Either this is an economic problem- one relating to a negative externality with Knightian uncertainty such that a Hannan Consistent 'regret minimizing' strategy is advisable- or else it is- as Singer et al claim- an ethical, indeed meta-ethical, question whose solution involves the rigid 'Akrebia' of deontological rules of a universal type.



Singer, with Ozzie tough mindedness, does not pussy foot on this issue. His brand of 'preference utilitarianism' militates for activism of a type radically at odds with the 'positivist' Benthamite tradition. In other words, far from being alethic, his argument is opportunistic and tactical, not strategic (because it is an Australian boomerang) and has a merely visceral appeal.



Clearly, a 'wet market' can, with appropriate capital outlay, be rendered as safe as any other. That is a question for 'production economics'. The plain fact is there are plenty of places where wet markets are actually safer than that which agro-business supplies. A very distinguished friend of my father's would never eat a meat or fish dish at the sort of Five Star hotels in which the Indian Government would put him up. Why? He knew the Indian 'cold-chain' was structurally faulty. To my father's great disgust, this gentleman would go to the 'wet market' and choose the fish or chicken he wished to eat. But this meant he dined in a working class area. Yet, his health was much safer than if he'd eaten at the 5 star hotel where the prices would be the same as in New York or London.



Because Hindu India is hypersensitive to this 'repugnancy market', and penalties for laxity included being beaten to death, 'wet-markets' work well in that country- or in Pakistan or similar polities. The 'externalities' are internalized in a tried and tested way. This is the magic of Coase's (actual, not academic) theorem.



The fact is, a properly regulated 'wet-market' is a good thing- even from Singer's p.o.v. Though I am a High Caste Hindu and an admirer of Jainism, the fact is- outside India- I eat fast-food meat and fish. Why? Because the Govt and Agrobusiness have an incentive to keep the commodity relatively safe. But if I had to pick out the chicken or fish I would later consume, I'd be completely vegan. Like Mahatma Gandhi who became distressed seeing that Ind's 'Holy Cow' might not have enough milk for its lowing calf, I would give up dairy products. At my age, that would be a good thing.



The Chinese and other East Asian people formulated a highly humane and ethical philosophy and religion at a very early date. Moh Tzu was a better 'Utilitarian' than Jeremy Bentham. It is viscerally repugnant, at this late date, to play what is effectively a 'Yellow Peril' card of a type that even Trump would shy away from.



Singer writes- 'If we stop to reflect on what we are doing – and mostly we do not – we are prone to justify it by appealing to the alleged superiority of our species, in much the same way that white people used to appeal to the alleged superiority of their race to justify their subjection of “inferior” humans.'



Singer thinks 'justifications' are important. Sadly, this is not the case. The world is not a sophomore debating club. Some White people did get the better of other White people. But the same could be said of some non-White people. Singer, in youth, being 'White' may have found those arguments persuasive. But, as White women gained more countervailing power, spectacular White demographic expansion has turned into relative net contraction. White people are increasingly worried about 'replacement'. But the same may be said of many non-White groups who have gained a measure of affluence. I think it would be better not to bring up White supremacism because it was always the opinion of a lunatic, sociopathic fringe. The great mass of White people believed in God and hard work. Australians really weren't evil racists. They were a God fearing and are now a good, decent, people with an excellent sense of humor.



The truth of the matter is that risks associated with factory farming, of the Western type, have been contained by our highly capital intensive, highly subsidized, agro-business industry. No doubt, China will follow this pattern. Indeed, it may be more successful than Japan in getting people to eat beef burgers and so forth. But something important for humanity would be lost if 'wet markets'- rendered safe by traditional methods as approved by modern, mathematical, 'production economics'- get expunged from industrial capitalism. What is it?



The answer is a Heideggerian sense of Man as the shepherd of Being. We protect what we eat but we needn't eat so much or eat in so indiscriminate a manner.

The Japanese 'peasant-sage-economist' Ninomiya influenced a Buddhist priest to take up fishing to provide protein for his flock. The great Upanishadic truth is 'we are eaten by what we eat'. The Rg Veda says 'the only sin is to eat alone'.



It is sad that racial and religious differences so often boil down to abjuring things eaten by the alterity. People in India have been killed because it was believed they were selling or consuming beef- the cow being sacred in Hinduism. Similarly, talk of 'wet-markets' and mention of 'Wuhan', is a dog-whistle of a particular sort which we must all reject.



It is important that Professors of Ethics always write, if not act, in an ethical manner. Otherwise, like Coase's theorem, their oeuvre may represent a 'negative externality' as much to be feared as the produce of a 'wet market'.