Human nature is also red in tooth and claw
Re: “Jury out on health benefits, but ethical verdict on milk is clear”, Have Your Say, yesterday.
While one might sympathise with Jenny Moxham’s lachrymose, misplaced anthropomorphism, it runs contrary to the “nature, red in tooth and claw” philosophy that has an irrefutable logic to it. It is what it is. People will “steal” (sic) milk because they honestly think it is good for them, despite the vulgar use of it in tea. Lions will slaughter baby antelopes to propagate the species, which is of course their raison d’etre. Sure, that’s a slightly different slant on the argument, but big deal. This debate is endless, and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It’s neither wrong nor right.
That said, it is an immutable fact that some animals kill other animals – adult, or otherwise – merely because they can. The obvious rejoinder to this is, as Donald Rumsfeld once said, “stuff happens”, and it isn’t wrong for some creatures to indulge in activities that bifurcate from one’s honestly held opinions. This includes taking animal milk. People consume it because they like it. I happen to think it’s great with porridge.
So live with it, and be thankful that you’re alive enough to peddle irrelevancies.
Dr Frank
Bangkok
