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