Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

lcatlin's picture

<!--StartFragment-->  I agree

 I agree with Lydia when she said that human nature must be defined first. In this article, I believe that the human nature aspect Revkin was discussing was the desire to eat meat. I do believe that it is human nature to crave meat. We are omnivores, which in its simplest terms means we eat plants and meat. When Revkin said that its easier to change technology than human nature, I think he meant that its easier to allow humans to eat meat and change the way it was produced, than to restrict the consumption of meat. I think this is true. Revkin then asks, "Can we change human nature? Should we?" I do not think we can or should, but we can control the means to an end of how we satisfy that human nature. For me, this would mean controlling the production standards of how meat is produced, even if it drives the cost of meat way up. If the best and humane way to produce meat is more expensive, people should be willing to pay that. This humane way might be in the form of the in-vitro meat, like Revkin discusses. 



To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
8 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.