Now this is unusual, a mainstream article commenting on how there is huge cognitive dissonance at play when people partake in eating one animal and making a beloved family member of another. It's nice to see Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall coming to the logical conclusion that there is no moral difference between eating a dog or pig.
However in his own personal activities (Notably regarding over fishing of the seas) he sadly misses the point that eating no fish at is most sustainable and ethical of all. As with much welfarist reform his campaign actually served to increase fish consumption. The demand for the threatened fish stayed the same with his preferred species just being consumed in addition.
He also misses the point that all animal products are morally problematic as his experiment was as a vegetarian (Predictably tied in with an "In time for Xmas" vegetarian cook book) so Hugh still needlessly continued to contribute to animal suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment