Following the controversy generated by my last column regarding the consumption of animal flesh, I felt it was important to touch upon the reasons why meat-eating is a necessary component to the cycle of life.

Our species’ choice to eat meat serves as a vital lifeline to the species that are eaten. As masters of our planet, we have occupied nearly every ecological niche that any other species might hope to occupy. No species on this planet can exist without having at least some contact with humans.

In most cases this occupation, although necessary for our own species, has pushed other species to the limits of their survivability. They lack the adaptive qualities that enable humans to inhabit almost any environment. For many species involved in this transaction, the only method of survival is, oddly enough, to serve as food for the master species.

Although hunting and eating animals increases the number that are slaughtered for our palate’s satisfaction, it has also proved to be one of the most successful strategies for protecting them as a group.

Hunting fees provide sanctuaries in which game can thrive and reproduce, even if we simply allow them to do so because we enjoy the thrill of the hunt and the taste of their flesh. Nevertheless, many of these habitats might have been lost without such responsible hunting practices and fees.

It is no secret that there are more deer now than there were in Daniel Boone’s time. In addition, I sincerely doubt there have ever been more cattle, turkeys, chickens or pigs. In this sense, these species have provided for their own survival by being scrumptious.

There is no reason to stop there. I sometimes wonder how many species of butterflies and insects might have been saved from extinction if we found them tasty and bred them to satisfy our appetites. As such, it is not difficult to extrapolate this winning strategy of species preservation to other endangered animals.

Take pandas, for instance. If bred in captivity for our gustatory contentment, and a certainly hefty price tag, they may grow fat and happy as they await their fate at the abattoir. This strategy has certainly worked for ostriches and American buffaloes who, having lost their natural habitat, still exist as a result of their consumption by humans. It is my belief that this tactic might also be helpful in the preservation of spotted owls, manatees and kangaroos among others.

There is no reason to stop there, though. Why limit our preference to endangered species? If they tasted so great, they would already be raised in captivity; capitalism works like that.

Millions of hungry children could get the necessary protein and nutrients they need from the collection and subsequent consumption of the millions of stray dogs and cats that litter our streets.

In order to maintain the appropriate ecological balance, every species must serve a purpose in relation to the most powerful species, that being us. To do anything less would be sympathetic pandering to an ignorant animal, limiting not only the economic benefit of using them for food, but actually doing so to the detriment our species’ fitness.

As long as we enjoy the taste of a particular animal and responsibly provide for its survival, its species will live at least as long as we do, and we in turn will enjoy a nutrient-dense source of food, even if it is full of fat, cholesterol, and calories we don’t need today.

Meat eaters can take comfort in the fact that — although over-indulgence in their practice will result in a greater likelihood of a sudden, painful death — they have ensured the survival of another species that otherwise would have been extinct.

In that sense, the process comes full circle, and we can again return to the earth, to grow grass for the animals we eat for food. The cycle of life is complete and we can all rest easy knowing we have done our part to ensure its survival.