An animal would instead eat whatever it can find at the time and try to save energy at times of food shortage.
I find this statement untrue from my personal experiences with my dog. I always give him a cup of food before my girlfriend and I leave for work and he will not touch it until we get home from work. The only time he will eat the food is when someone is home.
He also tends to grab mouthfuls of food and litter it around the house (Very annoying) to save it for a day or two.
I'm a little unsure how you can see the ability of foresight as "biologically making no sense".
It's not the planning itself that makes no sense. It's the procedures we arrive at that are nonsensical. You need food, so instead of going out to look for food, you sit in a building pressing buttons hoping that a group of lights will change to the right pattern. At some point in time, at regular intervals, you're given pigmented pieces of inedible paper, which you can trade for food. It's absolute nonsense, especially if you add in the time you spent learning how to discern if a pattern of lights is right or wrong.
I find this statement untrue from my personal experiences with my dog.
Of course I was referring to animals in the wild, which have to worry about procuring their own sustenance, which may not always be available. A domesticated animal will likely never suffer hunger, and so can afford to eat whenever it pleases. In the case of your dog, a social component would seem to be involved.
I'd personally say this society is messed up. It's inefficient. Look back at the Native Americans. They didn't put out pollutions as the Europeans did at the same exact time. They survived on less, the Europeans needed more to survive due to their destructive nature.
Now, put a European at that time in the wilderness. I'm sure they wouldn't survive. Put a Native in their place, and they'd survive quite fine.
I'm not saying that we should go back to using bows and spears, but we should really focus on making the world more efficient and not stop trying rushing into advancing to the next technological age.
A pro would be using pesticides and genetic engineering to make crops more efficient, but in the long run some species that are important to the ecosystem may die off because the pesticides kill them off and/or eating the crops make them die.
Our technology is inefficient, also people are too hung up on making more money.
Coal plants burn greenhouse gasses. That goes up into the atmosphere, destroying our planet slowly. That's inefficient. Later in the future it requires us to do more work to remove the pollution.
However we do have no-pollution solutions. We have solar energy and we have wind power etc. but we don't convert to those more efficient solutions because companies are too strung up on making more money that caring for the Earth.