of our actions.

There are multiple strands of thought in re the tale of nochalant bug-squashing and, at the same time, frowning upon fly-fishing - morality, cognitive dissonance, religion, to name a few. It takes a simple question like yours to realize how complex our world is.


Have you heard of the meat paradox? People who oppose animal cruelty eat meat. That's something that'll keep us busy for a long time to come.


Speaking for myself, someone who's an nonvegetarian guilty of premeditated bug-squashing so many times that I've lost count, I'd say it's a question of how serious one is about the one's beliefs and at other times, how pragmatic one's beliefs are.

In addition, I quite like that (some) people are offended by wanton bug-squashing. It implies, at least for such people, the light of morality still burns in them even if only dimly.

Will people in the distant future think of us as moral primitives who inflicted, without thinking twice, pain and suffering to both ourselves and other denizens of the earth? They might but I'm fairly certain they would absolve us of our crimes for we didn't know any better (ignorance defense). Intriguingly, very few people have been willing to apply the ignorance defense to the white man (slavery, genocide, etc.) In my humble opinion, we should. It's the only reasonable explanation for so much misery and bloodshed.

No one knowingly does evil. — Socrates

Ignorance is the eipicenter of all evil. :chin:

As an aside,

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (The perfect is the enemy of the good). — Voltaire

No worries. Recreational fishing has its critics, for sure, but as someone earlier stated, it's often given a pass purely because of social convention. That seems really problematic though.

When I raise my sneaker above an army of hungry ants, or step on a spider, or smash a pesky bee, the goal is often to repel or destroy unwanted invaders either because they are annoying, may sting or bite, or in the case of spiders, are just creepy. Recreational fishermen aren't trying to repel invaders, though. Rather, they are traveling often long distances to seek out the animals' habitat without any intention of using them for meat.

You state "the difference is the intention behind the act." There is a jarring difference in the degree of planning and intent.. but I don't think it favors fishing in a positive way. Swatting down a bee is an unthinking, split second decision. Similarly, not much thought or planning goes into stepping on a spider for some overly dramatic girl; if they want me to see me demonstrate my machismo, why not? Even walking over to stamp my feet on invading ants is relatively unthinking.

By contrast, people who sport fish literally plan ahead, prepare for, and travel long distances to go and do something that they are fully aware will injure and can potentially kill. It's quite literally going out of your way to harm something. There is long term planning and time investment that goes into recreational fishing, there are gears turning in the person head, they actually look forward to it. Think about that... even if the people aren't cruel-minded, their commitment to an activity that hurts significantly more complex animals than bugs seems to be. What is the intent? I'm not saying bug squashers and sport fishermen don't sometimes overlap. But I'm critical of how one activity is embraced while the other one is written off as immature or cruel.

And that's to say nothing of the people who travel overseas to trophy hunt elephants or other intelligent animals. That elevates "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level.

I get you. And there's something of what was saying regarding ignorance to all this. And I'd rather step on a bug than release fishes into the ocean which hooks or hook holes in their mouths. For one thing, to me fishes are higher up in the, I'll say, sentience (rather than ecological) pyramid of life.

But in terms of why one is frowned upon by some and the other generally isn't, I again think its because stepping on bugs that do no harm to you tends to express the intention of cruelty whereas sport fishing is, after all, a sport, and sports tend to express intentions such as comradely. Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Iff that is granted, then an interesting hypothetical: sport bug-squashing. It's obviously not an official sport we're indoctrinated into. Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

Meanwhile: catching fish and releasing them is arguably more brutal but rarely condemned. — IanBlain

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion.

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion. — baker

I've witnessed fish being caught at the sea-side with crowds of dozens of people forming. I do think some of the people would have said something if they saw @IanBlain stamping on bees instead.

I'm not an expert on fishing, but I was wondering if fish really bleed to death from a hook in their mouth? If anything, I would have thought they might experience some difficulty with feeding until the wound has healed. If they die after being released, it would be more likely from other injuries sustained when dragged out of the water or when handled before being released. It would probably also depend on the type of fish and hook, etc. I also think that industrial fishing is much more damaging to fish populations than individual fishermen catching a few fish. It's just that it is happening out of the public's sight.

Other than that, I think you are making a good point. It is interesting to look into how people react to these matters and why. In the vast majority of cases, people tend to take things for granted and either don't bother to think or can't think due to lack of adequate information on the impact their actions can have on other creatures.

Our relationship with living creatures is inconsistent all over the place. We kill rats with a passion if infesting our house, but bury our dead gerbils. I had chicken for dinner, but feel bad for my chicken that got taken from the coop by a predator. A bug flies in my house, and I can't sleep but I can sleep outside with bugs flying all around. Pragmatics outweigh principles I guess.

That people kill or maim creatures for sport or entertainment is indisputable, but not something I'd consider admirable or appropriate. Sitting in a stand waiting for some poor deer to pass by and using a weapon it could not possibly protect itself against to kill it isn't my idea of a good time, nor is using a barbed hook to tear apart the mouth of a fish, no matter how artfully that may be done (fish being, as far as I know, at something of a disadvantage when matched against humans). So I can't say that I embrace fishing or hunting.

People who value animal life probably don't know that people catch fish and release them, and if they did they would be against it.

I think this has to do with one's personal surroundings. People die everyday all across the world, but if you don't know them personally, you probably won't care, let alone even know that they died.

When you kill bugs in front of people, that screeches their heart strings significantly more than some random fisherman that they don't see or know about. They probably don't even know that catching fish and releasing them is harmful and probably don't see fisherman that often.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby. — Kasperanza

I agree.

Fish which are caught then released die all the time, bleeding to death, intended or not. Releasing doesn't mean "not lethal." And everyone who does catch and release fishing is aware of that outcome. That means its done for entertainment, doesn't it? — IanBlain

I used to go fishing and the fish rarely looked like it was knocking on death's doors (An overall average, throughout my time of using barbed and barbless hooks).
Even in fishing competitions you keep them in keep nets, the ones you catch, in the water for possibly hours, they rarely died. It was on artificial lakes, and is artificially stocked, the owners would not want a big 10-20 year old carp easily dying from being caught. Most fisheries enforced barbless hook rules though as well. But even barbed hooks didn't always kill the fish, blood yes. I used barbless in the end to prevent bleeding and suffering or even possible death for the fish.
The artificially stocked fisheries for people to fish on, would be out of business rapid if that was the case of fish dying all the time when caught.
I can only think with the big barbed hooks used in sea sport fishing where they wrestle with the fish for ages, would amount to severe blood loss and death most of the time. You don't see death commonly in non-sea fishing, unless it was a horrific tug of war with a barbed hook, with the barbed hook stuck deep in the fishes throat, and then getting it out becoming a sad bloody mess, in which I recount most fish caught with barbed hooks succumbing to death in those scenarios. These scenarios with barbed hooks were hit and miss, so even with barbed hooks, 'die all the time' does not fit.

That's the thing with fishing, it doesn't aim to kill the fish. The human judicial system ranks death penalty as the highest punishment. With life sentences behind it (imposed limited living). That should say something with the comparing of sport fishing and squashing insects (after me explaining that fish don't die all the time). At least the fish can live again, more than likely. With wild fish, they even have a chance to live and never be caught again.

I thought it was wrong to even use barbless hooks in the end and stopped fishing altogether. Piercing a fish's mouth even with bloodless results and letting it go, for sport, is not respectful of the fish.

Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster — IanBlain

Sport fishing doesn't go out to horse around, to kill fish even quicker. Those elements are far apart.

When I raise my sneaker above an army of hungry ants, or step on a spider, or smash a pesky bee, the goal is often to repel or destroy unwanted invaders either because they are annoying, may sting or bite, or in the case of spiders, are just creepy. — IanBlain

The spider doesn't know it is entering a building that doesn't want it. It just sees a gap it can fit under, under the door and goes through it. The bees that get stuck in a house actually wants to leave the house as in all cases of bees in my house. Of course they do, there's nothing in the house for them. They get stuck confused by the windows. Even common wasps in spring and summer want to make a quick exit but get confused by the windows. Only in late summer/autumn do common wasps increasingly hone in on artificial human sweet food/drinks as they face natural food scarcity at that time of the year. Indeed they'll go crazy to get that then rare fix.

You're basically dishing out the highest human judicial punishment to insects that more than likely are going about its harmless activities. If a spider had to die for looking creepy then that's very sad and wrong.
Given the time spiders aren't creepy and can even be cute.
Due to their rapid and inconspicuous nature, humans rarely get to make a good acquaintance with their features and behaviour. There's no hope of any acquittance if it meets a shoe every time though.
Have a look at tarantulas, start with them. I know a friend who is scared of spiders but can handle tarantulas.

So in short, we have sport fishermen who don't go out to kill fish. Fish that definitely don't die every time they're caught. Compared with insects being instantly killed upon mere presence and proximity to the person, all the time? With zero hope of the targeted insects living to see another day, unlike the targeted fish which has a higher chance to see another day.

There may be people who condemn or disapprove of killing bugs, like many Buddhists, say, but some of these or many would disapprove of killing fish. Or at least of killing fish for no reason. So, I don't really know who you are talking about. I have seen thousands of mosquitoes swatted without negative judgment from witnesses. I see flypaper sold, bug sprays, industrial pestacides. Seriously, what are you talking about?

And there are people who condemn fishing: certainly many vegans and some activists.

I think the OP needs to focus on whatever (tiny, I think) group approves of one and disapproves of the other. In general there is more condemnation of the killing of organisms like us than those less like use. Fish being bigger and more intelligent tend to get more sympathy than insects. Though many have no problem with people killing either. I think many people would disapprove of killing either for pur enjoyment. Running over to an anthill and stomping on it or throwing dynamite into a stream and killing all fish in one area would like get a lot of disapproval both.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.
Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms.

Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

That is a good question.

As you said, cruel intentions tend to be ascribed those who step on bugs for the fun of it. But sometimes I just like experimenting with their reactions. At the same time though, I'm rational enough to know that the ants that I purposely step on aren't capable of experiencing suffering, a result which I have to believe is necessary in order to satisfy any potential/alleged reward someone gets from purposeful cruelty.

I agree with you about fishing. Whether or not the act itself is cruel in its degree of brutality or degree of suffering caused, I don't believe that people who fish for recreation intend to be cruel. I suspect most people share that view of those who fish even for sport. Meanwhile, I have a notion that people who openly disapprove of stepping on bugs suspect (and in some cases even assume) cruelty is intended.

I have wonder what explains it - the visual difference in size? Why to a bystander does me standing over and toying with an army of ants, calmly planting my shoe on their home so they can't go in or out, conjure up a more sinister mental image than that someone hooking, injuring, and potentially killing a fish that is large enough in size that they can hold with two hands?

The spider doesn't know it is entering a building that doesn't want it. It just sees a gap it can fit under, under the door and goes through it. The bees that get stuck in a house actually wants to leave the house as in all cases of bees in my house. Of course they do, there's nothing in the house for them. They get stuck confused by the windows. Even common wasps in spring and summer want to make a quick exit but get confused by the windows. Only in late summer/autumn do common wasps increasingly hone in on artificial human sweet food/drinks as they face natural food scarcity at that time of the year. Indeed they'll go crazy to get that then rare fix. — Wetsocks68

Bugs that manage to grab my attention get a new home at the tip of the green arrow. Tenants come and go often. :grin:

More serious reply: Taken together, bugs have a tendency to make every square foot of dry land on the planet their home though. It's true that they don't seek to invade a house. Like you suggest; they don't comprehend what a house is.

I recognize that bugs don't ask to be stepped on or have their lives unceremoniously cut short. But as mindless as they are, bugs still capable of sensing and reacting to danger. That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right?

For bugs, being in constant danger is a package deal. Look how quickly a fly will move if you go to swat it with your hand. They have ways of escaping and avoiding danger.

You're basically dishing out the highest human judicial punishment to insects that more than likely are going about its harmless activities. If a spider had to die for looking creepy then that's very sad and wrong.
Given the time spiders aren't creepy and can even be cute.
Due to their rapid and inconspicuous nature, humans rarely get to make a good acquaintance with their features and behaviour. There's no hope of any acquittance if it meets a shoe every time though.
Have a look at tarantulas, start with them. I know a friend who is scared of spiders but can handle tarantulas.

So in short, we have sport fishermen who don't go out to kill fish. Fish that definitely don't die every time they're caught. Compared with insects being instantly killed upon mere presence and proximity to the person, all the time? With zero hope of the targeted insects living to see another day, unlike the targeted fish which has a higher chance to see another day.

I get the sense you see it as a moral issue. Even though I respect that position, should the spider's wishes even matter? You are correct in stating there is no hope of any acquaintance between me and a spider because it will, as you say, "meet a shoe every time." I have a hard time seeing them as cute. There are some bugs I don't kill however: butterflies, pray mantises, etc.

You do bring up good points about fishing. There is a difference in intent, no question. When I fulfill the role of a menacing giant to the ants out on my back patio, I am almost definitely setting out to cause death and destruction. That is different than recreational fishing, I admit, so my comparison is flawed. I would still suggest fishing may be more callous and even cruel though, Even if it weren't lethal it requires one to have what to me seems like an unhealthy stomach for witnessing and causing suffering. Whatever their intelligence, the fish are clearly pretty distressed or in pain. It's pretty different than when I go to step on ants. For them darkness looms momentarily and becomes total, before dying under a giant's foot.

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms. — IanBlain

From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans.

They [bugs] get stuck confused by the windows. — Wetsocks68

Thanks for the info! I'll need that someday, I'm positive. The visible obstacle is a cakewalk compared to the invisible one, you feel you're free but truth is you're in a transparent cage. :fear: :grimace:



I wonder if I'm in one as I sit here writing this. I guess the only way to find out is with a severe concussion and a bloody nose. The usual way, the hard way.

From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans. — Kasperanza

There's always a "but" isn't there? There's always a no-go area -> harming humans is where we draw the line. It's, I suspect, too close for comfort. Reminds me of this thread :point: Nietzsche's Antichrist.

Evolution's conflict-harmony paradox: each living organism is competing against other members of its species and the species as a whole is too doing the same with other species; however, if allowed to do so, this constant conflict gives rise to an overall harmony of the whole.

We only kill each other so that we may live in peace!

We're friends who must be foes! We're foes that must be friends!

Shake hands! Now fight! Sportmanship is at a premium (if possible only).

We judge people based not upon the objective act, but upon what we think lies in their heart when doing the act. Bugs, fish, whatever: Evil, sadistic asshole, mean, inconsiderate, absent minded, afraid, whatever. Sometimes the objective act can give us clues as to what we think lies in the heart.

"Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt. I do not hunt to kill, but I kill to have hunted (y Gasset). I do distinguish between hunting and sport. I am not a sportsman. Hunting is a spiritual lifeway for me and an honoring of genetic heritage. At worst, I could be judged as stupid or inconsiderate for killing elk. But I've considered it extensively, so I might, at worst, simply be stupid. But I don't do it for mean, sadistic or evil reasons.

Anyway, if I were you (which I am not, of course), I would ask myself why I am about to kick that ant pile? I would not worry about why some people don't like me kicking ant piles while turning a blind eye to fishermen. People are going to judge you regardless. I would concern myself with what lies in my heart, and if I am good with that.

Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt. — James Riley

Do you eat the elk that you hunt? If so, I doubt that many would take issue with your killing of them. Although premeditated, the hunting of the elk would have some utility. By contrast, I would be pretty wary of someone who killed elk just for the sake of killing elk. I don't hunt or fish; they just aren't my kind of thing. If I did though, I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to stomach the idea of killing an elk and just leaving it to rot. I figure it would be illegal too.

Live pigeon-shooting is another "hobby" that I think is pretty messed up. Pigeons are considered to be highly intelligent animals; the idea of gathering up a bunch of them just to release them and using them as target practice seems pretty cowardly. That people hold competitions over it boggles my mind. And then of course we have trophy hunters to me are the most disturbing. Super rich men, such as the adult children of Donald Trump, who literally fly overseas and pay tens of thousands of dollars to corrupt foreign government bureaucrats so they can obtain permits to kill sometimes endangered animals.



As I suggested above in the post, it takes the expression "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level. Even still, there are likely people who disapprove of me stepping on ants for no reason, but would condone (or perhaps even celebrate) the above. Makes you think. :razz:

I would still suggest fishing may be more callous and even cruel though, Even if it weren't lethal it requires one to have what to me seems like an unhealthy stomach for witnessing and causing suffering. Whatever their intelligence, the fish are clearly pretty distressed or in pain. It's pretty different than when I go to step on ants. For them darkness looms momentarily and becomes total, before dying under a giant's foot. — IanBlain

I get what you mean. The sport causes suffering and I myself don't like it, I used to find it fun or enjoyable but I began to look at the hook and fish relationship differently, especially after times when the hook got lodged deep, and the poor fish looked like it was in pain, wriggling, whilst we wriggled the hook, audibly scraping mouth parts, blood coming out, still failing to get the hook out. I thought this poor beautiful fish traumatised, damaged or could possibly die. I'm sensitive to creatures and thought the fish wouldn't of suffered or possibly died today if it wasn't for me. Sometimes on a really beautiful day too, when the fish are very happy. I'd imagine a gentle spring day they like. Not sure. But it made me think, I would be ruining a fish that was happy before. (It didn't need to be happy it just made it more surreal for me at that time in my life when I was younger.).
So I realised I was hurting/damaging/traumatising a creature. That's not fun for me.

The same goes for barbless hooks. They can end up lodged in a awkward way deep in their throat, which can end in blood also, not as much as barbed hooks but enough for me to care about the fish's well being.

As for the sport fishing and insect comparison; wild fish at least get the chance, though not always, to live another day and never get caught. Artificially stock fisheries in small artificial lakes is pretty horrific where the sentiment does occur to me, surely instant death is better than constant suffering. But that's an awkward scenario for the fish, not the spider on my porch. Which like I've said before, to me, is just a humble little eight legged creature making its way from A to B.
The only time insects became an issue for me is when wasps somehow make a nest in the attic and them flying in my house all the time. I would still just get a professional to move the nest rather than destroy it if possible. Or if my house was a wooden one and termites were underneath the house eating the wood.
For me, insects are mostly none the wiser to our possessions or totally harmless to me. So I wouldn't kill them. I'm not squeamish with them either. Though cave centipedes have freaked me out on holiday (vacation), where it was under my bed area, in dim evening light and I could not find it. I couldn't sleep there that night. I wouldn't of killed it. I would of quickly braced myself to get used to this new creature's appearance and movements and with distance get him out the room, outside, with contraptions.



Even when flies try it on with my ice cream outside I don't see red because usually carnivores or creatures resume eating with flies on the corpse or whatever. Creatures in the wild usually have strong immune systems and can very much handle flies that have traces of faeces on it. This millions of year old relationship is embedded in these flies.
And yes, I don't want flies on my ice cream either. I just look at the angle as to why the fly wishes to be on my ice-cream, even when I'm present to the ice-cream.

But as mindless as they are, bugs still capable of sensing and reacting to danger. That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right? — IanBlain

Look how quickly a fly will move if you go to swat it with your hand. They have ways of escaping and avoiding danger. — IanBlain

Flies can react to incoming bullseye squatting. Ants or a spider on the pavement, are slow, they have little chance.
Spiders can often sit still around danger if they feel they can't out run a threat or feel invisible with their background, they sit still and hope to blend in with the environment to not be spotted and killed. I've dealt with a lot of house spiders some of them locomote very quickly into the nearest crack of my incoming presence.
The dainty daddy long-legs spiders are definitely slow, their thin ghostly appearance they rely on to not be spotted.
Orb-weaving spiders, the ones who make circular webs, when they are off their web they aren't nimble like other spiders. On their web, they react to danger either by running to a crack or curled leaf connected to their web or remain still with the background. They know you're there, sometimes I've gone up to one on a web, and it vibrates the web quickly to my presence. Of course, if you're on the other side of the web, the spider is less likely to spot you. All creatures have some pitfall to abuse or manipulate.

"The speed at which those images are processed by the brain is called the "flicker fusion rate". In general, the smaller the species, the faster its critical flicker fusion rate - and flies, in particular, put us to shame.

Professor Roger Hardie, from the University of Cambridge, investigates how flies' eyes work, and he has an experiment to determine their flicker fusion rate." — Why is it so hard to swat a fly?

According to this quote, ants being small can also see us as slow-motion.

Ants probably detect the incoming danger in slow-motion like the fly can but simply can't speed off as fast as a fly can, into three dimensional space. Even if this research wasn't correct, ants are hell of a lot slower than a fly and flies have three dimensional space to rapidly take advantage of.

That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right? — IanBlain

Yeah, most likely it will seem too foreign for them to see as a danger or not.
Well, any object coming to squish a fly will make it jet off. Most insects will scurry off with slow moving objects coming on to them. Their locomotion can let them down with fast moving objects. I mentioned the slow-motion thing, if it's true, these small creatures see the threat coming and so some won't move, thinking this object will stop and move on (like a bird might), or try to move but are too slow. Whether we know for sure they know this incoming danger with them being still, it's hard to say. If you hovered an object over them for longer when they are still to see if they think; "screw this, I'm going to make a run for it." ,and then they react, would be a sign they knew it was a threat and ran off or with enough time they realised it is weird and run off.

Humans aren't perfect. Like the video in this thread with adults walking into windows. I've seen horror videos, people not keeping an eye on traffic and getting hit, underestimating dangers etc. It's got to happen in the insect world, surely.
Like humans, fish and insects can have different tendencies. I would expect that with brains or the simple fact that every creature has a different start in life with many variables at play. Brain plasticity is in insects, though from what I gather, because the literature is a bit too complex for me, in a different way to us. So experience can shape insects. It's something I would expect.

There are some bugs I don't kill however: butterflies, pray mantises, etc. — IanBlain

Ok, I see your sentiment.

The other thing is, if you don't get them, find them weird, or find it odd the things they do. Then they could think the same for us, with us being wildly different to them.

I admit, it's hard to get used to. The thought of a cave centipede crawling over me at night to my awareness. Is a very hard one to accept with me not freaking out. But I also think it would be a bit weird to be super calm with it.
Well it would also be freaky if your friend stood at your bed whilst you slept. So I think the odds are, I don't think the cave centipede wants to be near us or on us either. But my god if it happened to be on me at night, I would just have to jump out bed and run or flap, freak out, I would still try not to kill it though.



I agree, I prefer them in the cave than on me at night! Hehe.

Yeah, most likely it will seem too foreign for them to see as a danger or not.Well, any object coming to squish a fly will make it jet off. Most insects will scurry off with slow moving objects coming on to them. Their locomotion can let them down with fast moving objects. I mentioned the slow-motion thing, if it's true, these small creatures see the threat coming and so some won't move, thinking this object will stop and move on (like a bird might), or try to move but are too slow. Whether we know for sure they know this incoming danger with them being still, it's hard to say. If you hovered an object over them for longer when they are still to see if they think; "screw this, I'm going to make a run for it." ,and then they react, would be a sign they knew it was a threat and ran off or with enough time they realised it is weird and run off. — Wetsocks68

What's so foreign to them about a shoe though? Their world is full of large objects and surfaces.

I did some admittedly quick research and am learning that their leg hairs "hear" our movement at about 5 meters, some even see in color, and they have a keen sense for detecting vibrations. They definitely sense us from some distance away. So they at least seem capable of recognizing dangerous threats even though they don't comprehend them in our terms.

Even still, it's happened more than once where I'll be listening to music out back on the patio and be intruded on by a spider crawling on the floor, right in front of me...and just waiting to be stomped. Sure they don't comprehend when they invade a house... but how dense of a nerve cell cluster is needed to recognize a really big, white sneaker as something dangerous? If not danger... then what do you estimate they do perceive, then?

And yeah, they aren't asking for me to step on them, but they aren't being killed in sufficiently significant numbers to have adapted to avoid being stepped on. Even though I step on bugs on purpose, a guy like me doesn't make any dent in their population at all. In that context, is the kind of attention I give to spiders sad, wrong, or unwarranted?

Spiders can often sit still around danger if they feel they can't out run a threat or feel invisible with their background, they sit still and hope to blend in with the environment to not be spotted and killed. — Wetsocks68

Good point; they do tend to sit still. They wait until the last moment before evading a deadly threat and then go for the nearest available dark corner. Which I find maddening.

Ants probably detect the incoming danger in slow-motion like the fly can but simply can't speed off as fast as a fly can, into three dimensional space. Even if this research wasn't correct, ants are hell of a lot slower than a fly and flies have three dimensional space to rapidly take advantage of. — Wetsocks68

That is true; ants on the pavement can't move quickly enough to escape. In my experience though, they only run away when they are alone or in very small numbers.. but I am not sure in response to what. Vibration, sight, chemicals?

I have noticed their behavior is pretty different when in large groups and near their home. When I step on ant mound and just stand there with my shoe on their home, they scatter chaotically for about a minute but they don't run away or at least they don't go far. Instead they crawl all around and sometimes underneath my shoe trying to get in and out. At least that's based on my observations: and I've stepped on a lot of ants. :grin:

That isn't driven by malice at all though. It's more satisfying a curiosity by watching their reactions. Even though I treat ants like dirt, I still appreciate that the distance and speed at which they communicate and mobilize collectively in response to deadly threats (like my feet) through chemical signaling and vibrations alone, is pretty remarkable. No other insect I can think of comes close. It's fascinating how the colony acts almost like a single organism, sacrificing its individuals for the greater good... imagine if humans had that level of cooperation and one-ness of purpose.

Ok, I see your sentiment.

The other thing is, if you don't get them, find them weird, or find it odd the things they do. Then they could think the same for us, with us being wildly different to them.
I admit, it's hard to get used to. The thought of a cave centipede crawling over me at night to my awareness. Is a very hard one to accept with me not freaking out. But I also think it would be a bit weird to be super calm with it.
Well it would also be freaky if your friend stood at your bed whilst you slept. So I think the odds are, I don't think the cave centipede wants to be near us or on us either. But my god if it happened to be on me at night, I would just have to jump out bed and run or flap, freak out, I would still try not to kill it though. — Wetsocks68

For me it isn't just finding them weird or odd... but some are very annoying, creepy, and uninvited... emphasized more by the pictures you posted. To me they are like the tarantulas you mentioned, which are the stuff of nightmares.

Just the mental image of one of those centipedes on my bare leg, and feeling it, makes makes me cringe slightly. Not knowing what the hell it's doing under all those legs. You're a kinder man than me for trying not to kill it. That's one I'd chase down to squash.

OP reminds me of the “evil kid” from a certain dreamworks movie:

That movie, Antz, was sort of chilling to watch when I was a kid. Especially the part where the kid was trying to crush the ants. I remember being quite stricken by the fact that at least in the movie they were sentient... they were basically people.

As I suggested above in the post, it takes the expression "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level. Even still, there are likely people who disapprove of me stepping on ants for no reason, but would condone (or perhaps even celebrate) the above. Makes you think. :razz: — IanBlain

If you were to scale up what you do to the ants and compared it to the fishermen and trophy hunters, you are worse than both. Doesn’t matter how much more complex elephants are. What are you doing is destruction on a mass scale to them. Think: you are messing with anthill would be like Godzilla attacking Tokyo. And yes, it is sadistic. Menacing tiny lifeforms so you can feel like the big bad human is sadistic and knuckle-dragging.

You are being a tyrant to them just because you know they can’t do anything about it. Would you kick a bear to see how it reacts, the same way you use your feet to toy with ants? Of course not because you’re opportunistic. Not a positive quality.

Killing individual ants may not matter to you because they are parts of a whole but you are still interfering with their life cycles which impacts the colonys resource and birthing priorities to an unknown extent, requiring them to replace the workers you’ve crushed and devote more to rebuild what you destroyed.

“That is true; ants on the pavement can't move quickly enough to escape. In my experience though, they only run away when they are alone or in very small numbers.. but I am not sure in response to what. Vibration, sight, chemicals? I have noticed their behavior is pretty different when in large groups and near their home. When I step on ant mound and just stand there with my shoe on their home, they scatter chaotically for about a minute but they don't run away or at least they don't go far. Instead they crawl all around and sometimes underneath my shoe trying to get both inside and outside. At least that's based on my observations: and I've stepped on a lot of ants”. — IanBlain

How would you react if an aircraft carrier fell on your neighborhood? The scattering and random movements is not accidental; it is chemically programmed survival. When you brought your crappy shoe down on their home it was like a bomb went off.

Of course they’re going to try and climb out from underneath. It is the tactic they would use against an enemy army. They want and are trying to attack you. Ants are programmed to repel invaders at the site of their home. That white, grass-stained, monstrosity you sadistically chase down the survivors with (so you can “watch their reactions” to being stepped on) is a deadly invader. Your sneaker is an invader. YOU standing over them are an invader.

If they had the chance bite your skin, it would hurt and they could successfully repel you. Ants are evolved to survive attacks from giant invaders and in most cases repel them. The aberrant cruelty you show them doesn’t exist in the wild though; yes, you are an aberration. While other wildlife passing through may accidentally disrupt their home from time to time, they move on unlike you who purposely continues to stand directly on top of their home, knowing full well that your continued presence is causing mass chaos both above and below... a fact which greatly appeals to you.

The problem is although they can repel most animals, they are not evolved to deal with some giant punk purposely dragging his feet over their home repeatedly and squashing anything that moves, nor are they equipped to penetrate man-made objects/running shoes with hard rubber soles and artificial foam cushioning worn by some spoiled, little consumerist punk who already has life too easy as it is.

And when they finally dig an exit and finish coming out to retrieve their dead, you are still there, hovering your dirty, malodorous shoe over their home with a smug grin on your face about to do the same thing to them all over again... again and again until your "curiosity" is sated. Yes, you are sadistic. You like causing as much distress as possible…And unfortunately, all they can do is wait until you are done indulging yourself, lift your crappy foot off their home, and lumber off out of boredom…which is a glaring example of how unfair the universe is.

It's easy to feel like the big bad human in capitalist United States where the animals aren't so dangerous and you live with a surplus of throw-away luxuries. But try doing what you like to do here to an anthill in Africa, where the ants are dangerous and aggressive, and without your manufactured, malodorous footwear. No material possessions. Just you and the ants. Maybe you will find that your hubris has a limit.