HW 7d

The Omnivore's Dilemma - Micheal Pollan

Chapter 17:


Precis:

For people who take time to think about it, it doesn't seem right to eat animals: it seems like a past mistake, in the same way that things people used to do in the past - like slavery, for instance - now seem immoral. Some argue that it is "speciest" for humans to care more about their well-being then that of any other species. However, there is also the argument that some species of animals (such as pigs) simply wold not exist if humans did not eat them, as there is no other reason for them to exist. The reason that no one challenges where their food comes from seems to be because of a loss of ritual (such as saying grace before a meal, or preparing that meal, or killing the animal that is the meal...).

Gems:

"The notion of granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal, amoral world of eater and eaten - of predation - but along the way it will entail the sacrifice, or sublimation, of part of our identity - of our own animality."

"But however it may appear to those of us living at such a remove from the natural world, predation is not a matter of morality or of politics; it, too, is a matter of symbiosis."

"Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order?....we can choose: humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do."

Thoughts:

I think most people would rather live in ignorance ("turn away) about where their food comes from - as he said, if more people knew where their food came from, they wouldn't want to eat it, and most people realize this.

The fact that humans are able to eat meat, and have developed special features in order to eat it, seems to imply that we should eat it.