The Omnivore's Dilemma - Part 3: The Forest

Michael Pollan's novel, The Omnivore's Dilemma, explores the gatherer aspect of man's consumption. Part 3, the Forest, raises many concerns over the ethics behind eating animals. Culture has been telling us that animals are "both good to eat and good to think" (305). After just reading that line, my thought was "that's debatable." I would like to think that it is good for us to eat lots of meat, but this course as well as a general knowledge, has taught me that most food we eat now-a-days really isn't that healthy for us. Natural food, meat for example, doesn't contain as many nutrients as it once did. The beef, chicken, and pork our grandparents and great-grandparents grew up on would have been much smaller, more lean, and "better for you." However, I'm also learning that the "healthiness" of something isn't even fully scientific anymore. I have a lot of faith in science to discover many things about humans and our desired behaviors (including how to become the most "healthy"). So I have really started to wonder whether the argument that protein is so good for you is really valid, or if it's just temporarily valid...

Back to the idea that animals are "good to think"... When I think of an animal, I imagine one of the many cows or goats I pass when driving around Boiling Springs. I assume these animals are happy because they're more or less in their natural habitat, doing whatever they want (except leaving the property). However, I realize that these aren't the animals that I will be consuming day in and day out. Those animals know nothing of a 'free' life. The animals I eat are most likely the ones Pollan illustrates as ignorant slaves that are bread to be just to be fattened and killed. The latter is so "good to think."

Pollan also explores this discussion about physical and emotional pain with animals. Can they feel physical pain? Duh! But can they feel emotional pain? Possibly. As a whole, our society doesn't care. We treat animals as "production units" - we assume they can't feel pain, not because they can't, but because we don't care. We want our meat, no matter how poor quality it is. Man will find reason (or lack of reason) to do whatever he wants to do. Ben Franklin even once said, "the great advantage of being a 'reasonable creature' ... is that you can find a reason for whatever you want to do" (310).

I believe that animals were ONCE "both good to eat and good to think," but I think our growing society is taking nature out of the equation to the point that this is no longer true.

I'm not saying I agree with the mass slaughter of animals, but I can't fully deny it either. I'd prefer that my meat was more environmentally nature, but I also realize that in order to efficiently feed the amount of people on this planet, we must industrialize the process. Unfortunately, however, this comes at a cost - and part of this cost, arguably, is ethics.