In David Foster Wallace's Consider The Lobster, he questions the justification of eating not only lobster but also animals all together. Raise questions about morals, escapades, and activities we use and participate in. Also considering how we interpret pain and suffering as a species. Inside he discusses the history of the lobster and how it became the "elegant delicacy" (Wallace 461) that it is today. Taking inspiration from the original uses of lobster, Wallace points out that until the 19th century, lobster was considered a poor man's meal. In the early American colonies there were even laws that prohibited feeding prisoners lobster more than once a week because it was believed to be “cruel and unusual” and even comparable to “making people eat rats” (Wallace 460) . At that time the number of lobsters available in New England waters was much larger than what is seen today. For this reason, lobster was seen as something anyone could eat and/or use, especially lower-class citizens. The increase in popularity began only under the condition that lobster was accessible to everyone and rich in protein at the time. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay So why is the lobster now seen, in modern times, as a status symbol? As time went on, lobster's popularity began to grow for reasons other than its convenience. The lobster population began to decline just as the middle class was looking for a meal that could evolve in a circumstance comparable to that of champagne (champagne was the royal drink of the 1980s that could be waved over the heads of lower classes). Already in the early 19th century, the abundance of lobster pushed chefs, especially on trains, to market lobster as an exotic meal, prompting people to increasingly request it outside of transportation networks. With the increase in popularity has come a decrease in abundance, making lobster much more desirable. Prices began to rise, and lobster went from a meal “consumed only by the poor and institutionalized” (Wallace 460) to “fish's analogue to steak” (Wallace 461). Similarly, in Sometimes It's More Ethical to Eat Meat than Vegetables by Jay Bost, Bost discusses his reasoning behind his decision to return to eating meat by simply stating that “eating meat in specific circumstances is ethical” (Bost 1). Based on Bost's research and understanding, animal consumption can be considered the most ethical option depending on each individual's position. For example, in areas of Arizona, Bost says that proper care of livestock can ultimately lead to the consumption of “adequate calories and proteins condensed with the help of the microorganisms present in their intestines.” (Bost 2) Adopting a slightly alternative perspective At the heart of the argument is also the idea that in areas, such as the “shrub grasslands” (Bost 2) of Arizona, there may be overuse of natural resources resulting in degradation of the territory. This means that when a given plot of land is repeatedly used for the same type of crop, the soil begins to degrade over time preventing the crops from receiving the proper nutrients to grow, as well as simply destroying the soil. With animal husbandry, the soil has a better chance of avoiding degradation and getting the adequate nutrients it needs to thrive. The animals, which are ultimately fed to people, are able to consume the plants that have been grown”.?