I recently had an idea to work with a scientifically developed camouflage that was specifically designed after extensive vision testing on deer. Supposedly the design is nearly undetecable to their eyes (which are actually poorer than ours, I've learned), to give hunters an edge. In my reading, I found some interesting asides, such as the prediction that hunters would snub this new camo based on the FASHION of hunting gear, and their traditionalist sensibilities, despite it perhaps being more practical.
Anyway, this was a New York Times article, and so of course there were about 8 pages of comments that I KNEW would unravel into a moral war about hunting, rather than much discussion on the actual topic. Call me masochistic, but I couldn't resist reading them, even though typically internet comments and feuds make me furious.
What I concluded about 6 pages into the comments was that I actually do not know enough about hunting to even dare to make any artistically depicted judgements on it. The pissed off conservatives were right about that. My plan was not necessarily to comdemn hunting anyway, but more to highlight the absurd interference of technology on nature. But it's a very loaded subject, and a slippery slope. I think I'll let it stew for longer before I do anything with it.
Here is the article, if anyone is interested. It truly is bizarre to me. And here is the accompanying NYT Blog entry that inspired the pages and pages of arguments.