The Carnivore's Dilemma

            Michael Pollan describes the ethical debate of eating animals in chapter 17 of his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma.  He begins by discussing his views upon reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation as he consumes a rib-eye steak.  Singer is a animal rights advocate, or as Pollan puts it, an “animal person.”  The idea being discussed is the thought that killing and eating animals, as we do, is a moral issue in the same way slavery and rape are.  Singer argues that animals should have the same rights and freedoms that we would give to our own people.  In response to people who argue that animals do not have the same capacity for reason and therefore do not require rights, Singer points out the “marginal cases.”  Marginal cases, such as infants and the mentally retarded, are still given the same rights as all people, yet some could argue they are less aware and capable than animals.

            The next question brought forward is the question of what people can do.  The answers proposed are either turning away, or ceasing to eat meat.  In turning away, millions of animals will continue to “suffer” and die, and you will continue to eat meat and ignore the process by which that meat ended up on your plate.  By becoming a vegetarian, you will burden yourself and others with the difficultly and alienation caused by vegetarianism.  Pollan also mentions though, that along with the burden, you will in fact still be killing millions of animals as machines, sprays, and land clearing for agriculture continues to take lives and habitats.

            The slaughter of animals is also discussed in this chapter.  Pollan explains that he was not allowed onto the kill floor, and our explanation of the process, though seemingly humane, may not truly account for the situation at hand.  Again we are posed with the decision of whether to “trust” and turn away, or whether to only support where we can view and evaluate the situation for ourselves.

            In my opinion, humans are meant to eat meat, and so it should be.  While the modern industry has alienated us from the entire process, the truth is that meat comes from live animals, so yes, they will live the lives we provide them, and then they will die to provide for us.  Ecosystems are meant to use sunlight to grow plants to feed herbivores that feed carnivores, all of whom die and recycle back into the ground to feed more plants.  This is a flawless cycle, perfected through time to create balance and unity within communities.  As the article stated, even the eaten need the population control provided by carnivores in order to survive.

            So, if people are concerned for the wellbeing of animals.  I believe that it is best to find a farm in which the animals will lead happy, healthy lives until their slaughter.  Polyface farm is a fine example of this, but there are many others that will provide the animals with all the ingredients for happiness.  If the animals are given room to roam, food to eat (the kind they actually want), water to drink, care for sickness, and shelter from danger, than the animals will have lived happy lives.  In return for the care we provide them, they will provide us with meat, and the cycle will continue.

Do you think it's better to be a vegetarian or to choose your meat responcibly?
Do you think we could sustain an entire population of just vegetarians?
Would you be willing to face the process by which the animals you eat are killed?

[Edited Photograph], Retrieved Feb 23, 2011, from: http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Vegetarian-food?page=3