As Pollan's argument continues, he begins to go into greater detail and emphasis pertaining to the slaughter industry. He provides the reasons why and how animal rights have been abused and disregarded. Pollan does however defend the eating of meat in our history and culture; he shows that it is somewhat essential to the evolution of mankind. He defends both sides of the argument throughout the essay and convinces the audience that he understands where different people are coming from on the issue. An interesting point that Pollan makes is the fact that it would be very difficult for us all to be vegetarians and that it is better for our society to be filled with omnivores, carnivores, and herbivores. The existence of all three types of diets keeps our world at a balance. If carnivores or herbivores did not exist, then it is almost inevitable that different aspects of our planet, including the food chain, would be drastically altered.
Pollan's piece of writing did not have the substantial impact on me I thought it would in the beginning of the reading. I still find myself at this point ready and willing to eat meat at any given time, regardless of Pollan's argument for animal rights. I think maybe I would be better persuaded if some sort of concrete visual accompanied the piece, specifically a documentary film that depicts how animal cruelty is a big part of the commercial slaughterhouse structure. I know a remarkably high number of people who have been convinced into becoming vegetarians after seeing similar films which brings me to wonder if simple words do not do the Pollan's piece justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You brought up a very interesting point. To see a visual of what Pollan was imposing would be very beneficial for his argument. But supposedly he was just questioning another person's (Singer's) argument. Although it would probably more vividly depict the sort of impact he wanted on his readers in the first place, especially when he was explaining the differences between eating an animal for pure pleasure instead of just for survival with respect towards it. That would be interesting to actually see the differences that he was trying to get across to the reader, rather than to critically read and figure out what he was arguing. I also liked that you addressed the fact that the point of eating animals in the end is the symbiotic relationship of the purpose in the food chain, which was exactly was Pollan was imposing.
I really like your view on his piece. I can truely say that I agree with you. His paper didn't effect me as much as I thought it might in the beginning. I was thinking about it and I think it was a very general paper. Though he took a side to eating meat he gave a lot of information for the vegans. He didn't really drive his point home. I think a visual would help me also but at the same time I'm not positive if I would want to see it ya know? And you are completely right about us having a drastically different world and life. We could just as easily be moved down the food chain as others species have. I think that we have a healthy balance of all three types of eaters but maybe the ones who choose to eat meat should be more selective.
i agree with you point that Pollan was talking about in the essay. it's natural hat all the the animals on the earth are to get their energy from some other living thing wether it is a plant, or an animal. there must be variety to of all three ways of eating to make balance in the world.
i have seen a few films of the slaughter houses of cows, and it was the way that they were treated and what they were feed that caused the whole "mad cow" epidemic, what they did was feed there cows the remains of the cow that the butcher didn't use, so cows were eating cows and that create some weird protein in the cows brain, and there you have it. it really sucks what we have done to our live stock but i still eat meat too.
Post a Comment