Intelligent Roast Beast

The Omnivore's Dillemma Chapter 17

In this chapter, Pollan looks at opposing arguments about eating meat. He examines views from both extremes, including those of strict animal rights activists and vegans to CAFO workers. Pollan struggles with a self-imposed status of temporary vegetarianism as he combs through all possible reasonings that would allow him to continue to eat meat guilt free.

Many people think that livestock and domesticated animals should be liberated from their restricted lives in cages and behind fences. However, life as a liberated chicken living in the wild may not be all its cracked up to be (No Pun Intended!). Captivation by humans results in longevity when compared to how long they would last facing the elements of the wild. Some evolutionists believe we are doing animals a favor by raising them (even if only for the purpose to be eaten at a later date), which controls their populations and shields them from the harshness of nature.

Animal rights activists' philosophize about individual animals' fates, with argument that being raised only to get slaughtered is an inhumane life for that single animal. This is difficult to refute, considering no individual would benefit from being killed. Others argue that humans have evolved to the point where we can obtain food to survive without the need to kill animals for meat, therefore it is wrong for us to do so, even if animals kill in nature all of the time.

Despite mentioning some convincing arguments supporting the consumption of meat, Pollan recedes to the fact that human beings are creatures intelligent enough to have the capability of reasoning, and therefore have the ability to reason themselves into thinking what they desire.

??Questions??
1) How can it be argued that a smart chimpanzee deserves more attention than a three day old infant. Although the chimp may have a higher capacity for understanding, the newborn has the potential to become more intelligent. Without caring for our young, the human species would die out. I could go on for days about how this makes no rational sense, logically or morally, for their side of the argument. To me, this comparison is the philosophers shooting themselves in the foot.

2) If we do have to treat the more intelligent animals with more consideration, where do we draw the line? Chimps, Dolphins, and Pigs would be included. What about Horses and Cows. Deer and Sheep? Rabbits and Turkeys. Chickens and Fish? We would have to draw the line somewhere, and what would the determining factor be?