Limitations of my thought experiment

Shortly after I described my "Eat what you can kill" diet, I went to dinner with a couple of concerned labmates and had a serious discussion about my dietary philosophy. They rightly pointed out that my idea of killing was limited to me with a knife in hand, and a huge animal in front of me.

There are many ways to kill an animal. For instance, I could shoot it. I have to agree that shooting a beast is as impersonal as it can get, especially when it's 50 or more feet away. I actually don't have problems with hacking the carcass up so I am actually capable of killing and eating an animal.

I could also ram a car or some equally large vehicle into a poor beast. It's a waste to not consume road kill. Another easy possibility is seafood -- if I can take it out of water, it's mine to feast upon. That said, I am not sure about tuna.

I finally saw a tuna 2 years ago. It wasn't a tiny fish; it was huge. It didn't look as cute as a dolphin though. Is that why people worry about dolphin-friendly tuna, but not about the tuna? Anyway.

We then discussed other even more philosophical and scientific ideas. For instance, instead of Schrodinger's cat, I could have a Schrodinger's cow. If the cow happens to die due to reasons I can't control, I could eat it.

So yeah, I have to admit that it's a poorly defined criteria for determining what I can consume. There are too many impersonal ways to kill an animal, and it disturbs me to think that the same methods can be applied to a human being. I don't like this thought experiment too much. It's depressing, and I've gotten nothing done.