2011-10-09
Explanation
This comic explores the ethics of vegetarianism through a reductio ad absurdum argument. A woman with red hair announces she is a vegetarian because she does not like killing conscious beings for food. Her companion counters that plant cultivation actually kills lots of small animals, while ranching destroys a smaller number of large animals. The woman concedes the issue would be which approach kills the fewest neurons overall.
The conversation then takes a darker turn when they consider that not all neurons are equal -- a million roundworm neurons dying feels less significant than a million monkey neurons. The man reasons that to minimize ethical harm, you would want the best ratio of meat to consciousness: a large, fatty animal that is also stupid. As he works through the logic, he trails off with "We'''d want... we'''d want... oh God no..." -- the horrified realization that the optimal animal by these criteria might be uncomfortably close to certain humans, or at least to some very beloved animals.
The final panel drives the joke home with a graph showing "Ethicalness of Eating an Animal" on the Y-axis versus "Cuteness of That Animal" on the X-axis, with a downward curve. Animals like pandas, baby walruses, and overweight koalas are marked along the curve, suggesting that the cutest and dumbest animals are ironically the most ethical to eat by this framework. The votey panel shows a chubby, adorable koala looking blissfully happy, reinforcing the absurd conclusion that this lovable creature is the "most ethical" meat source.