The thing that stuck out the most for me in reading Pollan's chapter was the idea of an animals "characteristic form of life." It is an idea to which any animal right activist would quickly jump on ship with, yet their ideas would, most likely and in my view, differ significantly from those which irather than the individual is key in this argument. However, and I may be wrong, but I feel that most animal rights activists would say this is a great principle if implemented by not eating animals. This is to say that animals have a right to a happy life and for many animal rights activists that would mean not killing and eating them.
That idea makes sense in a general idea, but when viewed closer, the flaws emerge. Beyond the idea of species over individuals, the rightist, as Pollan calls them, fail to realize that domestication has led to a better life for farm animals on good farms. If not being raised on a farm, these animals would have to contend with much harsher predators that had no regard for the "feelings" of its prey.
One of the most interesting things to me is that this section about animals being benifited by domestification and the idea that eating meat is natural is closely followed by a rebuttel from the point of view of rightists. "Some people train their dogs and cats to become vegetarians. (Note: The cats will require supplements to survive.)" Where is the idea of "characteristic form of life" now? How is forcing an animal into an unnatural diet benificial for any party? It is a very strange idea that I feel is very disrespectful to the cat in this case, but overall to nature. Why are we as humans the ones to say that predation, which has occured since the beginning of multi-celled organisms with teeth, is "moral degredation?!" The idea is summed up in Pollan's statement, "A deep current of Puritanism runs through the writings of the animal philosophers, an abiding discomfort not just with our animality, but with the animals' animality, too."
I know I am not expressing myself wll here, but I wish I could. The paradox created by juxtaposing those two ideas - an animals right to be happy and live as good of a life as possible put right next to the idea of taking the animality away from animals makes it seem as if rightists don't care as much for animals as they do their own moral concious. I realize this will be taken the wrong way - I respect vegetarians very much and often wish I had the guts and perseverence to take on such a lifestyle. I also realize that industrialized farming sucks and have no problem boycotting it. It's terrible and inhumane. On the other hand, I come from a town where cows are grass fed on big plots of land for the most part and I have seen people do very well in the market with these types of animals. Yes, some of them are sent to be corn finished, but many are butchered locally. To me this is the most practical solution both morally and economically.
On a random note, I think it is very ironic that the factory farmed discussed here was named Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. It just brought the connotation of concentration camps and other terrible things. Bad name choice...
That idea makes sense in a general idea, but when viewed closer, the flaws emerge. Beyond the idea of species over individuals, the rightist, as Pollan calls them, fail to realize that domestication has led to a better life for farm animals on good farms. If not being raised on a farm, these animals would have to contend with much harsher predators that had no regard for the "feelings" of its prey.
One of the most interesting things to me is that this section about animals being benifited by domestification and the idea that eating meat is natural is closely followed by a rebuttel from the point of view of rightists. "Some people train their dogs and cats to become vegetarians. (Note: The cats will require supplements to survive.)" Where is the idea of "characteristic form of life" now? How is forcing an animal into an unnatural diet benificial for any party? It is a very strange idea that I feel is very disrespectful to the cat in this case, but overall to nature. Why are we as humans the ones to say that predation, which has occured since the beginning of multi-celled organisms with teeth, is "moral degredation?!" The idea is summed up in Pollan's statement, "A deep current of Puritanism runs through the writings of the animal philosophers, an abiding discomfort not just with our animality, but with the animals' animality, too."
I know I am not expressing myself wll here, but I wish I could. The paradox created by juxtaposing those two ideas - an animals right to be happy and live as good of a life as possible put right next to the idea of taking the animality away from animals makes it seem as if rightists don't care as much for animals as they do their own moral concious. I realize this will be taken the wrong way - I respect vegetarians very much and often wish I had the guts and perseverence to take on such a lifestyle. I also realize that industrialized farming sucks and have no problem boycotting it. It's terrible and inhumane. On the other hand, I come from a town where cows are grass fed on big plots of land for the most part and I have seen people do very well in the market with these types of animals. Yes, some of them are sent to be corn finished, but many are butchered locally. To me this is the most practical solution both morally and economically.
On a random note, I think it is very ironic that the factory farmed discussed here was named Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. It just brought the connotation of concentration camps and other terrible things. Bad name choice...
The signs from my town. There were cooler ones earlier that had a chicken crossed out on it, but I couldn't fund that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment