Non. C'est un «FREEDOM Blender», s'il vous plait.

That's been debated for some time. Fishermen say no, PETA says yes. Scientists say they react to stimulus but don't know if it's pain as we know it.

Now something more interesting would be if the blender was fitted with an invisible partition that seperated the fish from the blades. The fish would be safe and you could watch the reactions of the button pushers - would it be relief, disappointment, anger at being fooled?

I would say that something fishy was going on......

GD&RVVF

What would the pirhanas be fed otherwise? If the answer is live fish, then the only thing the store is selling is the opportunity for the customer to feed the pirhanas, rather than the store staff.

I have to say that given the fate of most pet store goldfish (someody correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect they're rarely cared for properly before their inevitable death & flushing), it's hard for me to work up much moral indignation over this one.

Goldfish
 

A well cared goldfish has a life expetancy of over 25 years, so yeah, the fate of most pet store goldfish isn't exactly rosey, considering they'll do good to last 3 months in a goldfish bowl...

BTW, the fish in the blenders aren't goldfish, they're Swordtail Platy's, I believe (Hard to recall, I've become mainly a saltwater fish geek lately, my freshwater species recognition skills are getting rusty)...

Live breeders, they breed like mad, and commonly eat their own fry as they're being born, if you don't seperate them somehow...

Ironically enough, I am a complete fish geek, have over a dozen tanks up and running in my house, and I have no problem with this display as art. I think it makes a very profound statement about the nature of man. When confronted with the opportunity, would you push the button? Would that nice looking old man next to you?

Maybe just use sponge or rubber blades?

I'd still be curious to see the result after goldy pulled 8 g's in an aqua-twister

I would think so, just for one simple reason: they would have to in order to preserve themselves.

There is a rare disease called congenital analgesia in humans, wherein the affected person cannot feel pain. These people are constantly at risk for serious injury as a result. Most of them die young from injuries they may not have been aware they had.

I think it follows naturally that all living things would have to have some sort of pain response as a method of self-preservation.

However, people can be awfully dense about things they cannot see or feel for themselves. It was not that long ago that in some cases surgery was performed on infants without using anesthesia because there was a belief that an infant's nervous system was not developed enough to feel pain. What a crock of shite that turned out to be.

And this recent research in which scientists injected bee venom into fishes' lips in an attempt to discover whether they feel pain or not? I think we would be safe to assume the answer is yes and devote the time and money spent on that to something that makes more sense. Especially because they *still* were unable to determine anything for sure.

I think any scientist would say that fish feel pain. Do they experience that same sort of angst over feeling pain that we do? I don't think we will ever know the answer to that one. Feeling the sensation of pain is not exactly the same thing as suffering. I'm not even sure that all people experience the same level of pain let alone suffer to the same extent from the pain they experience.

One cool factoid - redheads usually feel more pain senstations than the rest of us and need more anesthesia for pain free procedures.

Indeed. And the poor fish can't even manage an expression to announce their pain.Another reason not to anesthetize infants is that anesthesia is fairly dangerous, especially for infants. But the idea that they don't feel pain was pretty wrong.

That probably ended the first time a surgeon tried to cut on an baby that wasn't under anesthesia. They get very loud and squirm like you wouldn't believe ... and that's when they are happy.

There is certainly more delicacy involved when putting a baby under, but that's why anesthesiologists are well paid.

Paralyzing agents were used so the baby wouldn't move during surgery, but no analgesia was provided. These drugs carry their own risks just as general anesthesia does. So I really don't understand why this choice was ever made, but there 'tis.

Mice. CAUTION- 2.7 meg and graphic

Yes it does, because fish in blenders are not part of the natural order, and in any case ... if you blend it then you should drink it.

I always do ;)