OK, so this guy is either a complete moron or I am missing A LOT. What I gathered was his argument against veganism from the 2 pages I read (and I am admitting I only read two pages. . . but I don't care to read the rest because, like I said, I am not the one with the dilemma.): point 1: Vegans are just crazy idealists who can't actually make a difference because people will always eat meat.
point 2: We would kill more animals if everyone stopped eating meat because of all the field mice that die during the harvest of crops, all the birds that die from ingesting pesticide laced grains, and all the earth we would have to turn into fields thus stripping other animals of their habitat.
point 3: In parts of the world where people rely on meat because their land is not conducive to growing crops, the amount of food which would need to be imported would cause mass pollution.
point 4: We would be ever further removed from nature if we stopped eating flesh.
Alright, so I am sure there is more that he wrote that is interesting. Additionally, I have been told his main overarching point is that everyone should eat locally grown or raised organic food and that everyone who eats meat should be willing to kill the animals him/herself. And also, he does not like factory farming. So, it turns out I agree with him on all these points. (Though I am guilty of buying bananas and some food that is not organic. I prefer to buy organic and I buy all other fruits/veggies and my bread from the local farmer's market. Also, I eat at restaurants that do not buy local.) But, I still think he is a moron because:
My response to point 1: Most likely child molestation, murder, rape, theft, abuse, etc. will not ever be eradicated in my lifetime. So, should I just engage in these practices because I am being too unrealistically idealistic if I don't participate in the evils of the world? Um, last I checked, no. Just because I choose not to participate in something I deem immoral doesn't mean I am naive. It means I am living what I perceive to be an ethical lifestyle.
I am reminded of a conversation that took place before class one day. I was talking to this other vegan and she was telling me about the "chicken" salad sandwich she had just bought that she would soon proceed to eat. She said, "It actually tastes like chicken, which I personally like." Her friend interrupted us to respond with, "If you like the taste of chicken, why don't you eat a chicken?" To which the said vegan rejoined, "hmm, crack tastes good. . . I better go smoke it. UM NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS." (ok, this is a little off topic, but I love love the anecdote. She responded so quickly it was so funny.)
But basically, my point is that I shouldn't be unethical because "everyone else is doing it." How old are we? Oh I forgot we must be 13 year olds and we must be talking about nicotine use.
My response to point 2: Does anyone else think this is just stupid? Last I checked, (and maybe things have changed since then. . . maybe we feed cows more dead cows than we used to. . .) it takes ten pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we simply stop raising animals for food, milk and eggs and stop breeding them, we have more than enough fields in place to feed the nation. We don't need new fields. We need to remove some of that government subsidized corn for shizzle and diversify the fields. . . But we don't need anymore fields! Thus, no excess birds and field mice need die. Seriously. I was just downright confused by this argument. He neglected to mention we must FEED the animals that omnivores proceed to eat. I don't get why he thinks there aren't enough fields if the population of farmed animals is dramatically decreased.
Now, this was, thankfully, not one of the points that I read in the two pages of Michael Pollan's book. However, it is worth mentioning because the argument I just made will naturally lead some people to this point that I have heard reiterated mindlessly more times than I can count. That is, farmed animals only exist because humans eat them. If humans ceased to eat them, they would go extinct. And isn't it better to exist than to not exist? I have a response to this which I feel I must share in case someone who reads this jumps to that conclusion.
OK, so firstly, I don't think it's fair to assume farmed animals would go extinct if we stopped breeding them. Many people have grown to feel about pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. the way people feel about dogs and cats. Naturally, some people who have room for chickens or cows will want chickens or cows. (Consider that farm sanctuary is always finding homes for their animals with loving vegetarians and vegans.) Thus, the argument that they will cease to exist is void.
Secondly, I don't get it. Farmed animals are not a necessary part of our ecosystem, why do all these people care so much about their potential extinction but I don't see them trying to conserve animal habitats elsewhere or trying to prevent global warming which is wiping out many species of plants and animals. This is clearly just a (really crappy) excuse. "I eat the animals to save them. . . drrrr." WEIRDOS.
Thirdly, animals ARE INDIVIDUALS. If an individual chicken isn't ever born, guess what there is no way for the nonexistent chicken to care about not existing. Think about this, something that doesn't exist DOESN'T EXIST. There are no feelings. There is nonexistence. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. There is not like a mass chicken consciousness just as there is not a mass consciousness for humanity. When a person is not conceived because a couple was intelligent enough to use a condom, YOU DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T CARE. Chickens will not care if they go extinct. They will have no way to know because they will not exist. I don't know how else to explain this to you. If farmed animals went extinct, which they wouldn't even if people stopped using their flesh for personal gain, it wouldn't matter. The ecosystem wouldn't be effected and also the animals wouldn't be around to care.
That has nothing to do with Michael Pollan as far as I know. (just in case you forgot.)
My response to point 3: I would just like to point out that, according to most studies, people who do not eat meat and do not buy locally do more for the environment than people that both eat meat and buy locally. Additionally, how many people do you know that buy locally? I am not going to say it doesn't happen. I know a few who only buy local. But most people ALREADY buy a mix of local and non-local. (Like I said, we buy bananas.) So, I don't really get the argument. You are not going to have a sudden surge in people who were buying strictly local buying only imported foods. It's just not going to happen.
Furthermore, uh, CHINA. How many people who "only buy local" buy everything that is not food from ACROSS THE WORLD? (A lot.) If Michael Pollan is so worried about people needing to import items why isn't he lobbying to bring industry back to the United States so we can stop polluting the earth with things made in China? That would probably be more beneficial than arguing we should eat meat. (Do you know how many resources go into raising animals for meat!?)
My response to point 4: So what? That is honestly my response. Go on a nature retreat. Lobby for community gardens so more people can experience growing their own food. Push for green space in cities. Go apple picking and berry picking. Eat raw food. I dunno; go get chased, and potentially mauled, by an abused tiger trapped in a circus act. There are better ways to "get in touch with nature" than eating innocent and abused animals. That's it. That is all I have to say.
So, that is my response to the two pages. The guy seems ignorant for sure. I can only imagine what I would have to write if I read the whole book. It woulda been yucky for positive.
Now, this is unrelated. It has recently been brought to my attention that most people EDIT their blogs!
Another unrelated. There is a commercial with cute little monster friends!! They are small and little! And I want one to be my friend. I would kiss her/her facey for sure!! Tabby said s/he would be named Lizardo. (The commercial is for some job search website called ladders or something.)
That's it. That is all. The end.
No comments:
Post a Comment