Tags
This is one of the most misguided, poorly informed, nonsensical comments on the natural world that I have stumbled across for quite some time. It is downright depressing that here, at the dawn of the 21st century, there are opinions so devoid of intellectual merit still being pondered by academics. The arguments that carnivores/predators can be assessed according to moral standards, that our own human appetite for destruction is tied to organismal carnivory (never mind our own omnivorous roots), and that human-guided transformation to a world of vegetarianism would be a good thing, are, in a nutshell, nuts. Arguing these matters from purely philosophical or, worse, theological standpoints is not only ridiculous, it is seriously misguided intellectual hubris. These matters are ecological and evolutionary. Begin your arguments with a bit of sound science, and quickly dispose of your personal moral struggles rather than project them onto a world that chugged along just fine for almost 4 billion years before our poor blighted species further stained itself by producing “natural” philosophers.
Roopnarine's Food Weblog 
Pingback: I cannot believe that the New York Times published this nonsense – brundlefly
What?!? Is this some kind of very wordy and unfunny joke?
How had I missed this until now? Your review is so good I was forced to read it aloud to Joe all in a single breath.
It was almost worth reading the original NYT article, even, and I believe that has cost me some tooth enamel. Do people actually get paid for this sort of thing?
Do people ask rhetorical questions?