Where you stand on these issues often depends on where you’re standing. Americans are rarely faced with the type of starvation that 3 rd world countries experience: Fishing is not a sport...

Show More +

 Where you stand on these issues often depends on where you’re standing. Americans are rarely faced with the type of starvation that 3^rd world countries experience: Fishing is not a sport but instead a means to alleviate hunger in a poverty-stricken community; Pets would be a foreign concept to many African nations. A country existing in a sub-zero environment would see fur as a means of survival rather than a politically-charged fashion statement. We Americans on the other hand have the luxury of pondering our ethics, food and otherwise. A harsh example of where you stand on the subject might be this: if you knew you could save a stranger’s life on the other side of the planet by feeding him your pet, would you? Or this: Think of your most treasured living thing in nature or in the animal kingdom and ask yourself if you had to choose between keeping that alive or keeping your mother alive, which would you choose? Most of us are not faced with these types of life or death dilemmas but upon deep examination would still find that a higher value is placed on human life. I love animals but don’t think that should override my love of humanity. Being at the top of the food chain has advantages and responsibilities. Mass commercial agriculture has made great strides in alleviating starvation through technologies that would not have been possible at a local level and so shouldn’t be demonized. A backyard agricultural model just wouldn’t make sense for places like India.  That said we should always look for ways to live in harmony with nature and improve food quality.

I believe one of the things that make Americans so lucky is that we can often think and act as we choose, certainly more often than in many other places. Embracing opposing views and living alongside people with multiple perspectives is a duty that we should cherish, even if their opinions are different from ours. We should be allowed to eat or not eat the food we choose and follow our beliefs.
The moral dilemma here would be regarding the limits of that policy - should your actions not harm or inhibit another human being? What about the indirect consequences of those actions?Another living thing? What constitutes harm? I think problems come when people try to evangelize and/or politicize their position, whether it be for or against raw food, animal cruelty, veganism, the organic movement, slow food or whatever.

Show Less -

When it comes to food there are questions of nutrition, which refer to our need for protein, essential fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, trace minerals, and so on; and there is the question of diet,...

Show More +

When it comes to food there are questions of nutrition, which refer to our need for protein, essential fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, trace minerals, and so on; and there is the question of diet, which is the “pick and choose” part of nutrition.  Clearly, ensuring adequate nutrition puts limits on the possibilities for "picking and choosing" a healthy diet.  People can be as picky as they like about food,  can be vegan or omnivore, can eat beef or broccoli, but they cannot escape their need for nutrition.

So what defines the range of possibilities for diet?  It is certainly possible in the middle of winter to ship in a few hundred thousand containers of organically grown grapes and fair-trade coffee from South America for people in New York to enjoy with a nice toasted bagel and some cream cheese.  The range of possibilities in human diet is quite wide.  Most animals do not enjoy that luxury.  When humans occupy the banks of a river and consume (or otherwise make unavailable) a river otter’s food, the otter may not be able find another suitable stretch of river in which to find food.  Food comes directly from the immediate habitat and if that habitat is taken away the animal is apt to starve.  Some animals are more adaptable than others.  An omnivore is better adapted to survive a forced change in habitat than an animal whose diet is strictly limited to food that is available only in specific locations. 

There is little doubt that humans are intelligent enough and adaptable enough to occupy all possible habitats of planet Earth.  Humans are remarkably clever in devising new and more efficient ways to produce food.   The profit motive may be a small part of what drives this, but it is mainly driven by the need to feed and sustain a ceaselessly growing world population.   Humans move food around the globe to support population growth, even encourage it.   Still it is true that some people eat better than others, so support of population growth cannot be said to be entirely altruistic.  One's ability to buy healthy food can be a limiting factor in choosing a diet.

It could be argued, tongue somewhat in cheek, that the competition for habitat is already over.  The humans won…well, for the present moment at least, perhaps with some post-apocalyptic Age of Insects yet to come.  All that is left to decide is the question of how much of the planet humans are willing to share with other species of life.   Will humans consent to put a limit on their own numbers so that other species of life can survive?  Consent with full knowledge that the future is rarely as predictable as people like to believe it to be.  Consent with full knowledge that some people have far greater control over the world’s food resources and how those resources are shared than others.   

Hmm.  Maybe picking and choosing a diet is not such an easy question to answer after all.

Show Less -