- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First, Peter Singer is a huge hypocrite.
The whole notion that it is unjust for some to live well while others starve, but that the former can buy off his personal guilt by donating 20% of his income is beyond belief.
If one really believes that we have a moral obligation to help others in the manner professed, then donate 80%.
It's like these inane socialist stating all work is equal in value while making 3 times the money of their assistances. It's absurd on its surface and get no better with depth.
Second, buy food from third world countries is the worst thing you can do for them, unless you are trying to enforce perputual servitude. A nation cannot move from a third world economy without gettin its birth rate under control. That does not happen when farming is the main source of income, because more childern means more workers and this means more potential income for the parents. The childern however will likely be as poor if not poorer than the parents. It's a vicious cycle than will not end as long as farming is the key employment sector.
As someone who has lived on a farm, I'll let you in on a little fact. Chickens are disgusting creatures that will eat anything, including like chickens. One of the reasons chickens are caged is because they always kill and eat weaker chickens. Chicken nature is cruel if you apply human standards, which is what Peter Singer is trying to do.
