A Modest Proposal

      124 Comments on A Modest Proposal

A writer for the New York Times recently put forth an interesting proposal:  engineering carnivores out of existence so animals in the wild won’t be killed by other animals.

Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous.

If I had been in a position to design and create a world, I would have tried to arrange for all conscious individuals to be able to survive without tormenting and killing other conscious individuals. I hope most other people would have done the same.

After quoting the famous verses from Isaiah describing a heavenly future where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down the kid, and the calf and the young lion will declare themselves best friends forever on Facebook, the writer lays out his own possible future here on earth:

To be entitled to regard ourselves as civilized, we must, like Isaiah’s morally reformed lion, eat straw like the ox, or at least the moral equivalent of straw.

If we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones, ought we to do it? Suppose that we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones. Or suppose that we could intervene genetically, so that currently carnivorous species would gradually evolve into herbivorous ones, thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. If we could bring about the end of predation by one or the other of these means at little cost to ourselves, ought we to do it?

To his credit, the writer admits engineering a world without predators could have unintended consequences, such as overpopulation among the herbivores, followed by starvation.  He also acknowledges that some nature-lovers would object to the intentional extinction of any species — even blood-thirsty carnivores.  But then he makes his crucial point:  when the good of the world is at stake, no single species is sacrosanct. If some must die off so others can live, so be it.

After reading the essay, I considered it for a long time — especially that last crucial point.  With my mental gears oiled by deep thinking, I soon came up with my own proposal for improving the world.

A Modest Proposal
by Tom Naughton

It is a melancholy sight to those who travel this great world to see the streets crowded with beggars, followed by three or four or six children all in rags.  Unable to work for an honest livelihood, they are forced to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either become thieves or leave home to fight for the current warlord.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of people has led to a deplorable destruction of the planet, as the need for producing an ever-greater food supply has taken its toll in the form of over-farming, over-fertilizing, and over-irrigating; and therefore whoever could find a cheap and easy method of either reducing the worldwide requirement for food, or increasing the supply without further environmental damage, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up as Preserver of the Planet.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope shall meet with the least objection.

The number of souls currently living in this country is said to be 300 million, of which I calculate there are about 21 million vegetarians.  While it is claimed by health experts that this group is leaner than others, even the most conservative estimates put the average weight of an adult vegetarian at well over 130 pounds.

I have been assured by a very knowing explorer that a healthy vegetarian is a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that one will equally serve in a fricassee or stir-fry.  Therefore I offer, for public consideration, that is time for the carnivorous people of the planet to consume the vegetarians for sustenance.

The advantages of the proposal are obvious and many, and of the highest importance.

Firstly, it would greatly lessen the number of Plantists, with whom we are currently overrun.  As anyone who produces written works centered on carbohydrate restriction or Paleolithic nutrition can attest, Plantists are our most self-righteous and hostile enemies, constantly showing up unannounced and uninvited, and plotting to take over through devious and dishonest methods of conversion.  With the institution of my proposal, carnivores could defend against attacks upon their dietary choices by replying, “Those are some interesting theories, but require further explanation.  Please stop by this address tomorrow evening, and I’ll have you for dinner.”

Secondly, it would ease the strain on the world’s scarce resources through both direct and indirect reductions in the population.  The direct reduction would occur as the result of re-purposing vegetarians as steaks, chops, hams, filets, and other protein-rich meals.  The indirect reduction would occur for the simple reason that vegetarians are disproportionately represented among those who are young and passionate, and therefore prone to reproduce.  A direct reduction by two now could therefore result in an indirect reduction of 16 or 20 over subsequent decades.

Thirdly, it would greatly reduce the economic barriers to providing a high-quality, protein-rich diet for the masses.  Plantists have frequently criticized the resources used and expenses incurred in raising cattle for beef.  By contrast, vegetarians would provide the unique advantage of raising themselves, at their own expense, until they are ready for consumption.  Thus they would reduce the cost of meals for carnivores both by providing an inexpensive source of complete protein, and by reducing the overall demand, and therefore the price, for beef, chicken, and pork.  A surplus of those products would likely follow, which would encourage producers in the United States to offer them as cheap exports to starving people overseas.

Fourthly, it would reduce unemployment by regularly removing a significant portion of the adult workforce from the population, and by encouraging carnivores to hire vegetarians for domestic positions, albeit on a temporary basis.

Fifthly, it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by creating an ever-growing supply of inexpensive, pre-owned hybrid automobiles, such as the Prius and Smart Car.

Sixthly, it would provide a renewed source of entertainment to the sporting classes.  In regions where the deer, quail, and pheasant populations have dwindled, the hunting grounds could be re-stocked annually with vegetarians.

Seventhly, and most importantly, it would lead to an improvement in the nation’s overall health, with a concomitant reduction in medical costs.  Plantists have pointed out for years that vegetarians are the healthiest people in the world because of their exclusively plant-based diets.  By extension, vegetarians themselves would also make some of the most nutritious meals.  Carnivores who refuse to give up fatty meats and eat their vegetables would likely relish the opportunity to eat low-fat, low-cholesterol vegetarians as an alternative.  Instead of guiltily avoiding eye contact with the vegetarian section of restaurant menus, they would eagerly seek out the latest creations, such as Sam Chowder, Eggs with Benedict, McDougall with Cheese, Oz and Onion Omelet, Vegetarian Liver with Fava Beans and a Nice Chianti, or (sure to be a hit) T. Colin Campbell soup.

I am aware that some will raise objections to this proposal; the most likely being that consuming vegetarians for food is immoral.  This has already been refuted by an influential and highly intellectual writer the New York Times, who pointed out that when the good of the planet is at stake, no species is sacrosanct.  It has also been refuted by the most passionate Plantists themselves, who have stated countless times that a pig, a frog and a boy are metaphysically equal.  If you ask a sincere Plantist, “I’m going to broil either you or that pig over there … do you have an opinion about that?” the only honest answer could be, “Morally, it doesn’t make any difference.”

Another objection I anticipate is that it would be unfair to consume only the vegetarians among us.  This objection, however, is flawed on two counts.  Firstly, since the Plantists have spent so many years explaining that humans who eat meat are polluting their bodies, carnivorous humans cannot possibly be fit for human consumption.  Secondly, no matter how nutritious a food may be, it will never become a significant part of the nation’s diet unless it is palatable.  As countless bumper-stickers have informed us, vegetarians taste better.

In closing, I profess that I bear no animosity towards vegetarians, and have no personal interest in promoting this proposal.  My only concern is for the good of the public and the planet.


If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Share

124 thoughts on “A Modest Proposal

  1. john

    As far as I know, carnivores don’t “torment” other animals.

    That’s the writer imputing his own sense of morality into the situation. A wolf no more “torments” a rabbit than the rabbit torments plants.

    Reply
  2. Wanda

    Calf and lion on FB… LMAO!!!

    Funny, I seem to remember something in the news a long time ago about some country trying to wipe out a species… or race… to be superior… for the good of the planet… Oh yeah now I remember, it was Hitler! 😉 Mebbe that NYT writer is one of those “the holocaust never happened” people.

    Couldn’t have been Hitler … he and most of his inner circle were vegetarians, and therefore incapable of such cruelty.

    Reply
  3. Hilary Kyro

    Green People Re-purposing! I’m lovin’ the buns off your modest proposal. If GPR doesn’t sell like murder to the..um..proposed protein products, we could call it Nutritious Karmic Nudging for People of Taste.

    Reply
  4. TPSW

    Absolutely laughing out loud, literally! As Barbara said, your manifesto was much more readable, his, I had to skip over the more tedious parts. And as TaxSalePropertyKing pointed out, the change in personality is one of the best results that getting rid of sugar and wheat produces. I have found a great deal of patience that I didn’t think I had by changing my diet. About the only things that irritates me now are the vegan’s propaganda and the vegan drivers on the road that cannot seem to understand that you should go with the flow on the freeway. They are rally-killers on the road and at the table.

    My mood is much more stable on low-carb, partly because I don’t feel exhausted after meals.

    Reply
  5. Dana Carpender

    TSPK, I have to echo your statement; one of the things that really struck me when I went low carb was a sense of ebullience, just new-found optimism. Further, when I do a few meat-only days, to knock off an extra pound or two, I always feel particularly positive and clear-headed.

    I lay at least some of the bill for the Prozac explosion of the ’90s and ’00s at the doorstep of low fat/high carb diet theory. Add Ritalin to that, too.

    Reply
  6. aurelia

    “But then he makes his crucial point: when the good of the world is at stake, no single species is sacrosanct. If some must die off so others can live, so be it.”

    Isn’t this an argument for launching the nukes and creating our very own mass extinction event?

    The planet will be just fine after we cleanse it of the pinnacle predator (humans).

    Now, I know we would be killing off lots of other species, but that would make room for new evolution without further alteration of the environment by humans. And really, how is nuclear winter any different from asteroid winter or comet winter or volcano winter?

    The planet would do just fine and McMahan and his ilk wouldn’t have to worry about any of this, being dead, you know.

    As that comic genius Bill Cosby would say, dain-bramaged.

    When you get down to it, the writer and his kind simply don’t like people very much and think the planet would be better off without us.

    Reply
  7. Pamela

    This really grossed me out, but not for the reasons you might think. I just had these pictures in my mind of what would happen if the NYT writer’s proposal was taken to extremes and all the carnivorous bugs and bacteria in the world were also eliminated. I suppose the vegans would come up with some way to take care of the problem, but they’d be awfully busy!

    Hey, that’s right: we’d have to breed spiders out of existence as well.

    Reply
  8. Richard Tamesis, M.D.

    What that NY Times article shows is that there is no shortage of writers who are so full of themselves that hubris leaks out of both of their ends. Also, it only takes a good sized asteroid or comet to undo all their grandiose plans of trying to make their dream paradise on Earth.

    Reply
  9. Paul451

    I would venture to guess that vegetarians will very likely have a screwed up ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 from eating too many hearthealthywholegrains. Have to take some fish oil to compensate.

    OTOH, Benjamin Franklin would be proud of you, Tom!

    He once said:

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

    Indeed, that’s why the Founders intended for the Constitution to strictly limit which laws the wolves could pass. Too bad so few people (many of them wearing black robes at their jobs) grasp the concept these days.

    Reply
  10. Josh Goguen

    There’s two ways to look at this (well, there’s probably more):

    1. Billions of years this planet has been tinkering with life. It has managed to achieve a balance thru trial and error that we have come to call evolution and natural selection. Sure, sometimes the scales tip too far one way or the other, but it’s usually corrected. Even after the billions of years it took to get to this point, Jeff knows better.

    2. God created the heavens and earth. He then populated the planet with plants, animals and people. He looked down at his creation and saw that it was good. Despite God’s infinite power and wisdom, Jeff knows better.

    Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the world works the way it does whether we like certain things or not?

    He’s one of the many vegans who thinks he loves nature but has no understanding of it.

    Reply
  11. Lori

    Either Dr. McMahan’s piece is stunt philosophy or he needs to get out of New Jersey more often. In McHahan’s world, foxes and owls wouldn’t eat rodents and birds wouldn’t eat insects and all would be just peachy. Maybe–just maybe–a sabbatical at Texas A&M would teach him that a swarm of insects an devour acres of crops in a day and rodents can lay waste to grain stores. Want to just get rid of all the insects and rodents? Good luck.

    Even if you’re a die-hard vegan, predators play a role in your world.

    I like the idea of a stunt philosopher. I could philosophize until the really dangerous thinking was necessary, then bring in the stunt thinker.

    Reply
  12. Franklin Mason

    I once was a philosopher. I’ve since left the field, but I still know what motivates a writer like Jeff McMahan – the author of the NY Times piece.

    He assumes first that we have no need for meat. We eat it because we like its taste, but we could easily do without.

    He assumes as well that the only sort of disvalue in the world is pain. (This assumption was made by all of the classical utilitarians – Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill and the rest). If a thing is bad, it is bad because it cause pain; and the more pain it causes, the worse it is. It doesn’t matter whose pain it is; it doesn’t even matter if it’s human pain. Pain is pain, and we all have an obligation to bring about as little of it as possible.

    If you embrace both of these assumptions, his conclusion does seem to follow. If we could remake the world in such a way that there was less pain, we should do so; and if this means to do away with carnivores, so be it.

    But of course the first assmption is false. We do need meat to thrive; and unless we mean to do ourselves in, we can’t bring about an end to all carnivory (if that’s a word).

    I wonder whether, in response, he would suggest that, even if we do need meat now, we should attempt to reengineer ourselves so that we don’t. Tinker with our DNA, I suppose; or perhaps come up with better quality plant proteins and fats.

    Here’s my take: it’s just false that the goodness of the world depends upon a lack of pain. Tis not pain, or its lack, that makes the world good or bad.

    My vegetarian diet gave me pain, so by his belief system, it was bad.

    Reply
  13. Your older brother

    “Fifthly, it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by creating an ever-growing supply of inexpensive, pre-owned hybrid automobiles, such as the Prius and Smart Car.”

    There’s also the added bonus of them not producing all of that global-warming CO2 after they’ve “assumed room temperature.” Plus, especially with them being vegetarians, maybe we could get a bounty or methane credit for each one we take out; and then sell the credit to a rancher so she could raise another cow.

    We could call it “Cap ’em and Trade.”

    Cheers!

    I hadn’t thought of that. Bean-eaters produce excess methane.

    Reply
  14. Barry

    This got me thinking…..

    According to current statistics, there are approximately 30 million white-Tailed Deer in the US today, which is about the same as the number of Vegetarians in the US today. Surely it makes sense that if the deer are considered a nuisance, and are allowed to be culled…..shouldn’t the same hold true for the vegetarians?

    I don’t think that I could look a deer in the eye and pull the trigger, even though I enjoy deer meat….but I think I’d have no problem honing-in on an out-spoken Vegetarian. I’m sure I could become quite accustomed to the taste of the meat. I can’t imagine that the average Vegetarian would make such a tasty sausage though.

    I don’t know if Meme Roth is a vegetarian, but I think I could pull the trigger in her case.

    Reply
  15. Robin

    Hi, Tom. This blog just made my day! I sent it to my husband and felt I should post what he said about the NYT writer:

    “I think he should have to fight all of the predators in hand-to-claw combat to see whose ideology is correct.”

    The NYT writer is a goof, but I have to admit I’d feel safer camping in the deep woods if the only bears in the area were vegetarians.

    Reply
  16. Auntie M

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
    I’m still wiping tears from my eyes. You would certainly need to adjust the Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio, but other than that, I see no problem. Your homage is amazing. You are the best!

    Thank you. Perhaps someday I’ll go for a longer homage to Swift. I’m picturing a brilliant traveling scientist — Richard Feinman or Jeff Volek perhaps — tied down by little people with little minds … and of course having to deal with the Yahoos.

    Reply
  17. Paul451

    I would venture to guess that vegetarians will very likely have a screwed up ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 from eating too many hearthealthywholegrains. Have to take some fish oil to compensate.

    OTOH, Benjamin Franklin would be proud of you, Tom!

    He once said:

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

    Indeed, that’s why the Founders intended for the Constitution to strictly limit which laws the wolves could pass. Too bad so few people (many of them wearing black robes at their jobs) grasp the concept these days.

    Reply
  18. Lori

    Either Dr. McMahan’s piece is stunt philosophy or he needs to get out of New Jersey more often. In McHahan’s world, foxes and owls wouldn’t eat rodents and birds wouldn’t eat insects and all would be just peachy. Maybe–just maybe–a sabbatical at Texas A&M would teach him that a swarm of insects an devour acres of crops in a day and rodents can lay waste to grain stores. Want to just get rid of all the insects and rodents? Good luck.

    Even if you’re a die-hard vegan, predators play a role in your world.

    I like the idea of a stunt philosopher. I could philosophize until the really dangerous thinking was necessary, then bring in the stunt thinker.

    Reply
  19. Franklin Mason

    I once was a philosopher. I’ve since left the field, but I still know what motivates a writer like Jeff McMahan – the author of the NY Times piece.

    He assumes first that we have no need for meat. We eat it because we like its taste, but we could easily do without.

    He assumes as well that the only sort of disvalue in the world is pain. (This assumption was made by all of the classical utilitarians – Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill and the rest). If a thing is bad, it is bad because it cause pain; and the more pain it causes, the worse it is. It doesn’t matter whose pain it is; it doesn’t even matter if it’s human pain. Pain is pain, and we all have an obligation to bring about as little of it as possible.

    If you embrace both of these assumptions, his conclusion does seem to follow. If we could remake the world in such a way that there was less pain, we should do so; and if this means to do away with carnivores, so be it.

    But of course the first assmption is false. We do need meat to thrive; and unless we mean to do ourselves in, we can’t bring about an end to all carnivory (if that’s a word).

    I wonder whether, in response, he would suggest that, even if we do need meat now, we should attempt to reengineer ourselves so that we don’t. Tinker with our DNA, I suppose; or perhaps come up with better quality plant proteins and fats.

    Here’s my take: it’s just false that the goodness of the world depends upon a lack of pain. Tis not pain, or its lack, that makes the world good or bad.

    My vegetarian diet gave me pain, so by his belief system, it was bad.

    Reply
  20. Be

    Would it be sacrilegious to eat a vegan’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

    I don’t think so. Hannibal looked pretty healthy to me.

    Reply
  21. Your older brother

    “Fifthly, it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by creating an ever-growing supply of inexpensive, pre-owned hybrid automobiles, such as the Prius and Smart Car.”

    There’s also the added bonus of them not producing all of that global-warming CO2 after they’ve “assumed room temperature.” Plus, especially with them being vegetarians, maybe we could get a bounty or methane credit for each one we take out; and then sell the credit to a rancher so she could raise another cow.

    We could call it “Cap ’em and Trade.”

    Cheers!

    I hadn’t thought of that. Bean-eaters produce excess methane.

    Reply
  22. Zach

    if we are going to start eating each other than i don’t think its fair to only eat vegetarians. in fact, i think the vegetarians should be the last to be eaten, because they are the least likely to try and eat us. it’s the omnivores that we have to worry about cause they’ll be trying to eat us when our back is turned, so to eliminate competition we should eat them

    and anyways i don’t see why we should start eating each other. there are plenty of plants out there it’s not like we’re in the midst of a famine. can’t we just eat those? this post was stupid in my opinion

    If we eat the omnivores, we’re no longer vegetarians, and then we’d have to eat ourselves. Doesn’t work.

    Reply
  23. Rahul

    Hey Tom,
    Great read, hilarious and you made quite a tempting proposal too, I would totally encourage this idea if we could start by roasting and cooking all the idiotic vege evangalists starting with all members from the CSPI (except mayb for that old guy, the meat from him would probably taste rotten :S). Also in the special recipes u mentioned I’m surprised you didn’t mention a Meme Roth roast, although judging by her semi-aneroxic physique, I doubt we would get much meat from her 😛 Anyways good read and a very interesting proposal I must say lol I like the bit where u point out that vege evangelist themselves have claimed “Vegetarians taste bettes” it’s like they want to be consumed 😛
    Thanks for the great morning read as always Tom. Keep it up 😉

    I’m not sure MeMe is a vegetarian, but she sure qualifies as a meatless meal.

    Reply
  24. monasmee

    It just might change the whole meaning of family dinner:

    “You know, I really don’t like your friends.”

    “That’s OK Mom, just eat the vegetables.”

    LOL.

    Reply
  25. Auntie M

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
    I’m still wiping tears from my eyes. You would certainly need to adjust the Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio, but other than that, I see no problem. Your homage is amazing. You are the best!

    Thank you. Perhaps someday I’ll go for a longer homage to Swift. I’m picturing a brilliant traveling scientist — Richard Feinman or Jeff Volek perhaps — tied down by little people with little minds … and of course having to deal with the Yahoos.

    Reply
  26. Be

    Would it be sacrilegious to eat a vegan’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

    I don’t think so. Hannibal looked pretty healthy to me.

    Reply
  27. Marc

    Wow, what a huge mistake our heavenly creator made creating predatory animals. Thank goodness he also created vegans to come along and fix his mistake.

    God and/or Mother Nature clearly lacked the wisdom of vegans.

    Reply
  28. Zach

    if we are going to start eating each other than i don’t think its fair to only eat vegetarians. in fact, i think the vegetarians should be the last to be eaten, because they are the least likely to try and eat us. it’s the omnivores that we have to worry about cause they’ll be trying to eat us when our back is turned, so to eliminate competition we should eat them

    and anyways i don’t see why we should start eating each other. there are plenty of plants out there it’s not like we’re in the midst of a famine. can’t we just eat those? this post was stupid in my opinion

    If we eat the omnivores, we’re no longer vegetarians, and then we’d have to eat ourselves. Doesn’t work.

    Reply
  29. Rahul

    Hey Tom,
    Great read, hilarious and you made quite a tempting proposal too, I would totally encourage this idea if we could start by roasting and cooking all the idiotic vege evangalists starting with all members from the CSPI (except mayb for that old guy, the meat from him would probably taste rotten :S). Also in the special recipes u mentioned I’m surprised you didn’t mention a Meme Roth roast, although judging by her semi-aneroxic physique, I doubt we would get much meat from her 😛 Anyways good read and a very interesting proposal I must say lol I like the bit where u point out that vege evangelist themselves have claimed “Vegetarians taste bettes” it’s like they want to be consumed 😛
    Thanks for the great morning read as always Tom. Keep it up 😉

    I’m not sure MeMe is a vegetarian, but she sure qualifies as a meatless meal.

    Reply
  30. DamnDirtyApe

    This is totally unrelated.. but are you aware the entry for your film was deleted from Wikipedia.?

    Not that you necessarily care, but you might want to get that sorted out since a lot of people might hear about you, or the film, and go to Wikipedia to get the low down on it.

    PS: I discovered this while looking up the entry for Super Size Me. Your response to the film is mentioned at that article, but it would be nice to have a direct link to your film at the end of the entry so people can get a more critical view.

    – TJ

    A fan of the film wrote up and posted the original article, and then the Wikipedia people deleted it. I believe he protested, but they it’s their site, so they win. Be nice to have it in there, but I’m not sure I can do anything about it.

    Reply
  31. monasmee

    It just might change the whole meaning of family dinner:

    “You know, I really don’t like your friends.”

    “That’s OK Mom, just eat the vegetables.”

    LOL.

    Reply
  32. Marc

    Wow, what a huge mistake our heavenly creator made creating predatory animals. Thank goodness he also created vegans to come along and fix his mistake.

    God and/or Mother Nature clearly lacked the wisdom of vegans.

    Reply
  33. Felix

    Before anyone else does, I call dibs on the fat Nutella-and-Peanut-Butter vegetarians. I don’t want the bony fatless vegans. They’re not wanted – dead or alive.

    For the skinny ones, you’ll need to include the marrow and organs to get the fat content up.

    Reply
  34. DamnDirtyApe

    This is totally unrelated.. but are you aware the entry for your film was deleted from Wikipedia.?

    Not that you necessarily care, but you might want to get that sorted out since a lot of people might hear about you, or the film, and go to Wikipedia to get the low down on it.

    PS: I discovered this while looking up the entry for Super Size Me. Your response to the film is mentioned at that article, but it would be nice to have a direct link to your film at the end of the entry so people can get a more critical view.

    – TJ

    A fan of the film wrote up and posted the original article, and then the Wikipedia people deleted it. I believe he protested, but they it’s their site, so they win. Be nice to have it in there, but I’m not sure I can do anything about it.

    Reply
  35. Jeanne

    A few years ago, we had a really big snow storm here in Seattle. To pass the time at home, I caught up on my reading.
    One of the books I read was by an ancestor of mine, CF McGlashan, who wrote the first definitive history of the Donnor Pary.
    (For those who don’t know, the Donnor Party were some ill-fated settlers in the 1840’s, I believe, who tried to cross from Utah into California through the Sierra Madre Mountains.They left too late in the season and got snowed in at what became known as Donnor Lake, and some other places along the way. Some of the suvivors lived by canibalizing the bodies of those who had died.)
    After reading this, I wondered who I would choose to eat to survive, if I had to.
    Well, all carnivoires know that herbivoires taste the best…

    Reply
  36. Felix

    Before anyone else does, I call dibs on the fat Nutella-and-Peanut-Butter vegetarians. I don’t want the bony fatless vegans. They’re not wanted – dead or alive.

    For the skinny ones, you’ll need to include the marrow and organs to get the fat content up.

    Reply
  37. Jeanne

    A few years ago, we had a really big snow storm here in Seattle. To pass the time at home, I caught up on my reading.
    One of the books I read was by an ancestor of mine, CF McGlashan, who wrote the first definitive history of the Donnor Pary.
    (For those who don’t know, the Donnor Party were some ill-fated settlers in the 1840’s, I believe, who tried to cross from Utah into California through the Sierra Madre Mountains.They left too late in the season and got snowed in at what became known as Donnor Lake, and some other places along the way. Some of the suvivors lived by canibalizing the bodies of those who had died.)
    After reading this, I wondered who I would choose to eat to survive, if I had to.
    Well, all carnivoires know that herbivoires taste the best…

    Reply
  38. Lori

    The New York Times article reminds me of the book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell.

    From the Booklist review on Amazon.com:

    Examples [Sowell] cites are the “Aha!” statistic in which condition A (say, infant mortality) is claimed to have cause B (inadequate budgets for prenatal care)…. These means defend a worldview of perfectible man that Sowell contrasts with the “tragic” view, stemming from human fallibility.

    Yup, Sowell is brilliant at pointing out those fallacies. His favorite question when students say this or that system is inadequate is “Compared to what?” Compared to perfection, all systems suck.

    Reply
  39. Crusader

    Gotta love it. PETA, NY Times knows better then 4 billion years of natural selection.

    In Fat Head, I said Mother Nature isn’t stupid. PETA obviously disagrees.

    Reply
  40. SkyKing

    My wife and I are not vegetarians, but we like to eat each other at least 3x/week.

    Oops! That prolly wasn’t a very appropriate thing to say on a family friendly site, such as this one.

    My apologies!

    I’d best leave that one alone.

    Reply
  41. Lori

    The New York Times article reminds me of the book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell.

    From the Booklist review on Amazon.com:

    Examples [Sowell] cites are the “Aha!” statistic in which condition A (say, infant mortality) is claimed to have cause B (inadequate budgets for prenatal care)…. These means defend a worldview of perfectible man that Sowell contrasts with the “tragic” view, stemming from human fallibility.

    Yup, Sowell is brilliant at pointing out those fallacies. His favorite question when students say this or that system is inadequate is “Compared to what?” Compared to perfection, all systems suck.

    Reply
  42. Crusader

    Gotta love it. PETA, NY Times knows better then 4 billion years of natural selection.

    In Fat Head, I said Mother Nature isn’t stupid. PETA obviously disagrees.

    Reply
  43. Tyson

    I’ve always liked this acronym for PETA – People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

    I saw a t-shirt once that listed it as People for the Edible Treatment of Animals.

    Reply
  44. SkyKing

    My wife and I are not vegetarians, but we like to eat each other at least 3x/week.

    Oops! That prolly wasn’t a very appropriate thing to say on a family friendly site, such as this one.

    My apologies!

    I’d best leave that one alone.

    Reply
  45. Tyson

    I’ve always liked this acronym for PETA – People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

    I saw a t-shirt once that listed it as People for the Edible Treatment of Animals.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.