Read "An Animal's Place" by Michael Pollan in Presence (page 204-221). Respond by listing one of the claims Pollan makes and a piece of evidence he uses to support it.
Michael Pollan states that Thirty-Seven states recently passed laws that made some forms of animal cruelty a crime. 21 of those by ballots. He supports this statement by saying activists were protesting Mcdonalds and Burger King. This changed the way in which US meat industry slaughtered animals. Pollan also makes another good statement "Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig–an animal easily as intelligent as a dog–that becomes the Christmas ham." Which basically states that most of us just go on thinking that animals are safe and have a good home. Yet we dont stop and think about the miserable life that some animals have to endure.
Here's one: Toward the bottom of page 208, Pollan tries to counter an assertion by Peter Singer that farm animals would be better off if they were free. (Singer's quote is: "The life of freedom is to be preferred." Pollan claims that domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild; "in fact, without us they wouldn't exist at all." As evidence, he uses a quote from a 19th-century political philosopher (whom he doesn't name): "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all." The point is a good one, but many readers wouldn't trust an unnamed source. If you google the quote, you'll discover the philosopher's name was Leslie Stephen. (If you google the philosopher, you learn he was the father of Virginia Woolf -- small world.) Pollan expands on his point -- that domesticated animals essentially trade their lives for their species' continuation -- in his book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
Pollan defends "Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?"
"Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other cratures in order to survive; animals do. (Thought if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure.0" 5th paragraph pg 208
Pollan states "However it may appear to us, predation is not a matter of morality or politics;it,also, is a matter of symbiosis"
his supports for this are: -Natural Selection (the wolf may be hard on the deer but the heard depend on the wolf to keep the herd's numbers down so they don't starve)
The argument that Michael Pollan has is, "The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there is no reality check, either on the sentiment or the brutality." For his supporting evidence he turns to an essay written by John Berger called "Why Look At Animals?". He says "he suggested that the loss of contact between ourselves and animals- specifically the loss of eye contact- has left us deeply confused about the terms of our relationship to other species."
In Michael Pollans "An Animal's place", he claims that "In everyday life, the choice is not between babies and chimps but between the pork and the tofu." His evidence is, "This is why killing animals for meat (and clothing) poses the most difficult animal rights challenge. In the case of animal testing, all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals. That’s because the unique qualities of human consciousness carry weight in the utilitarian calculus: human pain counts for more than that of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our deaths are worse than an animal’s because we understand what death is in a way they don’t."
In an animals place, the author talks about the animals role in todays society. its not really a piece that says we should change the way we treat animals but really something that just makes you think about the way things are. like an animals place right now is little more than a pet, a meal, or a test subject. but the question with that is should we change that? or are things better the way they are? obviously its not good the way animals are treated but to what extent should they be veiewed as our equals. -Dylan
In an animals place, the author talks about how animals have it easier and are actually better off being domesticated and people eating them. The author supports this on page 215 where it says, "From the animals point of view, the bargain with humanity has been a great success, at least until our own time. Cows, pigs, dogs, cats, and chickens have thrived while their wild ancestors have languished". He talks about how there are so many more domesticated animals where if they were wild, there would be a lot less. The domesticated animals get things handed to them and are taken care of and thats why they thrive so much more than wild animals of the same kind. -Rachel
Michael Pollan states that Thirty-Seven states recently passed laws that made some forms of animal cruelty a crime. 21 of those by ballots. He supports this statement by saying activists were protesting Mcdonalds and Burger King. This changed the way in which US meat industry slaughtered animals. Pollan also makes another good statement "Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig–an animal easily as intelligent as a dog–that becomes the Christmas ham." Which basically states that most of us just go on thinking that animals are safe and have a good home. Yet we dont stop and think about the miserable life that some animals have to endure.
ReplyDeleteHere's one:
ReplyDeleteToward the bottom of page 208, Pollan tries to counter an assertion by Peter Singer that farm animals would be better off if they were free. (Singer's quote is: "The life of freedom is to be preferred."
Pollan claims that domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild; "in fact, without us they wouldn't exist at all."
As evidence, he uses a quote from a 19th-century political philosopher (whom he doesn't name): "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all."
The point is a good one, but many readers wouldn't trust an unnamed source.
If you google the quote, you'll discover the philosopher's name was Leslie Stephen. (If you google the philosopher, you learn he was the father of Virginia Woolf -- small world.)
Pollan expands on his point -- that domesticated animals essentially trade their lives for their species' continuation -- in his book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
Pollan defends "Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?"
ReplyDelete"Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don't need to kill other cratures in order to survive; animals do. (Thought if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure.0" 5th paragraph pg 208
Pollan states "However it may appear to us, predation is not a matter of morality or politics;it,also, is a matter of symbiosis"
ReplyDeletehis supports for this are:
-Natural Selection (the wolf may be hard on the deer but the heard depend on the wolf to keep the herd's numbers down so they don't starve)
-Predictors are necessary to keep a balance
Pollan defends “Defenders of slavery imposed on black Africans often made a similar point"
ReplyDeleteHis support for it is that he says “The life of freedom is to be preferred.”
It makes me think of how some animals are treated by owners that just aren't humane to pets and they would have a better life being free.
The argument that Michael Pollan has is, "The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there is no reality check, either on the sentiment or the brutality."
ReplyDeleteFor his supporting evidence he turns to an essay written by John Berger called "Why Look At Animals?". He says "he suggested that the loss of contact between ourselves and animals- specifically the loss of eye contact- has left us deeply confused about the terms of our relationship to other species."
In Michael Pollans "An Animal's place", he claims that "In everyday life, the choice is not between babies and chimps but between the pork and the tofu."
ReplyDeleteHis evidence is, "This is why killing animals for meat (and clothing) poses the most difficult animal rights challenge. In the case of animal testing, all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals. That’s because the unique qualities of human consciousness carry weight in the utilitarian calculus: human pain counts for more than that of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our deaths are worse than an animal’s because we understand what death is in a way they don’t."
In an animals place, the author talks about the animals role in todays society. its not really a piece that says we should change the way we treat animals but really something that just makes you think about the way things are. like an animals place right now is little more than a pet, a meal, or a test subject. but the question with that is should we change that? or are things better the way they are? obviously its not good the way animals are treated but to what extent should they be veiewed as our equals.
ReplyDelete-Dylan
In an animals place, the author talks about how animals have it easier and are actually better off being domesticated and people eating them. The author supports this on page 215 where it says, "From the animals point of view, the bargain with humanity has been a great success, at least until our own time. Cows, pigs, dogs, cats, and chickens have thrived while their wild ancestors have languished". He talks about how there are so many more domesticated animals where if they were wild, there would be a lot less. The domesticated animals get things handed to them and are taken care of and thats why they thrive so much more than wild animals of the same kind.
ReplyDelete-Rachel