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.