Reply to comment

To me, there is a flaw in what Revkin defines as human nature.  There are people who are willing to not eat meat, to eat sustainably, etc--which makes me think that it is not human nature (and I'm assuming that human nature is universal) that dictates that we are wasteful and eat meat.  I suppose I see human nature as more of the instincts that people have and choices that people make (ie, vegetarians/vegans), rather than their biological make-up (which argues that humans are biologically designed to eat meat).  I don't know whether in this case we should be trying to change human nature, but rather trying to change how the dominant part of human society has developed.  I think it is more because society (as a whole) is lazy and a vast majority of the population is removed from the actual meat industry (and thus do not consider the fact that their meal has a past) that we take little interest in the ethics behind the situation.  I suppose that I do agree with Singer in wishing that enough of the population would take an ethical stance and thus force a switch to laboratory grown meat; however, I find making the switch to be very much more important than the actual reason behind it.  But, at the same time as I write this, I remind myself that I still eat meat--obviously not laboratory grown--and when I remember the meat's dark past I get a guilty conscience and join Singer's ranks in terms of ethics...but not for long enough.