A really big lunch...Guide to Haute Cuisine

I feel that harvesting your own food is indeed a way to feel a stronger connection to the source of that food. If i were to grow my own garden, hunt and kill a deer, and raise a dairy cow for milk, then use all of these sources for my own personal consumption throughout the year, i would feel a sense of accomplishment and connection with the land. It would feel like i did my part to sustain myself, versus just going to the grocery store and buying whatever is on the shelf. I think that it is a good thing to feel this connection because life wasn't always how it is today. There wasn't always a Haggen or Fred Meyer or Farmers Market. At some point in history people had to grown and hunt their own food and most people will agree that it is good to know our roots and how our ancestors used to live. I think it is advantageous for sure, but the question on the assignment assumes it is only advantageous if you were to eat meat more often. I think it is advantageous for the experiences you would get growing or harvesting your own food, not just because you may or may not eat more meat. In reality, most people would probably be eating less meat than normal because we all simply do not have to the time to go hunt animals and butcher them. Our busy schedules would have to be rearranged to allow time for this.
On the issue of whether hunting is moral or not, I think that it is. The people who hunt and kill wild animals tend to eat what they kill and not the stuff at the grocery store. By doing so they are bypassing the moral shortcomings of slaughterhouses and are getting their meat in a more humane way. (This is all just my opinion keep in mind). Whether you live above or below the poverty level, hunting your own meat is much more humane than buying store bought for the simple reason that up until that animal is killed, it lived a completely natural, good life. It wasnt in a cage, given growth hormones, and then brutally killed. I think for these reasons it is actually better to hunt your own animals.
I think Harrison's meal is a bit extreme. It is gluttony for sure and not necessary at all. There were 37 courses in the lunch, and it was gluttony because there was no way he needed all that food. If you hunt, or eat meat, or vegetables or anything, i consider it gluttony if you take way more than you need. If you overeat by a bit, thats one thing, but a 37 course lunch is likely to make you pass out. I think because so many animals were killed for the sheer reason of one big lunch, that it probably isn't moral. It is moral to kill what you need, and only what you need, but as soon as you go to this extreme, it no longer is moral.

VanDerwarker, Amber. Farming, hunting, and fishing in the Olmec world. 1st. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006.

Frison, George. Survival by hunting : prehistoric human predators and animal prey. Berkely: University of California Press, 2004.