Eons ago, early humans had already laid down the ground rules for what plants should be eaten through painful, occasionally fatal, trial and error. It was a clumsy stab at the modern scientific method but it worked, so it doesn't speak much for the descendants of these survivors that, millennia later, we're still consuming animals that poison and kill us.
When it comes to fauna, what we eat is determined by two factors: tradition and cutism."" These allow non-vegetarians like myself to gorge ourselves on many of the friendlier, homelier beasts of the Earth while still balking at the prospect of shooting, skinning, gutting and devouring a golden retriever.
Clearly, some standards for what and what not to eat are necessary. If open season was declared across the animal kingdom tomorrow, many questions would be posed that should never be answered - among them, ""Would you kids rather eat at T.G.I.flatworm or the International House of Pandas?"" and ""Which wine goes better with cat loaf - red or white?""
The problem is that ""cutist"" standards aren't grounded in any kind of scientific rigor, just a vaguely defined spectrum of animal cuteness. Generally speaking, an animal is deemed fit for consumption as long as it is no uglier than a lobster and no cuter than a duck.
his system is both subjective and riddled with inconsistencies. I would argue this puts most small breeds of dogs - generally attractiveness-deficient - in the ""food"" category. Yet a whole purebred shih tzu can sell for upward of $200 per pound.
As a way out of this gridlock, Denis Leary famously suggested each species argue individually for the right not to be eaten. It's an interesting idea, and it seems more than fair that animals should be given a stake in their own fate. However, the democratic process is a slow one, and the hungry among us can't just wait around to see whether or not the ostrich lobby gets enough signatures together.
A more pragmatic solution would be to simply add or remove animals from the approved list whenever a strong case can be made. If animals can be rewarded for cuteness and intelligence, they should also be punished for stupidity. Lemmings could be herded and slaughtered at little cost to the consumer. Underperforming species such as orangutans and sloths could be easily repurposed into top-notch stews. Dolphin could really spice up tuna salad.
Long-standing exceptions to the cuteness rule, lambs and deer, are often treated unjustly. Objectively, they are much more photogenic than any other widely consumed animal. However, their exceptional deliciousness continues to reduce their life expectancies. It is my wish that this continue.
Pigs, on the other hand, should be given full amnesty, not just under kosher law. Ham is a staple of every single Christian family holiday. Easter ham, Pentecost ham, Flag Day ham, Christmas ham - they're nuts for it. I'm sure there were plenty of other delicious animals in the manger.
Furthermore, five and a half decades after ""Charlotte's Web"" was published, Wilburs everywhere continue to be slaughtered by the millions. If other animal protagonists had the same luck, we'd all be strutting around in our fancy new Dalmatian overcoats, eating delicious unicorn flank steaks.
The benefit of adopting a more flexible food-selection system makes it possible to address any future questions on the etiquette of what to eat. How would these standards apply to cannibalism? I just don't know.
If you think Matt is cute and would like to invite him out for dinner e-mail him at hunziker@wisc.edu._
