Hm. I see a lot of people commenting on food that is treated bad tastes bad, and, um, no. That's not what I meant to convey.

What I meant to convey, is that if the [b]quality of life[/b] of the animals is so absolutely abysmal and poor that they cannot even achieve basic hygienic standards, that's a problem, because thousands will die wasted and diseases will run rampant. The more diseases run rampant, the greater the evolutionary potential of [i]each one[/i], which in turn means the greater the chance one will jump species and hit [i]us[/i] next. So from a purely, coldly logical point of view, we don't have to be "nice" to them to justify increasing QoL. We only have to keep the QoL above the "worse than Africa" line to keep us safe.

Beyond that, it's totally and entirely personal preference, whether or not that fits into your moral guidelines is irrelevant in the equation because we're also the ones keeping the majority of them alive.

As for wild animals, depends. If they're endangered, sure, try to save em', cuz' biodiversity is a wonderful thing and a healthy thing. However, if we held that "no hunting" policy that the film asks for, deer and rabbits would overrun everything, increase predator populations, then deplete their own resource, starve to death, and then go extinct when the overabundant predator population goes wild on them while they're all starving to death.

Yes, we fucked up mother nature, but we're part of mother nature. Guess what? We're simply on top. Of course we're affecting every food chain and every area of the planet: [b]We live and dominate over every fucking part of the planet[/b]. The best thing we can do is get involved in our own environment and try to produce one that benefits us the most, because that usually involves at least keeping a species alive so it can keep doing whatever it does that we find useful... :lol