The Meat We Eat
I really appreciated Ari LeVaux's article ("Omnivorous," Jan. 25). The author reveals that he is a meat eater, but like many people, he acknowledges that the question of whether or not to eat meat is a complex one and something that is under more scrutiny than ever. With meat and dairy's heavily negative impact on the environment and the health benefits of eating more plant foods becoming widely accepted, and even recommended by major medical institutions, the expanding plant-based meat and cheese section of the store is welcome. The trend to eat more plants and fewer animals is positive progress, and we can use some of that for 2017.
If Mr. LeVaux wants to feel zero guilt for eating meat, he should be at least somewhat concerned that his consumption of wild game demonstrates a disregard for a very important part of the evolutionary process.
The mechanism for evolution is natural selection. When a mountain lion kills a deer, it usually gets the weakest, slowest, most genetically deficient member of the herd. This leaves the strongest members of the herd to reproduce.
When a human hunts a deer, they usually get the biggest, strongest, meatiest member of the herd to take home to their partner and kids. This leaves only the genetically inferior members of the herd to reproduce. In the long run, this may hurt the viability of any species of animal. Something to think about.
Boom or Bust?
I can't believe that while it appears we are slipping into a fascist dictatorship and people are worried about being deported, among other horrors, the Bohemian offers up an issue on boutique hotels! ("Boutique Boom," Jan. 25).
Counting the Vote
In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, there has been much criticism of the Electoral College, and calls for electing the president based on the national popular vote. Many of the critics point to the disparity of the Electoral College representation per capita of populous states like California compared to low-population states like Wyoming. They say that it is unfair that Wyoming gets one elector per 200,000 residents, while California only gets one elector per 700,000 residents. However, even if the number of electoral college votes allocated to each state was based solely on its population, with each state getting one elector per 200,000 residents, Trump would still have won the electoral college by a vote of 913–702.
Choosing the president by national popular vote would dramatically change voting habits and patterns. There is no way to predict how voter turnout would have been affected. I suspect that Trump would have received more votes in California and New York if the popular vote had mattered.
Write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.