The Sun is in the constellation of the two Fishes from March 12 until April 20.
See the end note about enlarging illustrations.
On March 21, 8.4 days into Pisces, the Sun reached the point that can be named in so many ways: the spring equinox point, the vernal equinox point, the March equinox point, the ascending node of ecliptic through celestial equator, the descending node of celestial equator through ecliptic, the crossing-point of the plane of Earth’s rotation and the plane of its orbit, the origin or zero-point for our maps of the sky, and – most pleasingly and puzzlingly, the First Point of Aries. If royal personages can have strings of names – Prince Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha – this point must be royal. But why is it the “First Point of Aries,” though the border of Aries is nearly 30 days ahead in the Sun’s journey? Did it marry overseas, like Prince Francis Albert etc. when he went to marry Queen Alexandrina Victoria etc.? No, the reason is that, about 2,000 years ago, it was indeed at the beginning of the constellation Aries. That was where the celestial equator then crossed the ecliptic. The line of the ecliptic stays where it is; the celestial equator gradually slews around, in a period of 25,800 years.
So, in the last few centuries B.C., Aries was the “first” constellation of the zodiacal twelve, whereas Pisces now is. The so-called “Age of Aquarius” hasn’t really started, at least as the constellation boundaries are drawn. (There is more about this in the Astronomical Companion section on “Precession.”)
Pisces is roughly L-shaped, wrapped around the southeastern corner (the star Algenib) of the Great Square of Pegasus. For it consists of two starry strings, tied at Risha – “knot” in Arabic – at the ends of which are the western fish, also called the Circlet of Pisces, and a slimmer group of stars for the northern fish, close under Andromeda.
A detail from our forthcoming “Map of the Starry Sky.”
Other fish constellations farther south in the sky – Piscis Austrinus, the Southern Fish, and Doradus, the Goldfish, and Volans, the Flying Fish – are swimming free. The two Pisces are not, but at least they are strung up by their tails, not by hooks through their tongues or palates like fish caught by anglers.
There are two human beliefs about fish:
– They, like other “lower” animals, and (as it has been believed), “lower” humans, do not have awareness. They are automatons; their apparent signs of agony are mere reflexes.
– They feel.
There is now abundant evidence that fish co-operate with each other, even between species; know themselves to be individuals (have passed the mirror test of self-recognition); can recognize and like and dislike individual humans; can crave attention and kindly treatment. They have “theory of mind,” the very sophisticated ability to imagine what is in the awareness of another being. It is impossible that they could have these advanced emotional systems and not the elemental ones of fear and pain that must have evolved far earlier.
There are three possible ethical responses:
– We don’t care. We can behave like other predatory animals, which have no choice but to hunt and kill, whether in quick and clean or in agonizing and long-drawn-out ways.
– We understand, but we make the choice to ignore; we manage to put it out of our minds, most of the time.
– We make the choice, difficult for a few weeks, easy when accustomed, not to eat corpses.
__________
DIAGRAMS in these posts are made with precision but have to be inserted in another format. You may be able to enlarge them on your monitor. One way: right-click, and choose “View image”, then enlarge. Or choose “Copy image”, then put it on your desktop, then open it. On an iPad or phone, use the finger gesture that enlarges (spreading with two fingers, or tapping and dragging with three fingers). I am grateful to know of what methods work for you.
This weblog maintains its right to be about astronomy or anything under the sun.
I’ve gone months without eating meat and don’t miss it. But usually I eat meat with about half my meals cuz it’s tasty. I do care about the animals. Death is rarely pleasant, but I hope the animals are treated humanely and killed quickly. I don’t eat veal; the way the calves are raised is inhumane. I don’t eat lobster or clams because I think death from being thrown into boiling water is torture.
Adherents to the Macrobiotic Diet believe that our diet should include an average of 1/8 meat, since 1/8 of our teeth are canine teeth. This varies by region; the diet of eskimos living on the tundra should include much more than 1/8 meat, and those in the tropics should eat less than 1/8 meat.
For those unfamiliar with macrobiotics, the staple of the diet is legumes (aduki beans, lentils, etc.) and grains (couscous, rice, oats, wheat, etc.), These should be supplemented with locally available yin or yang foods. Ice bound humans need more “yang” foods in which the calories are highly condensed, such as fish or meat. Those in the tropics should eat “yin ” foods, or expanding foods that grow up and out such as citrus fruit. Residents in temperate zones can supplement their rice and beans with both yin and yang food.
I agree with you, Guy, but it’s really a matter of degree and arbitrary distinction. Most of us would never consider eating the flesh of the man or woman, horse, whale, cat or dog that surround the fish. Except when stranded on an Andean peak perhaps. An eight year period with a goldfish taught me the sentience of the class of fishes. It all depends on how wide we are willing (and able) to expand our circle of companionship and respect.
That get’s close to my philosoophy, which I may mention some day.
Guy, I believe you meant “predators” where you used “prey animals”. We can behave like other predators makes sense. WE can be prey animals for sufficiently large predators or groups of them, too.
You’re right, “prey animals” was ambiguous or worse, I’ve changed it to “[redatory animals”.
Thanks very interesting post, and what makes it interesting is how you start with astronomy and end up talking about fishes (by way of Pisces). The 25,800 year period is the period of precession, and there is another period, that of nutation of period 18.6 years (chiefly caused by the Moon, but of a smaller effect than precession) that affects where the First point of “Aries” lies on the Celestial Sphere; in fact I am right now dealing with a program that takes these effects into account (ie back-and-forth conversions between J2000, B1950, True of Date, etc). With respect to your choices, I like the 2nd: “We understand, but we make the choice to ignore; we manage to put it out of our minds, most of the time.” I am an omnivore and I like eating animal “corpses” occasionally; some taste better than others.
“The first point of Aries” makes astrological sense. The Sun entered the sign of Aries at the equinox, although, thanks to precession, the Sun is still in the constellation of Pisces. All the exuberant qualities of Spring are traditionally associated with the Aries Ram, not the watery Pisces Fishes. And anyway, we can’t see which constellation the Sun is in!
The difference between astrological sign and astronomical constellation is more obvious when observing the Moon and planets. For instance, Venus is just east of the stars of the constellation of Capricorn, about to start passing in front of the stars of the constellation of Aquarius. But astrologically Venus is in the final degrees of the sign of Aquarius, about to enter the sign of Pisces.
I eat fish, but not birds or mammals. I know fish suffer, but I feel more empathy for birds and mammals than for fish. I tried eating an entirely vegan diet for a while, but had health problems; I’m healthier eating a small amount of animal protein on a regular basis. I’m careful to eat fish only from sustainable species, and from local fisherfolk when possible. I am aware that I’m taking an animal’s life when I eat a piece of fish. I’m grateful and take it seriously.
Eating plants has ethical implications too, certainly for the plants, but also for animals. How much habitat is destroyed to create farmland? How many “pests” like gophers and mice are exterminated to bring crops to harvest and to conserve food stored in granaries etc.? How much pollution is generated through industrial agriculture and shipping food across continents?
I’m not sure which of your ethical categories I fall into. I think that the best we can do is to remain conscious, minimize harm, be grateful for what we take for our sustenance, and give back as we’re able.
We’re not perfect, we haven’t yet succeeded in being vegan.
But to remain healthy without fish, one can take a little B12 tablet a day. And one can google many other ways of getting the beneficial oils.
Even vegans aren’t perfect. Every animal needs to kill and eat other organisms in order to survive. Even if you eat only plants, there is still collateral damage for other animals, and the plants themselves are living beings with some degree of sentience.
Thanks for the dietary advice, but the problem for me was being unable to assimilate enough protein from plant foods, with secondary anemia. I eat a small piece of fish once or twice a week and stay healthy.
I’m all in favor of eating a diet that’s healthier for ourselves and for our planet. In general it’s healthier to eat more plants and fewer animals, more whole foods and less processed food, more local seasonal food and less food that’s shipped long distances. I think we achieve more progress by supporting incremental positive changes than by making absolutist judgments.
I like how you lead us along with interesting astronomical observations, comments and charts and then take us in a completely different direction–do fish feel pain, indeed. That’s what is so great about your blog, you never know what’s around the corner.
Yes. Also known, without being punny, as “bait and switch”.
Hmm. I don’t see the bait. Guy always says that he reserves the right to write about non-astronomical topics or ‘anything under the sun’. After all, it’s called Guy’s blog, not Guy’s astronomical blog. As for me, I like to read broad.