I eat both.
I find this whole discussion a bunch of elitist slop. Drink champagne not beer, eat sushi not burgers.
Given that a large percentage of the world's population would be ecstatic to see a cheeseburger, I find the whole conversation misplaced.
What matters is that people eat whatever it is that they do more often than not oblivious to its politcal and moral ramifications.
WOuld your taste for sushi still be preferable if the cultivation of fish was more exploitative of workers and nature than the production of meat?
This very conversation is why so many workers have disdain for the intellectuals amongs us: everythign we do is so much better than everything they do. Bah humbug.
I would rather have a world where people eat McD while listening to Miles Davis than a world where they eat sushi listening to enya or yanni or any other such crap.
sorry to vent.
eric
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> At 09:44 AM 8/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > > the situation deteriorates rapidly when you move
> west- or
> > > south-ward.
> >
> >It's supply and demand: the demand just isn't
> there. Your observation
> >about "crappy food" says more about the local
> consumer than it does
> >about the food that's available.
> >
> >So maybe we change the subject to "crappy American
> tastes" ...?
>
>
> I agree. But tastes are socially constructed - they
> reflect exposure or
> lack thereof to certain things. Thus the preference
> for scrapple or burger
> over sushi or tandoori is sad testimony of
> provincialism and isolationism.
>
> OTOH, someone once commented that while the Brits
> had conquered many exotic
> countries, they nevertheless failed to learn how to
> use spices. Seems like
> the US-ers inherited not only the English language,
> but also the British
> food gene.
>
> wojtek
>
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com