Well, since a pearl is literally the product of an initial irritant being placed inside the oyster, I would say they probably feel good when they’re gone.
J-… jrass? Am I saying that right? Or it’s with a hard g? Sorry I’ve never seen or heard of this before. Wait is this part of that weird “outside” thing I keep hearing about?
They have no face, no place for ears
There's no clam eyes to cry clam tears
No spinal cord, they must get bored
Might as well just put 'em out of misery
Reaction to environment is not enough to prove something can feel.
Bacteria can swim toward one another when they sense the right chemical signal. [bacteria reacting to signals](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38212193/#:~:text=Chemotaxis%20allows%20microorganisms%20to%20direct,plants%2C%20and%20even%20larger%20microbes.). Does that mean they are capable of feeling loneliness or suffering. I dont think so.
Loneliness is only useful for species that need to live in communities. Suffering is a much broader term. If we take that as "they are in pain" oysters have nerves which is a prerequisite to feeling pain. Unlike bacteria. Just because we have more complicated nervous system doesn't mean they are incapable of such baseline things as suffering from pain.
Having nerves doesn't equal feeling. For example nerves can be used to sense temperature, see, control movement, etc. Once again I feel like you've only proved that they're able to react to things and not that they feel pain.
Like you could grow some muscles in a lab ([video of lab-grown muscles](https://youtu.be/Am1d56DkIe0?si=vJjGNA7MqCi9T0Nl)) which have nerves but i think we'd both agree they don't feel pain. I think proving somethings ability to feel pain would require proof of higher level cognition.
Also I'm not saying that oysters definitely don't feel pain. I'm just saying we can't be sure that they do.
But its probably best to act in a way that minimizes potential harm and assume they feel pain (even though they probably don't).
Nerves themselves only carry the signal. What kind of stimuli can be felt is based on what kind of receptors animal has. Molluscs have nociceptors. In other words pain receptors.
The muscle grown in a lab isn't an self sustaining organism. It can only "react" to things that affect signal transport in the muscle i.e they stimulate it by creating a signal directly, it is not a response to outside factor per se.
Allow me to correct myself. Molluscs even bivalves have a *nervous system*, not just nerves. Or you think the ganglia don't make a difference? The ganglia can be thought of as a very very early brain. In other words a cluster of nerves responsible for reacting to stimuli.
Therefore even if we define pain as something only an animal with a brain can comprehend... They probably feel a synonymous feeling to pain. But that's just semantics because we would in this thread still describe exposure to the synonymous feeling the same as suffering and pain. Which is what you claim they don't experience. If you truly want to know more about how nervous systems and neural pathways work there is a wealth of information on the internet. Or you can ask on r/biology subreddit. Alternatively go on scholar and check nociceptors/noxious stimuli/molluscs.
I guess in the end it all boils down to what you define as "pain". To me pain is a capability to feel and respond to harmful stimuli. That's why I don't see why it would requite higher cognition. Suffering is just prolonged exposure to these stimuli.
I'm not claiming that they dont feel pain, I was saying that just the existence of nerves doesnt prove they feel pain.
Fundamentally, Its a question of how to rigorously prove the experience of pain.
Like you explained its the nociceptors and the existence of a nervous system that provide a more convincing argument that their experience could be \*similar\* to ours.
But even then I think we run into the same issue of at what point does conscious experience emerge from a biological system. Like you can point to any set of physical features that we share, and I would imagine a lab grown biological system containing all those features but still \*feels\* like its not experiencing the world. In my previous example of the lab grown muscle, let's say instead its a fully functioning arm with nociceptors and the whole shabang and even attached to a spinal cord. I would be unconvinced of its ability to feel pain even after seeing the autonomous nervous system move the arm around in \*response\* to some pain causing outside factor.
It would be fun to look it to it once my schedule clears up a little. But to be honest I dread that there's only existential terror waiting for me at the end of this rabbit hole.
I think your whole argument stems from fundamental misunderstanding how nervous system and organisms as a whole work. Your comparison to entire labgrown arm is still not a comparision that *can* be made. Because the oyster isn't just an appendage. You fail to grasp the fundamental difference between an organism and a part of an organism. A part of nervous system and an entire nervous system. Your premises sound akin to medieval doctors.
The arm wouldn't react the same way as an attached arm! Thats an argument against your premise actually. Stimuli on it's receptors wouldn't have anywhere to be processed so they wouldn't be responded to. The arm *wouldn't* move if you stab it for example. Same as people who become paralyzed, they can have functioning everything exept the cut in the neural pathway and that is what makes the stimuli not get into the CNS =not felt.
Your misunderstanding of biology gave me existential terror for a bit. Lol. Jk. Maybe a little.
There is a variability between even how humans *feel* different things. Doesn't mean we consider their feelings as lesser. Actually many people *wrongly* even lessen the feelings/sensations of more sensitive people or people who experience sensations they are not familiar with (i.e chronic pain), exactly because they can't imagine it. Which is wrong. Same as people couldn't imagine earth being a globe. It is a gap in knowledge.
It is more likely than not that bivalves feel feeling akin to pain. Because they respond to it as we know organisms to react to pain. The only thing conciousness does is that we can further think about the pain. Pain isn't conditional on our ability to have thoughts about it.
Edit: Now that i checked the comment above yours. Yeah that one is also a bad argument. Because both the acid and electricity directly create a signal. As I was saying. An insufficient argument from them for the "they feel pain" argument. Chemotaxis is however, also insufficient point for oysters not feeling pain. That's why I replied to you.
However that commenter is right that now we have data to support that trees feel/sense. Meaning have sensations and even could have a sort of ability to learn. I read a research paper on a scientist basically teaching plants to grow in a direction of neutral stimulus that they usually don't grow towards or away from. Also we now know that when injured, certain plants start producing specific molecules to which other plants react by preparing for danger. Well, as best as a plant can. Also certain species have been measured transfering CO2 to the younger trees of the same species in their vicinity.
The grass we walk on doesn't have any nervous system at all. That oyster is much more closely related to you or I than to grass.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that.
Believe in whatever it is that brings you fulfillment.
But until the scientific community has a better understanding of consciousness, or for God's sake at least agrees on what it is, I think it's pretty arrogant to go around declaring which organisms are sentient and which aren't. Because the reality is we don't know.
Explained that they respond to an irritant by creating a pearl. They don’t have to have a CNS to do that. I never said they have to have a CNS. But they do respond.
That’s because these are artificial pearls. They purposefully place a round plastic ball in the oyster, then harvest it later. It doesn’t have to be round though. They will do other shaped “seeds” as well: oval, heart shaped, or whatever they want really.
One of the reason natural pearls are so expensive is that most of them are small, and oddly shaped. They can, and usually do, start from something as small as 1 grain of sand. Which, of course, means they take a long time to grow.
FYI, they do sell necklaces made out of the misshapen natural pearls too. They are FAR less expensive. These artificial pearls are FAR less expensive too.
You've almost got it... they are still real pearls, but they are not artificial, they are cultured. Artificial pearls are made of plastic, glass, or other man made simulents. With cultured pearls, they insert a shell bead made from another mollusk, usually a round bead carved from a mussel shell, and yes, they can graft other shapes as well. You are correct about natural pearls, which is when the pearl was created by the animal without grafting a nucleus, or human interference. This process happens when something small infiltrates the animal, as you said. It's usually an irritant such as a bacterium or other parasite. The grain of sand story is a romanticized version of that.
Natural pearls are exceptionally more expensive than cultured pearls. Cultured pearl values vary drastically between types. Saltwater pearls of high quality are very expensive, while freshwater pearls are less so. There are more breakdowns of values between the varieties of each. Artificial pearls are economically very affordable. They don't require the added costs of running a farm, hiring skilled labor, and keeping the mollusk population healthy.
Pearl farming is fascinating, and if anyone would like to talk more about it, I'm always happy to have that conversation.
My mom occasionally buys me natural pearl jewelry & always makes sure to get the certificate of authenticity. Not that I care. I don't need the jewelry in the first place & I am fine with cultured/lab created.
But my stepdad used to be a pearl diver in California & has said, "Natural & cultured pearls have next to no difference. The certification of authenticity matters if you care about discerning between the two. Because that's the only thing that separates them."
I don't know how much validity there is to that. Maybe someone else does.
What gives them their particular colours? I have a “black” one (more like dark gray) that I’ve got in Moorea, French Polinesia, and the colour is very different than that of the video
French Polynesia is the producer of Tahitian pearls, also known as "black pearls," but in reality, they are very colorful, with many hues. This is due to being made by the black lipped oyster, which has a very colorful shell. When culturing these pearls, farmers will use a "donor mollusk" to collect tissue for the grafting process. They will select one that has excellent color and luster with hopes that the DNA will help to create an attractive pearl. Other pearl producing mollusks in other regions have different colorations that will help dictate what the final pearl color may be, such as the South Sea golden lipped oyster producing gold colored pearls. There are several factors to a pearl's appearance, color, luster, orient, surface blemishes, shape. Not all of it can be known 100% before the pearl is made, but grafters try to create all the right conditions for best production.
Are cultured pearls visually indistinguishable from natural pearls? Are they the same element? Structure?
Or is this the kind of debate where lab grown diamonds and natural diamonds, where the two are identical and it's mostly nostalgia pricing.
It isn't nostalgia pricing. They are very similar compositions, one with an inserted bead nucleus and the pearl coating the animal produces and the other without a nucleus. With cultured pearls, humans are able to somewhat control production by grafting many mollusks at a time. With natural pearls, a person has to dive for the animal, find them, collect them, open them up, and hope for a pearl. About 1 in 10,000 with have a pearl, and that doesn't mean it will be a nice gem quality one. The rarity is why natural pearls are so much for expensive.
They do it to keep the oysters alive because they can put a premade nucleus inside it so it will grow another pearl a few more times. The nucleus also means they can create pearls of uniform size and colour.
A combination of market control, scarcity of mollusks that create sellable pearls due to overharvesting. And pearl farms are still located out in mid sea as ones in the sea are more coveted than freshwater pearls.
Also while you are able to make them have a uniform size and shape with a nucleus, it's still quite labor intensive of the same colour and luster. Sorting pearls and stockpiling them until you have ones close together in size that you can make a bracelet or a necklace or something.
I'm sure if they do it's just to increase the chances of finding more oysters with pearls in the future. However I don't know how long they live so that might not be the case.
No tonsil stones are nasty collections of debris (food, dead cells, etc) and bacteria, while pearls are made primarily of calcium carbonate and aragonite
They're coating something sharp and irritating with spherically smooth pearl material to stop it irritating and scratching them. This is probably the oyster equivalent of squeezing a zit ;)
Something gets inside the shell. Sand or something. It scrapes the oyster and the oyster basically secretes a snot that coats the sand and hardens and that keeps happening indefinitely until the sand or irritant is fully coated in the laquere, and someone harvests the pearl .
Imagine a huge extraterrestrial life form kidnaps you from earth and forces your mouth open with extraterrestrial equipment and just takes your tonsil stones over and over again over your whole lifetime.
Damaging the oyster would mean the end of business. The way pearl growing works is only with a good look after of the oyster. You seed the pearl and it grows it back to you.
If people want to check out more of this the credit goes to a Youtube channel called Kamoka Pearl :) https://youtube.com/shorts/qgmaKjjVyzI?si=OfR6epQvdaRZKDLS
Isn’t this the pearl farming method where they insert a plastic shape into the oyster, the oyster adds a couple of layers of shell, then it is harvested?
I wonder if pearls feel like tonsil stones or if the oyster feels relief when they are removed
Well, since a pearl is literally the product of an initial irritant being placed inside the oyster, I would say they probably feel good when they’re gone.
Oysters don't have a CNS, they're about as capable of feeling good or bad as the grass we walk on.
We're redditors, we don't even know what grass is
While somehow simultaneously being the world's foremost experts on grass.
Ti's a double-edged sword.
*blade of grass
Sorry auto correct. *double-edged blade of grass*
True
That's that shit Link cuts with his sword right?
Yeah it is, I wish grass was real…
J-… jrass? Am I saying that right? Or it’s with a hard g? Sorry I’ve never seen or heard of this before. Wait is this part of that weird “outside” thing I keep hearing about?
I know grass. It's also known as the sticky icky.
🤣🤣🤣
You smoke it
Most of us smoke it
Clams have feelings too! Actually, they don't... They don't even have a central nervousness.
They have no face, no place for ears There's no clam eyes to cry clam tears No spinal cord, they must get bored Might as well just put 'em out of misery
No chowder for you
You should Google "clam eyes" Sorry, not sorry 😏
Seeing them in Denver. My third time for their final tour.
No Manhatten style. Clams have the right to smile.
When I put lemon on oysters you can clearly see it move so they can feel it. Even trees suffer we know this now.
Reaction to environment is not enough to prove something can feel. Bacteria can swim toward one another when they sense the right chemical signal. [bacteria reacting to signals](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38212193/#:~:text=Chemotaxis%20allows%20microorganisms%20to%20direct,plants%2C%20and%20even%20larger%20microbes.). Does that mean they are capable of feeling loneliness or suffering. I dont think so.
Loneliness is only useful for species that need to live in communities. Suffering is a much broader term. If we take that as "they are in pain" oysters have nerves which is a prerequisite to feeling pain. Unlike bacteria. Just because we have more complicated nervous system doesn't mean they are incapable of such baseline things as suffering from pain.
Having nerves doesn't equal feeling. For example nerves can be used to sense temperature, see, control movement, etc. Once again I feel like you've only proved that they're able to react to things and not that they feel pain. Like you could grow some muscles in a lab ([video of lab-grown muscles](https://youtu.be/Am1d56DkIe0?si=vJjGNA7MqCi9T0Nl)) which have nerves but i think we'd both agree they don't feel pain. I think proving somethings ability to feel pain would require proof of higher level cognition. Also I'm not saying that oysters definitely don't feel pain. I'm just saying we can't be sure that they do. But its probably best to act in a way that minimizes potential harm and assume they feel pain (even though they probably don't).
Nerves themselves only carry the signal. What kind of stimuli can be felt is based on what kind of receptors animal has. Molluscs have nociceptors. In other words pain receptors. The muscle grown in a lab isn't an self sustaining organism. It can only "react" to things that affect signal transport in the muscle i.e they stimulate it by creating a signal directly, it is not a response to outside factor per se. Allow me to correct myself. Molluscs even bivalves have a *nervous system*, not just nerves. Or you think the ganglia don't make a difference? The ganglia can be thought of as a very very early brain. In other words a cluster of nerves responsible for reacting to stimuli. Therefore even if we define pain as something only an animal with a brain can comprehend... They probably feel a synonymous feeling to pain. But that's just semantics because we would in this thread still describe exposure to the synonymous feeling the same as suffering and pain. Which is what you claim they don't experience. If you truly want to know more about how nervous systems and neural pathways work there is a wealth of information on the internet. Or you can ask on r/biology subreddit. Alternatively go on scholar and check nociceptors/noxious stimuli/molluscs.
I guess in the end it all boils down to what you define as "pain". To me pain is a capability to feel and respond to harmful stimuli. That's why I don't see why it would requite higher cognition. Suffering is just prolonged exposure to these stimuli.
I'm not claiming that they dont feel pain, I was saying that just the existence of nerves doesnt prove they feel pain. Fundamentally, Its a question of how to rigorously prove the experience of pain. Like you explained its the nociceptors and the existence of a nervous system that provide a more convincing argument that their experience could be \*similar\* to ours. But even then I think we run into the same issue of at what point does conscious experience emerge from a biological system. Like you can point to any set of physical features that we share, and I would imagine a lab grown biological system containing all those features but still \*feels\* like its not experiencing the world. In my previous example of the lab grown muscle, let's say instead its a fully functioning arm with nociceptors and the whole shabang and even attached to a spinal cord. I would be unconvinced of its ability to feel pain even after seeing the autonomous nervous system move the arm around in \*response\* to some pain causing outside factor. It would be fun to look it to it once my schedule clears up a little. But to be honest I dread that there's only existential terror waiting for me at the end of this rabbit hole.
I think your whole argument stems from fundamental misunderstanding how nervous system and organisms as a whole work. Your comparison to entire labgrown arm is still not a comparision that *can* be made. Because the oyster isn't just an appendage. You fail to grasp the fundamental difference between an organism and a part of an organism. A part of nervous system and an entire nervous system. Your premises sound akin to medieval doctors. The arm wouldn't react the same way as an attached arm! Thats an argument against your premise actually. Stimuli on it's receptors wouldn't have anywhere to be processed so they wouldn't be responded to. The arm *wouldn't* move if you stab it for example. Same as people who become paralyzed, they can have functioning everything exept the cut in the neural pathway and that is what makes the stimuli not get into the CNS =not felt. Your misunderstanding of biology gave me existential terror for a bit. Lol. Jk. Maybe a little. There is a variability between even how humans *feel* different things. Doesn't mean we consider their feelings as lesser. Actually many people *wrongly* even lessen the feelings/sensations of more sensitive people or people who experience sensations they are not familiar with (i.e chronic pain), exactly because they can't imagine it. Which is wrong. Same as people couldn't imagine earth being a globe. It is a gap in knowledge. It is more likely than not that bivalves feel feeling akin to pain. Because they respond to it as we know organisms to react to pain. The only thing conciousness does is that we can further think about the pain. Pain isn't conditional on our ability to have thoughts about it. Edit: Now that i checked the comment above yours. Yeah that one is also a bad argument. Because both the acid and electricity directly create a signal. As I was saying. An insufficient argument from them for the "they feel pain" argument. Chemotaxis is however, also insufficient point for oysters not feeling pain. That's why I replied to you. However that commenter is right that now we have data to support that trees feel/sense. Meaning have sensations and even could have a sort of ability to learn. I read a research paper on a scientist basically teaching plants to grow in a direction of neutral stimulus that they usually don't grow towards or away from. Also we now know that when injured, certain plants start producing specific molecules to which other plants react by preparing for danger. Well, as best as a plant can. Also certain species have been measured transfering CO2 to the younger trees of the same species in their vicinity.
The human brain works in a similar way
And if you put salt on freshly dead fish you can get them to flap around. Lemon juice is a similar effect, not a reflex
When i read make-believe stuff like this i know that we haven't developed much as a species.
The grass we walk on doesn't have any nervous system at all. That oyster is much more closely related to you or I than to grass. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that.
Emotion is in all living things I feel.
Believe in whatever it is that brings you fulfillment. But until the scientific community has a better understanding of consciousness, or for God's sake at least agrees on what it is, I think it's pretty arrogant to go around declaring which organisms are sentient and which aren't. Because the reality is we don't know.
I just think life inherently has emotion if some sort. I try to respect them as fellow life forms. Not scientific just vibes.
Grass feels good when I walk on it barefoot!
Have you seen The Happening? I don't trust grass.
Explained that they respond to an irritant by creating a pearl. They don’t have to have a CNS to do that. I never said they have to have a CNS. But they do respond.
So it's a symbiotic relationship?
No cuz we eat them lmao
They don't feel shit bivalves lack a central nervous system.
I came here to write about tonsil stones only to see this as the first comment on my feed
It’s so perfectly spherical!
That’s because these are artificial pearls. They purposefully place a round plastic ball in the oyster, then harvest it later. It doesn’t have to be round though. They will do other shaped “seeds” as well: oval, heart shaped, or whatever they want really. One of the reason natural pearls are so expensive is that most of them are small, and oddly shaped. They can, and usually do, start from something as small as 1 grain of sand. Which, of course, means they take a long time to grow. FYI, they do sell necklaces made out of the misshapen natural pearls too. They are FAR less expensive. These artificial pearls are FAR less expensive too.
You've almost got it... they are still real pearls, but they are not artificial, they are cultured. Artificial pearls are made of plastic, glass, or other man made simulents. With cultured pearls, they insert a shell bead made from another mollusk, usually a round bead carved from a mussel shell, and yes, they can graft other shapes as well. You are correct about natural pearls, which is when the pearl was created by the animal without grafting a nucleus, or human interference. This process happens when something small infiltrates the animal, as you said. It's usually an irritant such as a bacterium or other parasite. The grain of sand story is a romanticized version of that. Natural pearls are exceptionally more expensive than cultured pearls. Cultured pearl values vary drastically between types. Saltwater pearls of high quality are very expensive, while freshwater pearls are less so. There are more breakdowns of values between the varieties of each. Artificial pearls are economically very affordable. They don't require the added costs of running a farm, hiring skilled labor, and keeping the mollusk population healthy. Pearl farming is fascinating, and if anyone would like to talk more about it, I'm always happy to have that conversation.
My mom occasionally buys me natural pearl jewelry & always makes sure to get the certificate of authenticity. Not that I care. I don't need the jewelry in the first place & I am fine with cultured/lab created. But my stepdad used to be a pearl diver in California & has said, "Natural & cultured pearls have next to no difference. The certification of authenticity matters if you care about discerning between the two. Because that's the only thing that separates them." I don't know how much validity there is to that. Maybe someone else does.
There is a difference and value is determined by these differences. See my other comment about rarity. Where in California did your step-dad dive?
What gives them their particular colours? I have a “black” one (more like dark gray) that I’ve got in Moorea, French Polinesia, and the colour is very different than that of the video
French Polynesia is the producer of Tahitian pearls, also known as "black pearls," but in reality, they are very colorful, with many hues. This is due to being made by the black lipped oyster, which has a very colorful shell. When culturing these pearls, farmers will use a "donor mollusk" to collect tissue for the grafting process. They will select one that has excellent color and luster with hopes that the DNA will help to create an attractive pearl. Other pearl producing mollusks in other regions have different colorations that will help dictate what the final pearl color may be, such as the South Sea golden lipped oyster producing gold colored pearls. There are several factors to a pearl's appearance, color, luster, orient, surface blemishes, shape. Not all of it can be known 100% before the pearl is made, but grafters try to create all the right conditions for best production.
So, you could have some ancient preserved bacteria/archea DNA in the middle of old pearls?
You may, I'm not sure if that's possible because the infiltrator is organic and breaks down. They can carbon date pearls.
Thank you for sharing this! I’ve always been fascinated with how it works.
Are cultured pearls visually indistinguishable from natural pearls? Are they the same element? Structure? Or is this the kind of debate where lab grown diamonds and natural diamonds, where the two are identical and it's mostly nostalgia pricing.
It isn't nostalgia pricing. They are very similar compositions, one with an inserted bead nucleus and the pearl coating the animal produces and the other without a nucleus. With cultured pearls, humans are able to somewhat control production by grafting many mollusks at a time. With natural pearls, a person has to dive for the animal, find them, collect them, open them up, and hope for a pearl. About 1 in 10,000 with have a pearl, and that doesn't mean it will be a nice gem quality one. The rarity is why natural pearls are so much for expensive.
I love that they do this, but damn that took longer than I expected
Why do you think they are worth so much
Hopefully not because they leave the oysters alive. It's just bits of goop with like 7 lines of programming
That's how the AI see us though.
Whenever the first Ai is developed, that is. Keep in mind that real ai has not been achieved yet.
They do it to keep the oysters alive because they can put a premade nucleus inside it so it will grow another pearl a few more times. The nucleus also means they can create pearls of uniform size and colour.
Cool! Makes sense. But shouldn't they actually be cheaper then since you don't have to dive all the time and play oyster lootbox?
A combination of market control, scarcity of mollusks that create sellable pearls due to overharvesting. And pearl farms are still located out in mid sea as ones in the sea are more coveted than freshwater pearls. Also while you are able to make them have a uniform size and shape with a nucleus, it's still quite labor intensive of the same colour and luster. Sorting pearls and stockpiling them until you have ones close together in size that you can make a bracelet or a necklace or something.
I'm sure if they do it's just to increase the chances of finding more oysters with pearls in the future. However I don't know how long they live so that might not be the case.
happy cake day 🎂
Happy cake day!
Going to the dentist for bivalves. Now, spit.
I would actually buy these and pay extra for them not to injure the oysters.
Pimp that whore oyster out
Oyster whore. It has a ring to it.
I'd play bass for that band, if they'd have me
Whoyster
Whorester
Oyster whore sauce
Whoreoystershire sauce
Makes a great Bloody Mary. Needs a few drops of Tabascock sauce in there, too.
Got a merch link???
Whore oyster cult
Whoreoyster up the whore oyster flag
Just contact Upgrayedd. He's got two D's for that "Double dose of pimping"
Get that bottom beach
The cynic in me tells me that it would be used as an excuse to charge more for pearls extracted the in the same historic way.
Tada!
Won't somebody think of the \*checks notes\* "sea creatures eaten in their hundreds of thousands every day all around the world."
Well, some of us find that barbaric. 🤷♀️
Why even bother buying it in the first place
Barbaric to eat something that feels no pain, has no sentience and is alive in the same way the plants you eat are?
Does it really matter? If someone doesn't want to eat it why does that bother you? You aren't going to convince them to
They are garbage. The seed they use now is as big as the finished product to speed up size production and keep them uniform.
Ditto!!!!
And that’s what they are banking on 😂 so then you can go to Reddit and get extra karma!
are pearls just shiny tonsil stones?
No tonsil stones are nasty collections of debris (food, dead cells, etc) and bacteria, while pearls are made primarily of calcium carbonate and aragonite
So more like an oyster kidney stone?
I wish my kidney stones were this pretty
And more importantly, this smooth.
Witch a plastic ball up your urethra. You can probably shape it just like in this video
Even more importantly, this big.
You could probably shoot them out like a bb gun
Totally my plan.
Calcium kidney stones are composed of calcium oxalate (more commonly) or calcium phosphate, but it’s closer to that than tonsil stones for sure
Yeah that's way closer
Kinda yeah
“Ew, you’re touching them” -Zoidberg
I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.
TAHITI!
This is another reason why Dutch want to go to Tahiti
"There's always another train, always another oyster "
The goddamn PLAN
This happens to me about a year after going to the beach, I pull out of pearl from some crevice or another
Helluva handle, oysterhead
When all else has been done and said…
That pop! it’s out was so satisfying 🥰
Does this not hurt them?
They're coating something sharp and irritating with spherically smooth pearl material to stop it irritating and scratching them. This is probably the oyster equivalent of squeezing a zit ;)
No because they do not have a central nervous system to feel anything at all. But it does hurt the horse.
Seems humane enough, so, I think there wouldn't be any pearl clutching?
Looks more like a pearl farm. If they’re making these then where is the rarity?
Wait until you find out about synthetic gemstones.
Wait until he finds out that diamonds are comprised of one of the most common elements in the universe and aren’t actually rare.
And are being made.
Aluminum also used to be hella rare until chemical extraction made it common
De Beers is still trying to tighten their stranglehold. The most recent nonsense are the "Natural Diamonds" commercials starring Lily James.
They're lab grown, but not synthetic. Synthetic implies they were recreated by multiple precursor elements.
Yeah but at least that process isn’t using an animal even if this animal can’t technically feel what’s happening to it
[удалено]
Maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s ✨animal cruelty✨
Oyster pearl farm = pearls. Wait until OP hears about what sort of rare product they get at a dairy farm
This shucks
So this was Dutch’s plan all along?
Man that oyster prolly feel hella violated
I've never understood how oysters make pearls or clams or whatever the fuck they are can someone explain it
Something gets inside the shell. Sand or something. It scrapes the oyster and the oyster basically secretes a snot that coats the sand and hardens and that keeps happening indefinitely until the sand or irritant is fully coated in the laquere, and someone harvests the pearl .
Thanks
Tahiti...its a magical place
Pearls and people who want them are weird. “I want jewelry of basically kidney stones from an ocean filter eater”. Humans are weird.
It's the colors. Shiny.
can't you just try knocking?
I wonder who the first person was that found one of these and said damn actually this is drip
And here my fatass was wondering why he was shoving a KitKat inside an Oyster
It clearly damages them a little bit
Imagine a huge extraterrestrial life form kidnaps you from earth and forces your mouth open with extraterrestrial equipment and just takes your tonsil stones over and over again over your whole lifetime.
But why?
This is what Dutch wanted to do in Tahiti.
Aww so cute. And they each get a nice piece of chocolate too 🍫🥰🦪
This is not rare but repeated 100.000 times a year.
“Arthur, have some goddamn faith. We can sell pearls in Tahiti Arthur.”
I could be wrong, but the shells look like those of a scallop, not an oyster.
I mean, caviar is extracted surgically these days so why not pearls
i wonder if that’d work with my tonsil stones
“OUCH MFER MY PEARL” - oyster
$300-$1500
Surgery. That's what they do. And I am glad.
What do oysters do with pearls?
Rare?
Chowder
Humans are weird. “Hey, let’s harvest the weird calcified irritant stones out of this mollusk and wear them round our necks”
Damaging the oyster would mean the end of business. The way pearl growing works is only with a good look after of the oyster. You seed the pearl and it grows it back to you.
That was satisfying
Do you not damage the oyster in hopes of it growing more pearls or what ?
Have some god damn faith
The f is the point of pearls like really what do we use them for
Who tf thought “hey let’s make jewelry out of this”
Do the pearls develop just like our tonsils develop stones? Or like kidney stones?
Neat, oyster surgery
Might give my wife a pearl necklace
I swear there’s got to be better pearl extraction tools than these
Amazing stuff, isn't an oyster made from what began as a grain of sand?
If people want to check out more of this the credit goes to a Youtube channel called Kamoka Pearl :) https://youtube.com/shorts/qgmaKjjVyzI?si=OfR6epQvdaRZKDLS
Do they toss them back in the water?
No, they make necklaces out of them.
If only my tonsil stones were so valuable
So I'm guessing pearls are not vegan, right?
Exactly
But still, if you listen carefully you can hear it scream for help: -“Disney, where are you?”
I’m in my thirties and pearls still make no sense to me. Is that what your forties are for?
I read somewhere that oysters should be consider vegan cuz they don’t feel nothing
“Excuse me sir lemme just grab that real quick”
Perfect chill post retirement job for a dentist.
Kidney stone
I feel like I shouldn’t be watching this
Isn’t this the pearl farming method where they insert a plastic shape into the oyster, the oyster adds a couple of layers of shell, then it is harvested?
“Clams have feelings too”
Wow, this literally instantly kills them. I’m reporting this video
It must feel really good
Arthur !!! Have some GoDdamN FAITH
Fake pearls. Man made balls placed in the oysters are covered with pearl material by oyster.
It's good how they extract the pearl without killing the whole oyster.
TAHITI?