Hi Marie,
I just finished reading this book and found it quite interesting. The author makes a great case against factory farms, maltreatment of animals and the genocide of life within our oceans. I agree that there is a lot that needs to be changed!
The only problem I have with the arguments made by the author is that he left out something which I think needs to be considered when discussing eating meat. It’s not actually part of the argument against factory farms or cruelty to animals, but it is something that PETA and many vegetarians use to justify their position.
When considering the two positions of “Animal Welfare” (which is associated with humane animal agriculture), and “animal rights” (purely ethics), I would say that PETA seems to believe in the latter. Many vegetarians as well believe that the eating of animals is unethical or “wrong”, and both groups use this as one of their principle arguments against eating meat. I find it interesting that the author did not compare the idealistic result of these philosophies to help his readers find their way to a more reasonable view of their relationship to domesticated animals.
If one considers humane animal agriculture (true animal husbandry), this philosophy would result in free range livestock, organic processes, minimized pollution, humane slaughtering, etc. Essentially humane animal agriculture looks a lot like the old family farms with better technology and better overall treatment of animals. Yes people would eat meat, but certainly less than we currently do because the cost of producing meat would significantly increase. This seems to be a viable means of reducing meat consumption, establishing sustainable farming practices and promoting healthier diet through increased vegetable diet.
Contrast this with the PETA approach which advocates the ideal as a pure vegetarian existence, which may be “more efficient” from an economic and environmental standpoint. However this philosophy would by definition eliminate pigs, cattle, poultry, sheep and every other domesticated animal that is presently used for food. For all practical purposes these domesticated animals will become extinct due to the fact that they will be economically useless to us (vegetarians). At this point I have to ask what does “Animal Rights” mean when there would be no domesticated animals left to apply it to?
Is it better not to be born in the first place than to be slaughtered after a short but happy life? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that a vegetarian diet is not admirable, I’m simply saying that advocating it as the sole solution for the world has other implications that have not been addressed within this book.
Man’s dominion over animals is seen as arrogant or wrong by some, yet if one accepts this premise then a whole new ethical argument surfaces; Should mankind accept a much diminished membership in the animal kingdom and give up dominance over other species? And it’s not just eating meat, it’s usurping habitat, claiming resources, polluting the environment and a long list of arguably unethical things man has done. Should we reconcile our progress with the natural order by giving up our self proclaimed rights to the worlds resources? We’d need to restore the prairie, allow buffalo to roam free, stop our exploitation of gas and coal, etc. How can we justify our current over population? We’d have to perform some type of genocide to reduce our footprint to that of an equal member of the animal kingdom. Ok, I’m getting a bit out of control, but hopefully you get my drift.
Thank again for the book. I’m not ready to become a vegetarian just yet, but perhaps a more conscious effort to control where my food comes from is a good start.
Love Dad
_ _ _
Dear Dad,
I think Jonathan Safran Foer (he is my neighbor, by the way, in Brooklyn) not only makes his readers think hard about animal rights and animal welfare, he suggests they are both part of a solution.
J.S.F. appeals intensely to the PETA 'rights' argument in his disturbing stories of botched slaughter and animal suffering. He anthropomorphizes (never thought I'd use that word again) animals by labeling them as intelligent and curious creatures. For me, there definitely were a few moments of, "aw, that poor piglet." I think his focus, though, as you say too, is the 'welfare' piece. We are introduced to farmers and consumers who support animal husbandry and who are choosy about their meat consumption. I love the turkey farmer who says "if you can't afford the price I charge for my turkeys, you shouldn't be eating turkey."
J.S.F. says, The idea of a just farm system rooted in the best traditions of animal welfare and the idea of a vegetarian farm system rooted in an animal rights ethic are both strategies for reducing (never eliminating) the violence inherent in being alive. They aren't just opposing values, as is often portrayed. They represent different ways of getting a job done...They reflect different intuitions about human nature, but they both appeal to compassion and prudence.
This is the piece of the book that hit home for me. Instead of being convinced that I had no right to kill and eat animals, I felt encouraged to balance my dominion with choices that respected life. There is "violence inherent in being alive," Foer says. Trees are felled to create a pleasant park path, rats are trapped or poisoned in urban areas to control sanitation, and the deer, moose, and wolf populations are managed through hunting. There is violence, too, in the domestication of livestock; a reciprocal relationship that has existed for much of our history. In a better, perhaps older system, an animal eventually trades its short life for the provisions that humans can guarantee: food, water, protection, even companionship. I believe in humans' respectful and careful dominion in this system, and over the earth as a whole.
My choices as a vegetarian feel political, ethical, and personal -- all at once. I think it is the most authentically "environmental" change I can make. Besides the bacon that Bret Hesla gave us, I haven't yet found ways to support a truly humane farming system (which I value above animal 'rights,' really) -- except through vegetarianism.
And yes, the growing population, the diminishing prairie, and the scarce buffalo -- we have to take responsibility for all of it.
Love, Marie.
No comments:
Post a Comment