Michael Pollan makes a good point in his article “An Animal’s Place” from the New York Times. I myself am a meat eater, and I don’t think that reading this or anything similar will have any effect on my eating habits, although I see how it can for some people. Michael may be pickier as to what meat he eats, but I really don’t see why.
“Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat” (Pollan). This speaks for itself. A vegetarian diet will result in more deaths of animals, which is obviously what the activists are fighting against. They should really consider the effects of what would happen if everyone were to stop eating meat.
“There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion” (Pollan). Humans eating animals has been going on since the beginning of time, and it’s in our nature. As Darwin says about what evolution is, “survival of the fittest,” and it seems that we are the fittest right now. In an e-mail message to Pollan from Peter Singer regarding animals that live on a Good Farm, Singer says, "I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all” (Pollan). Having a chance to live is far better than than not living at all, regardless of how long your life is, unless it is full of torture and turmoil.
Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another? (Ben Franklin tried this one long before me: during a fishing trip, he wondered, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you" (Pollan). Is it not true that animals will eat one another whether or not we eat them too? It is possible that our killing of animals may be less severe than them fighting one another and being wounded, or suffering for long periods of time even after winning a battle.
I have to agree with Pollan that it would be much better if people were to work for animal welfare, rather than animal rights. I disagree with the torturing of any living creatures and believe that when they are slaughtered, it should be done swiftly and painlessly. Michael chooses to eat only the animals that were killed humanely, or that he thinks were killed humanely. By doing that, he may be more satisfied with himself, but it will not have any effect on the torturing of animals. Regardless if there is a sticker on the meat we buy saying “Free Farmed,” we really don’t know that they were treated humanely unless we actually went to the farm or slaughterhouse. Unfortunately, torturing of animals will continue to happen no matter how many people protest it or try to stop it.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” The New York Times 10 Nov. 2002. “Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat.”
“There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion.”
“I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all.”
”If you eat one another, I don’t see why we may not eat you.“
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Beyond mere survival
It seems as though society is beyond the point of merely trying to survive. We regard animals and other beings as so much more than food these days, and some would even go to the extent to say that we are barbarians to be eating meat in this day and age; almost as if it is savage to look at a pig at the country fair and think of Christmas dinner to come months down the road. The question still remains though; do we still regard them at food at one time or another? Upon reading the rather lengthy and informative article by Michael Pollan, it became clear to me that many of us are either hypocrites, sworn protectors of the ideas of vegetarianism, or that we are ignorant of the entire issue. Granted, I will never swear off meat because while I love animals, they are just too tasty to pass up, but that’s beside the point. Regarding this article, and the main scheme of things, I would have to say that animal rights are an issue, and that animals should be treated humanely; but I still think that we as a society are far from the point of not belittling animals; mainly because the idea of our society dropping the desire to consume meat is unrealistic. When you take it into consideration though, science still needs animal testing, and it will be exceedingly difficult for us to not perform testing because the rat doesn’t like being stuck with a needle, or the operation endangers the life of the pig. It will take a considerable amount of time before we treat animals equally, and it will be even longer before we reach an agreeing consensus that we should not consume them or test them; and that they have the exact same feeling as we do.
I say that it is unrealistic for animal rights activists to expect us to kill off the need to consume other animals because we are a very hypocritical society. We whine and moan about animals being abused, yet we go home and stick our forks into them. As Pollan states in his article “There's a schizoid quality to our relationship with animals, in which sentiment and brutality exist side by side. Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig--an animal easily as intelligent as a dog--that becomes the Christmas ham (An Animals Place)”. It really is interesting how we favor some, yet consume others. It almost makes you feel like a savage if you do decide to eat meat, because most of us have some form of exposure to what’s going on in terms of animal testing, the stories about animals being treating poorly before they are sliced up and sent to our favorite fact food restaurant of grocery store. All the money that is pulled into our economy is probably the main reason these injustices still exist; either that or we just are blind to what’s going on, or should I say that we shrug it off because they are merely animals?
Pollan states how some agricultural animals are treated prior to being killed, and for the most part they are horror stories, and if it were a movie, it would probably be something similar to us watching a science fiction film where this huge monster kills the human race off one by one; it would be horrific. Even the most humane ways of killing them managed to make me cringe. “Salatin showed me the open-air abattoir he built behind the farmhouse--a sort of outdoor kitchen on a concrete slab, with stainless-steel sinks, scalding tanks, a feather-plucking machine and metal cones to hold the birds upside down while they're being bled. Processing chickens is not a pleasant job, but Salatin insists on doing it himself because he's convinced he can do it more humanely and cleanly than any processing plant. He slaughters every other Saturday through the summer. Anyone's welcome to watch (An Animals Place)”. This makes the point rather clear, even though it is considered a humane killing, it’s a gruesome job. When Pollan goes into a discussion with Salatin, it becomes clear what some non animal rights activists have to say on the issue of killing chickens. Just a few sentences down he states "People have a soul; animals don't (An Animals Place)”. Now, this goes into a religious discussion if you really want to contemplate if animals have a soul or not, because it can’t be determined without a fact that humans have a soul, never mind animals. I’d have to say though, what’s humane to an animal wouldn’t pass in a thousand years for an execution of a criminal, so how does it slide? I guess this was my dilemma in reading the article, and I couldn’t help but contradict my own feelings. Granted, I wasn’t sitting in a steakhouse consuming animals at the time, but it was still pretty mind bubbling. Animals are still a thriving part of our economy, regardless of if you eat them or not, and it becomes clear that this is in fact the case throughout Pollans article.
I also felt a connection in regards to Pollans stance on this issue upon reading his feelings, and animal rights activists opinions on natural order and consuming animals. Myself, I have used the point that animals need to kill one another to survive, it’s only natural, so why is it wrong for us to consume them, and I have to say the opposing argument is intriguing “To the ‘they do it, too’ defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do (An Animals Place)”. Killing to survive, now that had me wondering what state we would be in if we didn’t eat meat. If we don’t need it to survive, I wonder what nutrients we would be losing without all that meat. There’s nothing in the article that states this, and I couldn’t really find any indisputable facts on the issue, other than that some people end of with less proteins, but if you eat the right food it’s easy to compensate for that. Taking just the article into consideration; with that logic eating animals should be wrong, and there’s no reason for it. As Pallon states at the end of the article; “Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to do it this way. Tail-docking and sow crates and beak-clipping would disappear overnight, and the days of slaughtering 400 head of cattle an hour would come to an end. For who could stand the sight(An Animals Place)”? If people saw the terrors in which animals face before their slaughter in factories, would we be as likely to stick our forks into them? Pollan states this clearly, and very well, which is one of the reasons his argument is found to be so agreeable.
In short, this article was very intriguing. Granted, I am far from becoming a vegetarian, but looking into meat processed by farmer such as Salatin seems more appropriate. It’s important to see that we are mammals, but also to see ourselves are intelligent beings, capable of humane killings and treating animals with respect. I found his standpoint believable, and the generally similar to what many people would feel in this issue. He is neither the animal rights activist, nor is he the carnivorous individual with ninety percent of his clothing made up of fur. The article was insightful, mixed technical facts with personal references, and really makes you rethink your thoughts in the issue.
Works cited:
“An Animals Place” by Michael Pollan; The New York Times
I say that it is unrealistic for animal rights activists to expect us to kill off the need to consume other animals because we are a very hypocritical society. We whine and moan about animals being abused, yet we go home and stick our forks into them. As Pollan states in his article “There's a schizoid quality to our relationship with animals, in which sentiment and brutality exist side by side. Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig--an animal easily as intelligent as a dog--that becomes the Christmas ham (An Animals Place)”. It really is interesting how we favor some, yet consume others. It almost makes you feel like a savage if you do decide to eat meat, because most of us have some form of exposure to what’s going on in terms of animal testing, the stories about animals being treating poorly before they are sliced up and sent to our favorite fact food restaurant of grocery store. All the money that is pulled into our economy is probably the main reason these injustices still exist; either that or we just are blind to what’s going on, or should I say that we shrug it off because they are merely animals?
Pollan states how some agricultural animals are treated prior to being killed, and for the most part they are horror stories, and if it were a movie, it would probably be something similar to us watching a science fiction film where this huge monster kills the human race off one by one; it would be horrific. Even the most humane ways of killing them managed to make me cringe. “Salatin showed me the open-air abattoir he built behind the farmhouse--a sort of outdoor kitchen on a concrete slab, with stainless-steel sinks, scalding tanks, a feather-plucking machine and metal cones to hold the birds upside down while they're being bled. Processing chickens is not a pleasant job, but Salatin insists on doing it himself because he's convinced he can do it more humanely and cleanly than any processing plant. He slaughters every other Saturday through the summer. Anyone's welcome to watch (An Animals Place)”. This makes the point rather clear, even though it is considered a humane killing, it’s a gruesome job. When Pollan goes into a discussion with Salatin, it becomes clear what some non animal rights activists have to say on the issue of killing chickens. Just a few sentences down he states "People have a soul; animals don't (An Animals Place)”. Now, this goes into a religious discussion if you really want to contemplate if animals have a soul or not, because it can’t be determined without a fact that humans have a soul, never mind animals. I’d have to say though, what’s humane to an animal wouldn’t pass in a thousand years for an execution of a criminal, so how does it slide? I guess this was my dilemma in reading the article, and I couldn’t help but contradict my own feelings. Granted, I wasn’t sitting in a steakhouse consuming animals at the time, but it was still pretty mind bubbling. Animals are still a thriving part of our economy, regardless of if you eat them or not, and it becomes clear that this is in fact the case throughout Pollans article.
I also felt a connection in regards to Pollans stance on this issue upon reading his feelings, and animal rights activists opinions on natural order and consuming animals. Myself, I have used the point that animals need to kill one another to survive, it’s only natural, so why is it wrong for us to consume them, and I have to say the opposing argument is intriguing “To the ‘they do it, too’ defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do (An Animals Place)”. Killing to survive, now that had me wondering what state we would be in if we didn’t eat meat. If we don’t need it to survive, I wonder what nutrients we would be losing without all that meat. There’s nothing in the article that states this, and I couldn’t really find any indisputable facts on the issue, other than that some people end of with less proteins, but if you eat the right food it’s easy to compensate for that. Taking just the article into consideration; with that logic eating animals should be wrong, and there’s no reason for it. As Pallon states at the end of the article; “Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to do it this way. Tail-docking and sow crates and beak-clipping would disappear overnight, and the days of slaughtering 400 head of cattle an hour would come to an end. For who could stand the sight(An Animals Place)”? If people saw the terrors in which animals face before their slaughter in factories, would we be as likely to stick our forks into them? Pollan states this clearly, and very well, which is one of the reasons his argument is found to be so agreeable.
In short, this article was very intriguing. Granted, I am far from becoming a vegetarian, but looking into meat processed by farmer such as Salatin seems more appropriate. It’s important to see that we are mammals, but also to see ourselves are intelligent beings, capable of humane killings and treating animals with respect. I found his standpoint believable, and the generally similar to what many people would feel in this issue. He is neither the animal rights activist, nor is he the carnivorous individual with ninety percent of his clothing made up of fur. The article was insightful, mixed technical facts with personal references, and really makes you rethink your thoughts in the issue.
Works cited:
“An Animals Place” by Michael Pollan; The New York Times
Treating animals better
In the essay “An Animal’s Place”, Michael Pollan describes in detail what goes on behind the scenes in the meat industry. He argues that if people actually knew what happened to the animals we eat every day, we wouldn’t be able to stomach it. The time has come to get the meat industry to change their methods, from a profit-driven approach to a more humane way of doing business.
It’s no secret that the life of an animal destined to be supper probably isn’t a pleasant one, but there is no reason to deliberately make it as awful as possible. Practices like cutting off a chicken’s beak and snipping a pig’s tail to a painful stump are wholly unnecessary. The companies say that these things are done to prevent a chicken from cannibalizing its cagemates and to force pigs to defend themselves when another pig chews on its tail, but what about the practices that drive these animals to those behaviors in the first place?
Hens are stuffed into cages without enough room to stretch their wings, and left there for their entire (brief) lives. The cramped confinement causes them to exhibit unnatural behavior, like trying to eat the other hens, and rubbing themselves against the wire cage until they are bleeding and featherless (Pollan). If the chickens were allowed enough space to move about and live a bit freely, they wouldn’t need their beaks snipped off, and the farm wouldn’t lose the production of all the chickens that are killed by one another or bleed to death or simply die from captivity.
Pigs have it every bit as bad as chickens. The reason they chew on each others’ tail is because they are weaned from their mothers ten days after birth, as opposed to the thirteen weeks it takes them to be weaned naturally. They develop an intense desire to suck and chew on something, and the tail of the pig in front of them is a handy target. Pigs in captivity are so depressed they do nothing to fight back until their tails are infected and they are put down, written off as waste (Pollan). Ripping off enough of the tail to make it much more painful is the industry’s solution to this problem. Why not just let the piglets be weaned naturally and give them the space to move around so that they don’t become completely demoralized?
The humane approach would seem like common sense. Animals can feel pain, the point is to minimize what they have to endure to become food. It is unlikely that the people who institute these practices actually enjoy causing so much undue pain on the animal, but they have their sights set on profit, and have learned not to care about the suffering of other living creatures. Big farms could certainly survive if they produced less animals at a higher price but lower overall profit, but they don’t want to. The average consumer is probably inclined to buy meat from a more humane farm at a slightly higher cost (provided they have at least some idea what goes on in many slaughterhouses), but will not go out of their way to seek it. If “free range” or “free farmed” or “organic” meat was readily available in more grocery stores, more people would convert to it, but if it is not in the supermarket they already frequent, it is unlikely they will look for somewhere that does carry it.
The solution would be to petition major grocery chains to start carrying organic meat. If more of the market share were going to the free range farms, big businesses might take a look at their own practices and reevaluate them, especially if consumers were educated on how an animal ends up as meat on a big business farm as opposed to a humane one. People will go on eating animals for the definite future, but perhaps they can be persuaded to change how they eat those animals.
Works cited:
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times Magazine 10 Nov. 2002.
7 Oct. 2008.
It’s no secret that the life of an animal destined to be supper probably isn’t a pleasant one, but there is no reason to deliberately make it as awful as possible. Practices like cutting off a chicken’s beak and snipping a pig’s tail to a painful stump are wholly unnecessary. The companies say that these things are done to prevent a chicken from cannibalizing its cagemates and to force pigs to defend themselves when another pig chews on its tail, but what about the practices that drive these animals to those behaviors in the first place?
Hens are stuffed into cages without enough room to stretch their wings, and left there for their entire (brief) lives. The cramped confinement causes them to exhibit unnatural behavior, like trying to eat the other hens, and rubbing themselves against the wire cage until they are bleeding and featherless (Pollan). If the chickens were allowed enough space to move about and live a bit freely, they wouldn’t need their beaks snipped off, and the farm wouldn’t lose the production of all the chickens that are killed by one another or bleed to death or simply die from captivity.
Pigs have it every bit as bad as chickens. The reason they chew on each others’ tail is because they are weaned from their mothers ten days after birth, as opposed to the thirteen weeks it takes them to be weaned naturally. They develop an intense desire to suck and chew on something, and the tail of the pig in front of them is a handy target. Pigs in captivity are so depressed they do nothing to fight back until their tails are infected and they are put down, written off as waste (Pollan). Ripping off enough of the tail to make it much more painful is the industry’s solution to this problem. Why not just let the piglets be weaned naturally and give them the space to move around so that they don’t become completely demoralized?
The humane approach would seem like common sense. Animals can feel pain, the point is to minimize what they have to endure to become food. It is unlikely that the people who institute these practices actually enjoy causing so much undue pain on the animal, but they have their sights set on profit, and have learned not to care about the suffering of other living creatures. Big farms could certainly survive if they produced less animals at a higher price but lower overall profit, but they don’t want to. The average consumer is probably inclined to buy meat from a more humane farm at a slightly higher cost (provided they have at least some idea what goes on in many slaughterhouses), but will not go out of their way to seek it. If “free range” or “free farmed” or “organic” meat was readily available in more grocery stores, more people would convert to it, but if it is not in the supermarket they already frequent, it is unlikely they will look for somewhere that does carry it.
The solution would be to petition major grocery chains to start carrying organic meat. If more of the market share were going to the free range farms, big businesses might take a look at their own practices and reevaluate them, especially if consumers were educated on how an animal ends up as meat on a big business farm as opposed to a humane one. People will go on eating animals for the definite future, but perhaps they can be persuaded to change how they eat those animals.
Works cited:
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times Magazine 10 Nov. 2002.
7 Oct. 2008
An animal's place - why or why not?
I have decided to agree with Pollan. I think his rationalization for believing in eating animals is alright, but the way they are being kept in cages and are killed for meat is inhumane. Pollan shows us that there is a difference in the treatment of animals, most household pets are loved and are taken care of extremely well while, pigs and other farm animals are left to be treated almost as if they don’t matter for anything but food.
“…yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig--an animal easily as intelligent as a dog--that becomes the Christmas ham.”(Pollan)
For many animals it doesn’t matter what their purpose is, if no one notices them especially to find out what the care should be for them, then it is almost as if they do not matter. We all think hey go to the grocery store and get what you need, but we do not know what it takes to get them to that point of us having a dinner.
He also goes on to point out that humans and animals are two very different species of life. Animals have the killing instinct in the fact that they seem to have to kill in order to survive. We as humans do not, although some seem to possibly find pleassure in it. Althought animals do not have the same brain compassity as us they still do not deserve to be treated as if they do not exsist.
“…there remains the question of whether we owe animals that can feel pain any moral consideration…”(Pollan)
Many animals used in scientific studying has helped us to achieve more by using them and out weighing the fact that they may have had to lose their life in order to make it possible. As much as it may seem cruel but the fact of the matter is, is that if the person who is against it became sick they would definitely turn around and say it doesn’t matter as long as they are going to be bettered by it.
I do not object to the fact of eating meat just like Pollan does, although he has made great points of how cruelity and neglect come into play when it comes down to the taking care of these animals but I feel as thought if they were not put here we would have nothing of substance to eat. I want animals to have the fulliest life they can up until the time that they have to be eaten. If we can do all of this quickly and humanely I think it is the way to go. I also feel that Pollan is showing that he feels this way too. Not everyone will have to agree but the fact is this is a way of life, take it or leave it.
“…yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig--an animal easily as intelligent as a dog--that becomes the Christmas ham.”(Pollan)
For many animals it doesn’t matter what their purpose is, if no one notices them especially to find out what the care should be for them, then it is almost as if they do not matter. We all think hey go to the grocery store and get what you need, but we do not know what it takes to get them to that point of us having a dinner.
He also goes on to point out that humans and animals are two very different species of life. Animals have the killing instinct in the fact that they seem to have to kill in order to survive. We as humans do not, although some seem to possibly find pleassure in it. Althought animals do not have the same brain compassity as us they still do not deserve to be treated as if they do not exsist.
“…there remains the question of whether we owe animals that can feel pain any moral consideration…”(Pollan)
Many animals used in scientific studying has helped us to achieve more by using them and out weighing the fact that they may have had to lose their life in order to make it possible. As much as it may seem cruel but the fact of the matter is, is that if the person who is against it became sick they would definitely turn around and say it doesn’t matter as long as they are going to be bettered by it.
I do not object to the fact of eating meat just like Pollan does, although he has made great points of how cruelity and neglect come into play when it comes down to the taking care of these animals but I feel as thought if they were not put here we would have nothing of substance to eat. I want animals to have the fulliest life they can up until the time that they have to be eaten. If we can do all of this quickly and humanely I think it is the way to go. I also feel that Pollan is showing that he feels this way too. Not everyone will have to agree but the fact is this is a way of life, take it or leave it.
Rights of animals
I agree with Michael Pollans article that states many different facts arguing giving animal the moral rights and equality that humans have upheld. Pollan states, “What’s wrong with the animal agriculture, with eating animals, is the practice, not the principle.” (Pollan). To understand, we need to look at the human species from the start and go beyond everything else. If you were to remove the meat industry, factories, statistics, and the moral rights and values and just focus on the nature of humans and evolution, it is easy to see that we are only doing what animals would be doing to each other in the wild. After all, we are animals too and it is our nature. On the other hand if you were to include all of those things mentioned above, you would find that the practice can be and is quite often more than not, a very brutal process. That being said, Pollan is absolutely correct in stating that the animal rights activists should not be focused on giving animals rights but by giving them animal welfare.
This would keep things as natural as possible, without going back to our hunter/gatherer status. If the animals were given a place to grow and live free, and then killed painlessly and quickly, what would the animal rightists have to fight anymore. The act of killing for animals for food or resources dates back to long before animal rights were around, the only difference is how we do it. The idea of the open air farm slaughter where people can see, would help us to better understand why and how, but would also eliminate the pain and suffering dealt with in the meat industry today.
On the subject of the rightists fighting to give animals the rights and moral values a human has, it just simply cannot be done. Wild and domestic animals simply lack the brain power and reasoning power that humans have achieved through evolution, and thus could not possibly be compared to us on the same level. An example is stated comparing the mentally ill and a chimp. If the mentally ill is included in our moral consideration why isn’t the chimp. It just can’t happen.” the differences between blacks and whites are trivial compared with the differences between my son and a chimp.” (Pollan). We are two different species, not different colors. Blacks and whites can have the same thought process and mental compacity as one another. But a child and a chimp will differ greatly, the child will grow and build upon itself and become like an adult and evolve into having a greater mental compacity and thought process that a chimp will never achieve.
In the end, Pollan knows that animals could never possibly achieve the rights and moral consideration that humans have, due to the fact that you just cannot compare the two species. We have gone through different evolutionary changes to make this sort of idea not realistic. As for slaughtering the animals , I agree with Pollan in that we should allow the practice of klling animals to go back more to the roots and become more natural. It will give people a better understanding of how life works and who we all really are, and give them a better respect for the animal kingdom and to think before allowing the unecassary pain and suffering of one that big steels walls would have normally blinded us from seeing. I think animal rightists have really forgot who we really are, which is animals, who have the same needs and desires as other things in nature. We have only been singled out because we are a superior race with reasoning, so they are only contradicting themselves.
This would keep things as natural as possible, without going back to our hunter/gatherer status. If the animals were given a place to grow and live free, and then killed painlessly and quickly, what would the animal rightists have to fight anymore. The act of killing for animals for food or resources dates back to long before animal rights were around, the only difference is how we do it. The idea of the open air farm slaughter where people can see, would help us to better understand why and how, but would also eliminate the pain and suffering dealt with in the meat industry today.
On the subject of the rightists fighting to give animals the rights and moral values a human has, it just simply cannot be done. Wild and domestic animals simply lack the brain power and reasoning power that humans have achieved through evolution, and thus could not possibly be compared to us on the same level. An example is stated comparing the mentally ill and a chimp. If the mentally ill is included in our moral consideration why isn’t the chimp. It just can’t happen.” the differences between blacks and whites are trivial compared with the differences between my son and a chimp.” (Pollan). We are two different species, not different colors. Blacks and whites can have the same thought process and mental compacity as one another. But a child and a chimp will differ greatly, the child will grow and build upon itself and become like an adult and evolve into having a greater mental compacity and thought process that a chimp will never achieve.
In the end, Pollan knows that animals could never possibly achieve the rights and moral consideration that humans have, due to the fact that you just cannot compare the two species. We have gone through different evolutionary changes to make this sort of idea not realistic. As for slaughtering the animals , I agree with Pollan in that we should allow the practice of klling animals to go back more to the roots and become more natural. It will give people a better understanding of how life works and who we all really are, and give them a better respect for the animal kingdom and to think before allowing the unecassary pain and suffering of one that big steels walls would have normally blinded us from seeing. I think animal rightists have really forgot who we really are, which is animals, who have the same needs and desires as other things in nature. We have only been singled out because we are a superior race with reasoning, so they are only contradicting themselves.
To meat or not to meat?
To meat, or not to meat? That is the question on peoples’ minds these days and especially after reading the article by Michael Pollan entitled, An Animal’s Place published in The New York Times back on November 10, 2002. The review is based on a book titled; Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Singer, a former Australian philosopher gives a great argument on his view of animal rights. He recommends the law be that animals, whether used for food, pets, or reproduction, should be considered “beings,” not “things.” In other words, he feels that animals are not only abused, but treated unfairly by keeping them caged up with little room to move around from the day they are brought into this world to the day they are brought to the slaughter house. I watched this program on the Discovery Channel the other day in which they had a biography if you will on the life of a chicken and a cow. Chickens are hatched, put in a cage, lay eggs for a few years, and then killed so we can have chicken nuggets from McDonald’s, which I still am skeptical about being actual chicken meat, but that is a whole other argument. Female cows are born, tied up in some barn, used to supply milk to the shelves of Stop and Shop which we the consumer visit every day to purchase because, “it does a body good,” then once they are no longer suitable to produce high quality milk, they are brought to the slaughter house, and butchered to make steaks for the Morton’s Steakhouse, Michael Jordan’s Restaurant, and Ruth’s Chris to name a few, but you get the idea. And this goes on day after day, month after month, year after year, until we make an effort to unite and not eat meat?
“Hold your horses, or should I say cows.” I agree with Pollan’s stand in which he states, “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” I agree that the animals might be abused their whole lives, however, we are carnivores, and need to eat meat to get the essential nutrients we need to keep our bodies healthy. Plus, how can anyone go without a nice, tender, juicy porterhouse steak grilled to perfection? I’ll be honest, I eat meat at every meal except breakfast, and I don’t know how I would be able to survive eating meat substitutes and fruits and vegetables every day. Now don’t get me wrong, I think animals are great creatures and there should be more moral when talking about these beings. They are living beings, and deserve the same freedom that we do. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote, inherit fortunes once their keeper passes, but they should have an open area to run around in, they should be maintained (clean, checked for illnesses, etc.) so they can live a pretty normal life until they reach the age in which they are prime to be selected for the slaughter house. It’s the way of the food chain. What else can I say we are at the top of the food chain, like the lion is in Africa, if we want chicken, beef, or pork, whose going to stop us?
So, it is said that after people read this book they have a little sense of feeling, and an understanding of this whole process involved in killing the creatures we eat, and I totally get it since it is a painful and unethical process and I could see why people would change their view about eating meat, but how long is their diet going to stay like that. You see it happen all the time, someone watches The People Under The Stairs, and then they are afraid to go in the basement for a few days, it happens on Sports center, suddenly, a football team is winning a few games in a row, and everyone agrees with the expert analysis that they are going to go to the Superbowl, all this is a ploy to see a person’s view on a certain subject and see if you will agree with that person and route for that team, or in this case, not eat meat.
My philosophy is, what you don’t know, can’t kill you. I rather keep my ears and eyes away from these topics, and continue living my life the way I am used to, and keep eating my beef stew, fried chicken, and pulled pork. I agree the treatment of animals can sometimes be viewed as unmoral, however, it is not up to me to tell the people who are in this field to change what they are doing. They have been doing it longer than I have, and I can only give my opinion.
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. The New York Times Nov. 2002
“Hold your horses, or should I say cows.” I agree with Pollan’s stand in which he states, “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” I agree that the animals might be abused their whole lives, however, we are carnivores, and need to eat meat to get the essential nutrients we need to keep our bodies healthy. Plus, how can anyone go without a nice, tender, juicy porterhouse steak grilled to perfection? I’ll be honest, I eat meat at every meal except breakfast, and I don’t know how I would be able to survive eating meat substitutes and fruits and vegetables every day. Now don’t get me wrong, I think animals are great creatures and there should be more moral when talking about these beings. They are living beings, and deserve the same freedom that we do. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote, inherit fortunes once their keeper passes, but they should have an open area to run around in, they should be maintained (clean, checked for illnesses, etc.) so they can live a pretty normal life until they reach the age in which they are prime to be selected for the slaughter house. It’s the way of the food chain. What else can I say we are at the top of the food chain, like the lion is in Africa, if we want chicken, beef, or pork, whose going to stop us?
So, it is said that after people read this book they have a little sense of feeling, and an understanding of this whole process involved in killing the creatures we eat, and I totally get it since it is a painful and unethical process and I could see why people would change their view about eating meat, but how long is their diet going to stay like that. You see it happen all the time, someone watches The People Under The Stairs, and then they are afraid to go in the basement for a few days, it happens on Sports center, suddenly, a football team is winning a few games in a row, and everyone agrees with the expert analysis that they are going to go to the Superbowl, all this is a ploy to see a person’s view on a certain subject and see if you will agree with that person and route for that team, or in this case, not eat meat.
My philosophy is, what you don’t know, can’t kill you. I rather keep my ears and eyes away from these topics, and continue living my life the way I am used to, and keep eating my beef stew, fried chicken, and pulled pork. I agree the treatment of animals can sometimes be viewed as unmoral, however, it is not up to me to tell the people who are in this field to change what they are doing. They have been doing it longer than I have, and I can only give my opinion.
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. The New York Times Nov. 2002
Should animals have rights?
The thought is there, and the reasoning is there, it all makes sense, but can it change life as we know it? Pollan backs up his point of view with some very clear points, such as comparing it to humans gaining equal rights through the ages. However, can this argument, even if back up by enough people really change the way we live life and treat and use animals?
Throughout the course of history, as Pollan mentions, “the white man's circle of moral consideration was expanded to admit first blacks, then women, then homosexuals” (Pollan). Our society strived for equality among different groups of people, and it’s only a matter of time before we want equality for animals. If you think about the uses we have for animals, they make sense. We use animals for things such as clothing and food. Are there ways around using animals for these things? If we didn’t use animals we wouldn’t be able to have such a sophisticated society.
Although, you can see the uses for animals, Pollan makes another great point in saying that “Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment, he points out: children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain.” (Pollan) It’s true that animals aren’t children, they are clearly different. However, how do they differ? Is it in their intelligence, or their principles and interests? “The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of "what abilities they may possess." (Pollan) The idea of equality isn’t that each person, place, thing, or even animal, has the same intelligence level, but rather that they are given an equal judging plate. The idea is that they are given a clean slate by everyone to base their morals and interests on, whether or not they are of the same intelligence.
“Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan) Here is another great point brought up by Pollan. If animals aren’t ethical towards each other, and they kill each other off, why should we be more ethical towards them? It’s almost the same as with the death penalty in the U.S. If someone gets caught for murdering someone, most likely they will be put to death, now that’s an argument that can be disputed on ethnicity time and time again, but nonetheless is the same concept as animals killing other animals. Is it right for us to treat them better than they treat each other?
Another valid argument brought about by Pollan is the argument that “human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude” (Pollan). The argument to make is that humans have language which allows us the ability to have thoughts, which makes us able to imagine alternatives to our current reality.
As you can see, there are many ways to view the argument of animal cruelty and equality. Pollan makes some valid points, however there is no real way to change the way we live. We rely on animals for food, just as much as they rely on each other. We also rely on them for clothing. We can’t eliminate the way we treat animals because we rely on them too much. Also, they aren’t ethical with each other, so why should we be more ethical with them? There are pros and cons, reasons for and reasons against animals being treated equally; but all in all, it’s a moral dilemma that one has to decide what to do with on their own.
Works CitedPollan, Michael. The New York Times Magazine 10 Nov. 2002. 10 Nov. 2002. 7 Oct. 2008
.
Throughout the course of history, as Pollan mentions, “the white man's circle of moral consideration was expanded to admit first blacks, then women, then homosexuals” (Pollan). Our society strived for equality among different groups of people, and it’s only a matter of time before we want equality for animals. If you think about the uses we have for animals, they make sense. We use animals for things such as clothing and food. Are there ways around using animals for these things? If we didn’t use animals we wouldn’t be able to have such a sophisticated society.
Although, you can see the uses for animals, Pollan makes another great point in saying that “Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment, he points out: children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain.” (Pollan) It’s true that animals aren’t children, they are clearly different. However, how do they differ? Is it in their intelligence, or their principles and interests? “The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of "what abilities they may possess." (Pollan) The idea of equality isn’t that each person, place, thing, or even animal, has the same intelligence level, but rather that they are given an equal judging plate. The idea is that they are given a clean slate by everyone to base their morals and interests on, whether or not they are of the same intelligence.
“Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan) Here is another great point brought up by Pollan. If animals aren’t ethical towards each other, and they kill each other off, why should we be more ethical towards them? It’s almost the same as with the death penalty in the U.S. If someone gets caught for murdering someone, most likely they will be put to death, now that’s an argument that can be disputed on ethnicity time and time again, but nonetheless is the same concept as animals killing other animals. Is it right for us to treat them better than they treat each other?
Another valid argument brought about by Pollan is the argument that “human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude” (Pollan). The argument to make is that humans have language which allows us the ability to have thoughts, which makes us able to imagine alternatives to our current reality.
As you can see, there are many ways to view the argument of animal cruelty and equality. Pollan makes some valid points, however there is no real way to change the way we live. We rely on animals for food, just as much as they rely on each other. We also rely on them for clothing. We can’t eliminate the way we treat animals because we rely on them too much. Also, they aren’t ethical with each other, so why should we be more ethical with them? There are pros and cons, reasons for and reasons against animals being treated equally; but all in all, it’s a moral dilemma that one has to decide what to do with on their own.
Works CitedPollan, Michael. The New York Times Magazine 10 Nov. 2002. 10 Nov. 2002. 7 Oct. 2008
Meat industry could change
Michael Pollan is not trying to deter people from eating meat in his article, “An Animal’s Place,” yet rather give people the opportunity to realize what they are eating, and perhaps make them eat with a little more thought. The issues he is talking about, animal rights and the meat industry are topics that many people are taking into serious consideration; which they should. He mentions the horrific meat industries of America, and shows meat eaters exactly what is happening to those cows and chickens placed on their dinner tables every night. Pollan describes the entire argument in one sentence. He says, “These…don’t alter my essential point: what’s wrong with animal agriculture--with eating animals--is the practice, not the principle,” (Pollan par. 67). Being an avid vegetarian for several years, I could not agree with him more.
At a first glance, many readers may see the phrase “animal rights” and think of animals being given the right to an education or the right to vote. Although they are not taking it to that much of an extreme, animal rights supporters such as Peter Singer and members of PETA, are suggesting that some animals have the same capabilities and thought processes as humans and therefore, should not be eaten. However, Pollan is taking a much more realist approach to the situation. While sitting down eating a steak, he realized that problem is not with eating the steak itself, rather the process that that steak had to make in order to get onto his plate. Pollan accepts that people, including him, are always going to be omnivores. Therefore, he suggests that they are smarter, healthier meat eaters.
Throughout the article Pollan mentions the belief, according to Joel Salatin of the Polyface Farm that an animal should be allowed to, “‘fully express its physiological distinctiveness’,” (Pollan par. 46). Polyface Farm, along with many others, is beginning to be put this practice into full swing. Although the animals at these farms are still being slaughtered for meat, they are living as they naturally should. This is completely contradicting the ways of the factory farms which produce the majority of our world’s meats. Pollan describes in detail the gruesome conditions the animals face before turning into America’s dinners (Pollan par. 39). After reading things like that, many people may want to become vegetarians, and maybe even vegans, too. The Polyface Farm is an excellent role model of what the meat industry should be. Pollan notices that Salatin, the owner of the farm, allows people an insight into every aspect of the farm, including the slaughtering processes. However, the factory farms do not. So what exactly are they hiding? Things they know that if the average human sees, will make them never want to eat meat again. Here lies the problem; there is a purpose behind hiding things. The mass production of meat involves growth hormones, antibiotics, and other so called “supplements”. These then end up in our food, and in our bodies. The animals of Polyface Farm eat their natural food, which then makes natural meat.
Pollan states that, “no other country raises and slaughters its food animals quite as intensively or as brutally as we do” (Pollan par. 80). Once again, he is proving his thesis that eating the animals is not the problem; it’s the way they are treated before they are eaten. He also brought up the point of other cultures’ respect for the animals they eat (Pollan par. 72). Here in America, besides PETA members and vegetarians will chow down a hamburger without even thinking. He is not asking people to bow down and pray to their chicken sandwich, but just remember to respect the animal that is keeping you healthy and strong. He mentions that Americans were “feeling that our only choice is to either look away or give up meat,” (Pollan 73). Those are no longer the only two choices.
Pollan emphasizes being knowledgeable about the meat you eat and concentrating on human grown meat from trusted farms. Without people actually doing something to change the industry, nothing will ever happen. Even I can admit that someday, if I know exactly where that chicken came from and can trust that it was treated humanely, I will have my first chicken sandwich since I was twelve. Many vegetarians like myself and people like Pollan don’t oppose meat itself, just the meat process. If Americans show their appreciation of the farms like Polyface Farm and their increasing respect of animals, the meat industry will soon begin to change.
At a first glance, many readers may see the phrase “animal rights” and think of animals being given the right to an education or the right to vote. Although they are not taking it to that much of an extreme, animal rights supporters such as Peter Singer and members of PETA, are suggesting that some animals have the same capabilities and thought processes as humans and therefore, should not be eaten. However, Pollan is taking a much more realist approach to the situation. While sitting down eating a steak, he realized that problem is not with eating the steak itself, rather the process that that steak had to make in order to get onto his plate. Pollan accepts that people, including him, are always going to be omnivores. Therefore, he suggests that they are smarter, healthier meat eaters.
Throughout the article Pollan mentions the belief, according to Joel Salatin of the Polyface Farm that an animal should be allowed to, “‘fully express its physiological distinctiveness’,” (Pollan par. 46). Polyface Farm, along with many others, is beginning to be put this practice into full swing. Although the animals at these farms are still being slaughtered for meat, they are living as they naturally should. This is completely contradicting the ways of the factory farms which produce the majority of our world’s meats. Pollan describes in detail the gruesome conditions the animals face before turning into America’s dinners (Pollan par. 39). After reading things like that, many people may want to become vegetarians, and maybe even vegans, too. The Polyface Farm is an excellent role model of what the meat industry should be. Pollan notices that Salatin, the owner of the farm, allows people an insight into every aspect of the farm, including the slaughtering processes. However, the factory farms do not. So what exactly are they hiding? Things they know that if the average human sees, will make them never want to eat meat again. Here lies the problem; there is a purpose behind hiding things. The mass production of meat involves growth hormones, antibiotics, and other so called “supplements”. These then end up in our food, and in our bodies. The animals of Polyface Farm eat their natural food, which then makes natural meat.
Pollan states that, “no other country raises and slaughters its food animals quite as intensively or as brutally as we do” (Pollan par. 80). Once again, he is proving his thesis that eating the animals is not the problem; it’s the way they are treated before they are eaten. He also brought up the point of other cultures’ respect for the animals they eat (Pollan par. 72). Here in America, besides PETA members and vegetarians will chow down a hamburger without even thinking. He is not asking people to bow down and pray to their chicken sandwich, but just remember to respect the animal that is keeping you healthy and strong. He mentions that Americans were “feeling that our only choice is to either look away or give up meat,” (Pollan 73). Those are no longer the only two choices.
Pollan emphasizes being knowledgeable about the meat you eat and concentrating on human grown meat from trusted farms. Without people actually doing something to change the industry, nothing will ever happen. Even I can admit that someday, if I know exactly where that chicken came from and can trust that it was treated humanely, I will have my first chicken sandwich since I was twelve. Many vegetarians like myself and people like Pollan don’t oppose meat itself, just the meat process. If Americans show their appreciation of the farms like Polyface Farm and their increasing respect of animals, the meat industry will soon begin to change.
Pain and suffering?
Should animals have the same rights as humans? This is the question Michael Pollan ponders as he sits in a steakhouse, eating a medium-rare steak, while reading Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation.” Interestingly enough, according to Pollan’s article, “An Animals Place” “fifty-one percent of Americans believe primates are entitled to the same rights as human children. While Pollan doesn’t exactly agree with this concept, his research has opened his eyes to the reality of animal pain and suffering. In turn, Pollan changed his meat consumption to include that of animals raised on nonindustrial farms. His thought was that, he still liked and wanted to eat meat, but, felt better knowing that the meat he was eating came from an animal that had lived without suffering and was killed as painlessly as possible. Quite like Jeremy Bentham.
Jeremy Bentham, according to Pollan, was the “philosophical father of animal rights. However, Bentham was also a carnivore. He justified his meat consumption under the presumption that death by humans would be,” a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.” Unfortunately, those of us who have seen videos, or read news articles about what really happens in a slaughterhouse, can agree with Pollan in assuming that Bentham may have never seen the true workings of the slaughterhouse.
For those that haven’t, Pollan recites some facts he read in poultry-trade magazines. He states that “egg and hog operations are the worst.” “Chickens getting
their beaks cut off.” “Hens in cages to small to ever stretch a wing.” These hens spend their eight week life “piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet.” Pollan states that “sometimes these animals cannibalize each other, or rub their body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding.” With that, Pollan questions, “Pain? Suffering? Madness?” Whatever it is, it is indicative of these animals throes caused by that of the human hand. But Pollen also described a different kind of setting. A setting where animals, live like animals, called a Polyface farm.
Pollan visited a Polyface farm and met Joel Salatin the farmer that runs the farm. Salatin explained that this type of farm is designed to allow each of the animals "to fully express its physiological distinctiveness." What this means is that the animals are roaming free on acres of grassland and basically living as animals should as opposed to animals that are born and raised is slaughterhouses. What Pollan saw were animals that were in a sense happy. “Happiness seems to consist in the opportunity to express its creaturely character.” (Pollan) While on the farm, he also witnessed Salatin killing a chicken. Pollen felt comfortable in knowing “the animal had been treated with respect when it was alive, and he saw that it could also have a respectful death.” (Pollan)
This respectful life and death concept for animals is what most animal activists strive for. I too, would rather know that animals are treated in this manner. But over all, I can tell you when I am cooking meat, just like most Americans, I don’t bother to think of the where and how. I just want to eat.
Jeremy Bentham, according to Pollan, was the “philosophical father of animal rights. However, Bentham was also a carnivore. He justified his meat consumption under the presumption that death by humans would be,” a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.” Unfortunately, those of us who have seen videos, or read news articles about what really happens in a slaughterhouse, can agree with Pollan in assuming that Bentham may have never seen the true workings of the slaughterhouse.
For those that haven’t, Pollan recites some facts he read in poultry-trade magazines. He states that “egg and hog operations are the worst.” “Chickens getting
their beaks cut off.” “Hens in cages to small to ever stretch a wing.” These hens spend their eight week life “piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet.” Pollan states that “sometimes these animals cannibalize each other, or rub their body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding.” With that, Pollan questions, “Pain? Suffering? Madness?” Whatever it is, it is indicative of these animals throes caused by that of the human hand. But Pollen also described a different kind of setting. A setting where animals, live like animals, called a Polyface farm.
Pollan visited a Polyface farm and met Joel Salatin the farmer that runs the farm. Salatin explained that this type of farm is designed to allow each of the animals "to fully express its physiological distinctiveness." What this means is that the animals are roaming free on acres of grassland and basically living as animals should as opposed to animals that are born and raised is slaughterhouses. What Pollan saw were animals that were in a sense happy. “Happiness seems to consist in the opportunity to express its creaturely character.” (Pollan) While on the farm, he also witnessed Salatin killing a chicken. Pollen felt comfortable in knowing “the animal had been treated with respect when it was alive, and he saw that it could also have a respectful death.” (Pollan)
This respectful life and death concept for animals is what most animal activists strive for. I too, would rather know that animals are treated in this manner. But over all, I can tell you when I am cooking meat, just like most Americans, I don’t bother to think of the where and how. I just want to eat.
Animals' place
In reading Michael Pollan’s article regarding animal rights I find myself in his same shoes, I like to eat meat but I don’t like the idea of how the animals are killed.
There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on earth (Pollan). The reality is that we have to eat and many of the nutrients that we need in our daily diets come from eating meats. Eating meats and other animals have become a part of our daily lives and many of us can’t picture life without it. While there are other sources to get these proteins from, I personally would not change to those sources.
People who care should be working not for animal rights but animal welfare to ensure that farm animals don’t suffer and that their deaths are swift and painless (Pollan). If animals had rights how would they defend those rights? While I wouldn’t say that animals should have their own rights per say, I would say and agree that they should be treated and cared for in a respectful manner in a healthy living environment where they are free to roam around, stretch, groom themselves and also interact with others.
God did give man "dominion" over animals ("Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you"), he also admonished us to show them mercy. "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but . . . because they stand unequal and powerless before us (Pollan). Many may read this and interpret it the wrong way. Yes, God did give Man authority over all that was created on earth but that does not mean that Man has the right to abuse and treat animals poorly. They also do deserve to be treated well just as we would treat ourselves or even our house pets.
I believe that the farms where the animals are being raised on should be inspected and approved. After all, we want to make sure that we are getting the best and not eating animals that have suffered pain and abuse. Reading labels and selecting that ones that indicate that there were no steroids or hormones added is a great way to know that you are getting good quality meats.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times Magazine. 10 Nov. 2002.
There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on earth (Pollan). The reality is that we have to eat and many of the nutrients that we need in our daily diets come from eating meats. Eating meats and other animals have become a part of our daily lives and many of us can’t picture life without it. While there are other sources to get these proteins from, I personally would not change to those sources.
People who care should be working not for animal rights but animal welfare to ensure that farm animals don’t suffer and that their deaths are swift and painless (Pollan). If animals had rights how would they defend those rights? While I wouldn’t say that animals should have their own rights per say, I would say and agree that they should be treated and cared for in a respectful manner in a healthy living environment where they are free to roam around, stretch, groom themselves and also interact with others.
God did give man "dominion" over animals ("Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you"), he also admonished us to show them mercy. "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but . . . because they stand unequal and powerless before us (Pollan). Many may read this and interpret it the wrong way. Yes, God did give Man authority over all that was created on earth but that does not mean that Man has the right to abuse and treat animals poorly. They also do deserve to be treated well just as we would treat ourselves or even our house pets.
I believe that the farms where the animals are being raised on should be inspected and approved. After all, we want to make sure that we are getting the best and not eating animals that have suffered pain and abuse. Reading labels and selecting that ones that indicate that there were no steroids or hormones added is a great way to know that you are getting good quality meats.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times Magazine. 10 Nov. 2002.
Animal rights essay
After reading Michael Pollan’s essay “An Animals Place” you can’t help but to feel sympathy for all the cattle for what they are put through by humans, so we can have the pleasurable meat and its nutrients that we desire in our meals. There is also a reason God created the world the way he did, humans being one of the smartest and most powerful species have come along way to get where we are today, and be as knowledgeable about our environment as we are. Michael Pollan said it best “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” Intelligence is a very valued trait and has helped the Human race to get where we are today; the we least deserve is to enjoy a good meal every now and then that we worked so hard to get.
The torture the United States puts animals through in order to slaughter them, may be taking it a little far but they have good reason to do so, to make it healthier for us humans to consume. There is a reason God created Carnivores, Omnivores and Herbivores, It just so happens that is how the food chain works you can’t blame humans for eating animals its what they were expected to do. Back in the day when humans were cave men how do you think that they survived, by going hunting and cooking the animals for dinner and even using their fur to keep warm because they didn’t have any clothes, it seems to me that it was a method of survival for humans back then and it has helped to get us where we are today. It may seem selfish of the human species but I’m sure if it was the other way around and these animals had the chance to eat us they would. Personally I feel that freeing a lot of animals would only make it more complicated and dangerous humans and animals.
Michael Pollan made a good point when he said “People built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away. But that accommodation has pretty much broken down; nowadays, it seems, we either look away or become vegetarians.”
If this has become such a problem then would not be any meet eaters in the world, but clearly people are still eating meat guilt free because that’s just the way the human life works.
Animal Rights activists go on to talk about how horrible farm animals are treated but in reality these animals would not even exist if it wasn’t for the farmers who breed them in the first place. These animals would not even be able to survive in the wild. It’s bad enough during hibernation season all the road kill you see in the road, could you imagine if all of these animals were in the wild, there would be dead cows, horses, chickens in the road quite often which would also increase the car accidents on the road and cause more danger to humans as well.
If all Farms around the world were shut down, not only would it put a lot of people out of jobs but it would also make a lot of animals without of homes, which would lead to a ton of different species that would go extinct because its impossible for them to survive on their own, for one finding food year round would be a huge problem and two a lot of animals have no way of defending themselves from their predators. A lot of people get the wrong ideas about farms, not all farms slaughter their animals and they also produce mass amounts of fruits and vegetables for all those vegetarians out there that wouldn’t survive without farms as either. Even in Pollans essay he stated that “there has been a revival of small farms where animals still live their "characteristic form of life." I'm thinking of the ranches where cattle still spend their lives on grass, the poultry farms where chickens still go outside and the hog farms where pigs live as they did 50 years ago--in contact with the sun, the earth and the gaze of a farmer.”And as for the domesticated animals such as dogs, cats etc. there is no doubt that they would not be able to survive in the world on their own and they have humans to thank for coming to their rescue. Although Michael Pollans essay brought up a lot of good points as to why people should become vegetarians, I’m still not entirely convinced and apparently neither is all of America because if that was the case the world wouldn’t be full of anything but vegetarians.
The torture the United States puts animals through in order to slaughter them, may be taking it a little far but they have good reason to do so, to make it healthier for us humans to consume. There is a reason God created Carnivores, Omnivores and Herbivores, It just so happens that is how the food chain works you can’t blame humans for eating animals its what they were expected to do. Back in the day when humans were cave men how do you think that they survived, by going hunting and cooking the animals for dinner and even using their fur to keep warm because they didn’t have any clothes, it seems to me that it was a method of survival for humans back then and it has helped to get us where we are today. It may seem selfish of the human species but I’m sure if it was the other way around and these animals had the chance to eat us they would. Personally I feel that freeing a lot of animals would only make it more complicated and dangerous humans and animals.
Michael Pollan made a good point when he said “People built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away. But that accommodation has pretty much broken down; nowadays, it seems, we either look away or become vegetarians.”
If this has become such a problem then would not be any meet eaters in the world, but clearly people are still eating meat guilt free because that’s just the way the human life works.
Animal Rights activists go on to talk about how horrible farm animals are treated but in reality these animals would not even exist if it wasn’t for the farmers who breed them in the first place. These animals would not even be able to survive in the wild. It’s bad enough during hibernation season all the road kill you see in the road, could you imagine if all of these animals were in the wild, there would be dead cows, horses, chickens in the road quite often which would also increase the car accidents on the road and cause more danger to humans as well.
If all Farms around the world were shut down, not only would it put a lot of people out of jobs but it would also make a lot of animals without of homes, which would lead to a ton of different species that would go extinct because its impossible for them to survive on their own, for one finding food year round would be a huge problem and two a lot of animals have no way of defending themselves from their predators. A lot of people get the wrong ideas about farms, not all farms slaughter their animals and they also produce mass amounts of fruits and vegetables for all those vegetarians out there that wouldn’t survive without farms as either. Even in Pollans essay he stated that “there has been a revival of small farms where animals still live their "characteristic form of life." I'm thinking of the ranches where cattle still spend their lives on grass, the poultry farms where chickens still go outside and the hog farms where pigs live as they did 50 years ago--in contact with the sun, the earth and the gaze of a farmer.”And as for the domesticated animals such as dogs, cats etc. there is no doubt that they would not be able to survive in the world on their own and they have humans to thank for coming to their rescue. Although Michael Pollans essay brought up a lot of good points as to why people should become vegetarians, I’m still not entirely convinced and apparently neither is all of America because if that was the case the world wouldn’t be full of anything but vegetarians.
An animal's rights
Michael Pollen’s New York Times Article recounts the discovery of his ideals. First influenced by Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, he sets out on a quest to determine whether or not it is moral and ethical to eat meat. Being carnivorous, he struggles with allowing himself to eat meat while at the same time it may be immoral. Throughout his many experiences, he finally concludes that the human consumption of meat is most-likely inevitable but that it should happen in a way that is considerate and respectful of the lives of these animals. Such considerations will be met in the form of a farm that is designed to allow animals to lead natural and spacious lives up until the point of their execution. These farms also transform slaughter houses. The slaughter houses will now be equipped with glass walls so that everyone who chooses will be able to witness the executions.
I do not disagree with Pollen’s conclusion on a moral basis however, what I do disagree with is that this system of animal liberation could never function without transferring the problem from the animals to humans. As Pollen stated himself, “all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to animals,” (Pollen 3) or in other words, besides a select few of extremists, we can all agree that the well being of a human outweighs that of an animal. Here in lies major difficulties with his fantasized system. The most prevalent issue raised would be the cost to which such conditions would render. Who will fund such plans? Raising the cost of meat now also becomes an issue of discrimination. Significantly higher cost of meat products discriminates against those who were once able to afford meat and now, with this system, are unable. Surely someone of such powerful beliefs against discrimination to all species should consider that. In reality, this system of higher value of life for such animals results in that of lesser quality for humans.
Another pertinent issue raised by the system in question is disturbing the current economical balance in regards to animal slaughter. Any extreme societal change will certainly cause negative economical effects. This is certain simply because the system is designed to benefit animals only, without giving any consideration to how it will affect humans. Such economical disasters may not be definable before the system is put in place, but once discovered, how will Pollen and animal rightists alike feel then? Does the wholesome lifestyle for subjects of slaughter really outweigh the harmful effects to humanity?
Animals being hunted in their natural habitat for means of human consumption must also be taken into consideration. Cattle, Chicken, and Swine are among many animals that are killed to serve human interest, yet only these three are mentioned. Hunting is extremely beneficial to the U.S. economy; “Each day, sportsmen contribute more than $3 million to wildlife conservation efforts. This amounts to more than $1.5 billion per year,” (NSSF 4) all of which are to benefit the lives of animals. Thousands of other animals are hunted in the wild to feed humans. Sea creatures, venison, and wild turkey to name a few, lead lives that are of even higher quality than what we can provide on farms. If the life of the animal and a quick death are the only concerns, then this refutes the entire point. Up until the point in which these animals are hunted, they lead lives entirely natural to their environments, which allow total freedom for the duration of their time on this earth. To attempt elimination of this method would be extremely detrimental to society. Consider the economical standpoint of hunting, “Hunters contribute $30 billion to the U.S. economy each year, supporting more than 986,000 jobs” (NSSF 4).
Although the principle of such a plan is positive, the system in which it would occur is impossible to instate. Not only do the benefits not contribute to the lives of humans, they are consequences. Animals living on slaughter farms are among many animals that are hunted in the wild. Although such an animal friendly farm is non-beneficial to human interest, hunting on the other hand is extremely beneficial. Sure the lives of animals should be taken into consideration but at what cost? Michael Pollen’s interest might be better served if it reflected all species and not just that of those below us.
Works Cited
National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF. “Frequently Asked Questions.” National Shooting Sports Foundation. 9 Oct. 2008 <http://www.nssf.org/>.
Pollen, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” New York Times 10 Nov. 2002: 12.
I do not disagree with Pollen’s conclusion on a moral basis however, what I do disagree with is that this system of animal liberation could never function without transferring the problem from the animals to humans. As Pollen stated himself, “all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to animals,” (Pollen 3) or in other words, besides a select few of extremists, we can all agree that the well being of a human outweighs that of an animal. Here in lies major difficulties with his fantasized system. The most prevalent issue raised would be the cost to which such conditions would render. Who will fund such plans? Raising the cost of meat now also becomes an issue of discrimination. Significantly higher cost of meat products discriminates against those who were once able to afford meat and now, with this system, are unable. Surely someone of such powerful beliefs against discrimination to all species should consider that. In reality, this system of higher value of life for such animals results in that of lesser quality for humans.
Another pertinent issue raised by the system in question is disturbing the current economical balance in regards to animal slaughter. Any extreme societal change will certainly cause negative economical effects. This is certain simply because the system is designed to benefit animals only, without giving any consideration to how it will affect humans. Such economical disasters may not be definable before the system is put in place, but once discovered, how will Pollen and animal rightists alike feel then? Does the wholesome lifestyle for subjects of slaughter really outweigh the harmful effects to humanity?
Animals being hunted in their natural habitat for means of human consumption must also be taken into consideration. Cattle, Chicken, and Swine are among many animals that are killed to serve human interest, yet only these three are mentioned. Hunting is extremely beneficial to the U.S. economy; “Each day, sportsmen contribute more than $3 million to wildlife conservation efforts. This amounts to more than $1.5 billion per year,” (NSSF 4) all of which are to benefit the lives of animals. Thousands of other animals are hunted in the wild to feed humans. Sea creatures, venison, and wild turkey to name a few, lead lives that are of even higher quality than what we can provide on farms. If the life of the animal and a quick death are the only concerns, then this refutes the entire point. Up until the point in which these animals are hunted, they lead lives entirely natural to their environments, which allow total freedom for the duration of their time on this earth. To attempt elimination of this method would be extremely detrimental to society. Consider the economical standpoint of hunting, “Hunters contribute $30 billion to the U.S. economy each year, supporting more than 986,000 jobs” (NSSF 4).
Although the principle of such a plan is positive, the system in which it would occur is impossible to instate. Not only do the benefits not contribute to the lives of humans, they are consequences. Animals living on slaughter farms are among many animals that are hunted in the wild. Although such an animal friendly farm is non-beneficial to human interest, hunting on the other hand is extremely beneficial. Sure the lives of animals should be taken into consideration but at what cost? Michael Pollen’s interest might be better served if it reflected all species and not just that of those below us.
Works Cited
National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF. “Frequently Asked Questions.” National Shooting Sports Foundation. 9 Oct. 2008 <http://www.nssf.org/>.
Pollen, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” New York Times 10 Nov. 2002: 12.
Animal rights
The growing consciousness of the public on the way animals are turned into food is starting a sort of culture shift among many Americans and people in other countries as well. I had never put too much thought into how a pig is turned into my bacon or how a baby cow is made into veal chops until I read Michael Pollan's essay "An Animal's Place". It has certainly changed the way I look at processed meat. I gathered that his overall point was that the animals whose meat fills our supermarket shelves most likely had a horribly miserable existence, died a horrible death, and was given no dignity whatsoever through it's whole life. This is true in the majority of the meat industry. Pollan believes that even if animals are raised to be killed for their meat they still can and should lead happy, dignified lives until it is time for them to be killed. I agree one hundred percent with him but the changes that would have to be made are huge and I don't know if the U.S. is ready for such a drastic shift.
In his essay Pollan describes Confined Animal Feeding Operations and tail docking of pigs, but what really made me cringe was the way Pollan went into severe detail describing the torture chickens go through in most egg laying operations. "…that fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral "vices" that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding. Pain? Suffering? Madness?" (Pollan, An Animal's Place) When the hens stop producing as many eggs, they are force molted and starved of food and water to induce another batch of eggs before they die. The example of the hens was only one of the disturbing realities Pollan went into but whether its cattle or pigs or chickens, there is an almost mechanical procedure that these meat factories operate by. In no way do they take the well being of the animals into account. The level of pain and suffering is not a factor in their equation.
One of the highlights in Pollans argument was a place called Polyface farms. It is a farm where cattle, chickens, pigs, rabbits, and sheep are raised and slaughtered. But this farm does it with respect and dignity paid towards the animals. The animals live stress free lives outdoors and basically live the way they would on a farm sixty years ago. They seem happy and content with their lives, which makes it a lot easier to eat them in my eyes. But these special farms are very small scale and there are far too few of them to satisfy the demand for meat in America. If there were about a fifty times more of these farms in America then we could do away with the disgusting way the meat industry operates.
Personally this essay changed the way I'm going to buy eggs and shop for meat. When I go to stop and shop I'll be looking for the "Free Farmed" labels on my steaks. But can Pollan's essay change the public as a whole? I doubt the country is ready to accept higher meat prices while staring at the face of an economic crisis. The value of the dollar is dropping rapidly and a lot of people are going to be pressed for cash. I don't think the first thing on their minds will be "I wonder if the pig this bacon came from had a miserable life."
Sources
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place" The New York Times. November 10, 2002
In his essay Pollan describes Confined Animal Feeding Operations and tail docking of pigs, but what really made me cringe was the way Pollan went into severe detail describing the torture chickens go through in most egg laying operations. "…that fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral "vices" that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding. Pain? Suffering? Madness?" (Pollan, An Animal's Place) When the hens stop producing as many eggs, they are force molted and starved of food and water to induce another batch of eggs before they die. The example of the hens was only one of the disturbing realities Pollan went into but whether its cattle or pigs or chickens, there is an almost mechanical procedure that these meat factories operate by. In no way do they take the well being of the animals into account. The level of pain and suffering is not a factor in their equation.
One of the highlights in Pollans argument was a place called Polyface farms. It is a farm where cattle, chickens, pigs, rabbits, and sheep are raised and slaughtered. But this farm does it with respect and dignity paid towards the animals. The animals live stress free lives outdoors and basically live the way they would on a farm sixty years ago. They seem happy and content with their lives, which makes it a lot easier to eat them in my eyes. But these special farms are very small scale and there are far too few of them to satisfy the demand for meat in America. If there were about a fifty times more of these farms in America then we could do away with the disgusting way the meat industry operates.
Personally this essay changed the way I'm going to buy eggs and shop for meat. When I go to stop and shop I'll be looking for the "Free Farmed" labels on my steaks. But can Pollan's essay change the public as a whole? I doubt the country is ready to accept higher meat prices while staring at the face of an economic crisis. The value of the dollar is dropping rapidly and a lot of people are going to be pressed for cash. I don't think the first thing on their minds will be "I wonder if the pig this bacon came from had a miserable life."
Sources
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place" The New York Times. November 10, 2002
Essays about Michael Pollan's article
These are a few essays written quickly by my students about Michael Pollan's essay, "An Animal's Place." We will go over them in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
