For Lack of Inspiration- Continuing My Ideas

This post is usually reserved for commentary on another post; however I decided to forgo that template and write again about the current issue of non human animals and moral status.  As I was reading both articles I began to think about different cultures and their beliefs and treatments of non human animals. I relate these differences as they compare to the American cuisine we are familiar with:  in India the cow is sacred, in America cats and dogs are domestic animals, and in Europe horses and donkeys serve to feed- not entertain. Would it ever be possible to achieve a universal understanding that non human animals are not intended for human consumption? Or does this very idea contradict the chain established during primitive times that consuming the meat of an animal is necessary for survival and sustaining life?  Certainly in other species (non human animals) they eat other animals: Bears eat fish, lions eat antelope, frogs eat insects, etc.  Nutritionally speaking, what animal would provide the most benefit to a diet; and would this impact the acceptance of eating this animal, or are all accepted edible animals based in cultural beliefs and practices? (Could a person who eats Asian cuisine ever be convinced that cats are strictly for domestic purposes, due to their deeply rooted cultural customs).  I personally find consuming animal meat grotesque, and this may contribute to my sympathies towards non human animals and their rights. I have removed myself from mass cultural disillusions that as homo sapiens we require blood, flesh, and muscle from another living being to survive.  There is one issue I hope someone debates; Where do eggs fit into this debate?

Maturity

Citing Harlan Miller's article once again, I found the paragraph regarding maturity particularly interesting.  The varying degrees of maturity are for the most part culturally, politically, and socially determined.  I think that we need to be personally aware of our capacities and developmental stability.  The government dictating that at 16 one is legally free to copulate and operate a motor vehicle is absurd.  Furthermore, the legal separation from ones parents at age 18 creates serious financial, emotional, and personal damage.  I will not evaluate the legal age at which one can purchase alcohol, as it is a moot argument founded primarily in fierce subjective opinion (none of which affects me).
  I will personally say that I did not experience a cataclysmic development until I was about 21 years old. I should have not been legally able to drive at 16, or at age 18 had financial responsibility impressed upon me.  Every situation varies; and I understand my opinions may face great opposition.  However, since my "coming of age"  in which my perspective was drastically altered (an event I was aware of but did not consciously incite) I experience, interpret, analyze, understand, and observe life and all aspects of every imaginable facet differently. 
I understand how different mental capacities are exceptions in these cases, and I respect them but this argument is for general concepts and the interrelation between politics and society- considering safety, emotional and physical stability, and financial outlook. 

Regarding Science and Subjective Impressions

Harlan Miller's article "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"  touched on subjective impressions and their presence in philosophy and science.  Subjective impressions are the result of familial and cultural influences throughout our lives.  This "base", as I will term it, impacts and ultimately determines our decisions regarding research and various other pursuits (in science and other disciplines). For this blog I will focus exclusively in regards to scientific matters.  As a biology student, I am well aware that my interests and decisions formulate from personal beliefs and interests.  I am broadly categorizing this next question:  Do all scientists study what they feel needs to be explained?  Not only is it plausible, it seems universally true.  Amongst the scientific realms there are chemists, biologists, medical researchers, physicists, anatomists, environmentalists, etc.  As a physician the specialty one chooses is (or should be) based on academic strength, interest, and personal compatibility.  An environmental studies individual will pursue the branches of life that interest them- going further, can pursue protection and advancement in their field.  Do you find this is true, even in other aspects of study? Obviously in science pursuing specified research topics demonstrates subjective impressions' presence in our decisions; is it easily discerned in anthropology, technology, mathematics, philosophy, culinary, engineering, etc.?