I enjoyed this rather scathing (though also appreciative) review of The Omnivore’s Dilemma from last year (via Matt Halteman). The author, noted literary gadfly B. R. Myers, is right, I think, that Pollan subordinates moral concerns to aesthetic ones at crucial points in his argument. I also agree that that Pollan gives short shrift to vegetarianism and that his thought is perhaps unduly influenced by a kind of pop-Darwinism which takes our “evolved nature” to be the last word on what’s right and wrong. That said, I think Pollan still does more good than harm in painting a devastating picture of our industrial food system.
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal
7 responses to “The vegetarian’s complaint”
-
I have to say, I loved the collages…especially the 2 with all of the animals living together in what appeared to be peace and harmony, ha. Mr. Myers certainly has no shortage of opinion, and a real fixation on lobsters. Yes lobsters, the cock roaches of the sea…so very tasty. My favorite technique to insure a more appealing straight, rather than curled tail, is to insert a long bamboo skewer into the animals cloaca then deep into the thorax, and boil or steam. It is important to note that a well refrigerated and iced lobster is limp, with little to no movement. It is possible to destroy the lobsters “brain” by cutting it’s head in half with the tip or butt of a large knife. I find it strange for people to use erratic movements that can take place after killing it to mean it is still alive, especially considering what a bustling system our bodies are following death. Thankfully though we don’t squirm and wave our many legs.
-
For more than 35 years we having been working to educate and facilitate meatless cuisine – we too believe in a “Darwinian diet” which is essentially meatless. For more, please takea look at ”
Twenty-One Reasons to Eat Like a Vegetarian” on our webite HealthyHighways.com Thanks -
Mr. Goldbeck, please understand that recognize a persons right to eat whatever diet they decide is appropriate for them. How to eat is a deeply personal and spiritual decision that’s made every time you put food to your mouth. In our home we obtain our nutrients, including protein, from a variety of sources. It is not uncommon for vegetarian meals to be served, in addition to those with animal products. I believe in eating a wide variety of minimally processed foods, prepared in a delicious manner, and consumed around the table as a family. What I do have a problem with is a statement like this, from the article”And if it is so natural to kill and eat animals, and so sentimental to think otherwise, why is the vegetarian the only one who can stomach the details?” True, many meat eaters cannot think about where their food came from w/out loosing their appetite. That is far from true about all of us. I’ve hunted, killed, and processed animals myself for years. Exposure to the “gory details” hasn’t influenced my food choices. I think that meat eaters make about as much sense to the average vegetarian, as the vegetarian makes to the average meat eater. Open discussion of all things is vital, but judgement isn’t. There is no place for complaining of intolerance, if you haven’t over come your own.
-
I agree with Stacey Y that vegetarians should not “judge” others–that is, vegetarians should not ostracize, upbraid, exclude, mock, avoid (etc.) people with whom they disagree when it comes to food choices. However, there does seem to me to be an important distinction between judgment (which excludes people) and admonition (which challenges people to do better). Stacey Y says that “open discussion of all things is vital” and it seems to me that an unavoidable part of open discussion amongst people with strong convictions is the admonition of those with whom one has substantive moral disagreements. While I am tolerant of omnivores, I also think that the arguments they furnish in an attempt morally to justify their views are generally very weak from the moral point of view. Though I hope that I never act in a way that is judgmental toward omnivores, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend that I find their arguments for omnivorism persuasive. For instance, the above comment simply stipulates, without offering any argumentative support whatsoever, that “how to eat is a deeply personal and spiritual decision”. But that claim begs all the important moral questions. Vegetarians and vegans believe that “how to eat?” is NOT just a personal question, but a question that deeply affects the lives of other sentient beings whose most basic interests are compromised when human beings decide to eat other animals. The claim that “people have a right to eat whatever they decide is appropriate for them” is a complete falsehood (people don’t have a right to eat human adults, babies, other people’s pets, etc.), and beyond being a falsehood, it sidesteps the most important question on the table in a MORAL discussion, which is “SHOULD people have a right to compromise the most basic interests of less powerful sentient beings in order to satisfy their own comparatively trivial aesthetic interest in the taste of these beings’ bodies?.” I can understand why omnivores don’t like to have to contemplate these sorts of questions (I certainly didn’t when I was an omnivore). But if they really believe in “open discussion of all things,” then they need to be prepared to offer moral reasons for thinking that it is okay to frustrate and ultimately deny the most basic interests of non-human animals in order to satisfy their own comparatively trivial (aesthetic) interests.
-
Wow. Well I told myself I wouldn’t post after my last comment. I am sure there are many regulars to the blog who would rather not hear my ramblings, so this will be it. I did not go into more detail with my comment “how to eat is a deeply personal and spiritual decision”, simply because I see no need for me to rant on and on forever about things that in the end, after all reason has been argued, come down to opinions and feelings that are deeply personal and spiritual. Of course we can argue all day about the who what where when and why, but in the end all you have left is simply a matter of “This is how I feel.” That feeling no matter how much it matters to you, and should to others, is just that a feeling, not proof of anything. I mentioned previously that I have hunted. I have been doing that since I was a young woman. I was also raised on a small farm with pigs, chickens and goats. The pigs were always slaughtered. We raised them from young, bottle fed and cared for them. As most people would we also named many of them. I believe it is human nature to anthropomorphize just about everything. We want that animal to be more than it is, and it is very easy to stare into an animals eyes and see yourself. We want to believe that a cow has human feelings, your cat loves you (or in the case of mine, is ambivalent to me), your dog is your baby. Maybe we are simply lonely as humans. We want animal companions that are equal to us. But that is simply not true. I do believe animals are sentient beings, but in a way we can not understand. I was raised with, and have carried on with my family, that eating meat is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. I can’t stand the people who mistreat, crowd, drug, and feed “poison” to any animal, even if it is meant to be killed. I was raised to know that my place is to not over consume or abuse animals, but to eat meat in moderation, and to responsibly care for all animals, fish to cow. After all of my arguments, please believe I have many more, I am left with only the fact that I don’t believe killing and eating animals is wrong. The fact is that we can’t live on mud and water. Everything we eat is killed for the purpose of consumption. Discussions with vegetarians always remind me of track 69 on Tool’s Undertow album. If you haven’t heard, I encourage you to. I don’t take it seriously as any kind of argument for or against meat, simply and interesting and entertaining point of view. Please feel free to admonish me. But ask yourself if your statements come from a place of feeling superior or humble. I have found many people admonish and advise others, as a more polite way of criticizing and feeling superior. About the eating of humans and pets. I feel that a pet is property, granted it is property you care deeply for. If it was necessary I would kill and eat our pets, and be grateful for it. I believe it is ashame those 2 men in Hawaii, who ate a golfers puppy, are being so harshly treated. In my opinion it should be a simple matter of theft. With so many animals being killed everyday for food, I find it inconsistent to punish them for killing one of the cute animals. Last but not least, I leave you with 2 informative page addresses about the Wari people of the Amazon. They practiced ritualistic cannibalism until the government and missionaries forced them to stop in the 1960’s.
http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_cannibalism_nsv.htm
http://whyfiles.org/164cannibal/3.html
The articles are similar, except for a few details. Should these people have been forced to stop their long time cultural practices simply because of our taboos? I have to say no, but I am sure I am in the minority.
Happy Eating! -
Well, how you evaluate cannabilism depends a great deal on whether dinner consents! (Even then it’s a pretty dubious practice from a moral point of view.)
-
I have asked myself whether my comments come from “feeling superior or humble” and the answer is that my comments come from neither of these places. I’m just interested in trying to get to the bottom of an interesting subject and I saw some statements that struck me as worthy of critical engagement. In my field, critical engagement is a sign of friendship and respect–a gesture that says “your views are provocative enough and compellingly stated enough that I felt moved to take them seriously and craft a response to them.” Apologies if I have given offense.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a comment