“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food. Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”.
There are many reasons why people choose not to eat meat. Studies indicate how animals are mistreated. Animals’ are known to carry diseases but are more seen as impure for they are injected with steroids, drugs and hormones in order to produce larger quantities of meat which not only has a negative effect on the animal but can lead to cancer in humans. Research has claimed that
Introduction In this article “Against Meat” (2009) Jonathan Safran Foer explains his experience from a young age until the present struggling whether being a vegetarian or an omnivore because he doesn’t want to hurt animals at the same time he can’t resist food because it tasted good. Jonathan Safran Foer is an American novelist (born February 21, 1977) He graduated from Princeton University with a degree in philosophy, in his freshman year he took a writing class from the novelist Joyce Carol.
In the book, The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, Pollan claims we should be more knowledgeable about what we consume as omnivores. As omnivores we have a variety of food, we can choose from, however, we don’t regularly make the best decisions for ourselves. Pollan argues this by showing us where our food really comes from and how we can find many unwanted extras. Pollan shows us that we’ve evolved as humans from how we used to eat to how we eat now. Pollan argues this by introducing us to all the food chains we value today, some much more than others.
In Michael Pollan’s essay “Escape from the Western Diet,” he directly to Americans about the western diet and why he believes they need to escape from it. The reason Americans should escape the western diet is to avoid the harmful effects associated with it such as “western diseases” (Pollan, 420). To support his view on the issue, Pollan describes factors of the western diet that dictate what Americans believe they should eat. These factors include scientists with their theories of nutritionist, the food industry supporting the theories by making products, and the health industry making medication to support those same theories. Overall, Pollan feels that in order to escape this diet, people need to get the idea of it out of their heads.
Relevance between Food and Humans with Rhetorical Analysis In the modern industrial society, being aware of what the food we eat come from is an essential step of preventing the “national eating disorder”. In Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, he identifies the humans as omnivores who eat almost everything, which has been developed into a dominant part of mainstream unhealthiness, gradually causing the severe eating disorder consequences among people. Pollan offers his opinion that throughout the process of the natural history of foods, deciding “what should we have for dinner” can stir the anxiety for people based on considering foods’ quality, taste, price, nutrition, and so on.
In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters.
As diets and health become more and more of a public concern in America. Two authors weigh in on their opinions on how the American public should handle the problem of obesity as well as their solutions to the overwhelming issue. In one article, “Against Meat,” published on the New York Times website in 2009, points out that the solution to obesity should be vegetarianism. Johnathan Foer who is a vegetarian, claims that his diet and way of living is his the way of improving health in the American public. Foer’s article provides a sense of humor as well as personal stories to attempt to persuade his audience for the ethical treatment of animals along with his personal solution for his own health and the health of his family.
Eating Towards Global Warming Global warming has been a topic of debate for many years now. A more recent argument is that food production is a key contributing factor to the global warming epidemic. In the article “A Carnivore’s Dilemma”, Nicolette Niman provides an insight to the logistics being said in these statements.
In my synthesis essay, the three selected readings, “Equality for Animals” by Peter Singer, “You Can’t Run away on Harvest Day” by Barbara Kingsolver, and “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Gary Steiner, will answer the following question; What does it mean to eat ethically? What moral principles should guide our food choices and ways of eating? Between these three essays, they all made emphasis on how ethical eating is defined as sourcing food and eating it in ways that will not cause damage or injuries, neither physically nor mentally, to the food or the eater. Recently, people have expressed interest in where the meat and dairy they are consuming comes from and how it was raised.
My household buys Industrial Organic foods to ask a majority of our diet each year with a few and minor expectations of Organic foods and Local Sustainable foods. Just this topic alone can bring up such as “What is Industrial Organic food?” or “What types of foods are there?” well to answer the latter question, in the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, he describes how he followed the food making process which he categorized different types of foods to make the four food chains: Industrial, Industrial Organic, Local Sustainable, and Hunter-Gatherer. Industrial foods are foods that also take the name of, fast food, which is also a term for foods that can be processed and served quickly.
Which most of the time is not aimed simply to take nutrients or feed. In societies that are arranged and productive economies that have had large surpluses of food has remained present. It was part of the offerings to the gods, the cult of the dead and ceremonials intended to acquire the properties vitals of the victim or supernatural gifts. In the other hand, we find the cannibalism of prehistory, in the past human flesh was part of the diet of our ancestors. Intake brain or other tissues contaminated with prions led to outbreaks of disease and development, through natural selection, the defensive mutation whose genetic trace has survived to this day.
Morality consists of principles that distinguish between right and wrong (Collins dictionary, 2015), which means it refers to certain code of conduct that, under certain provision, would be put forward by all rational persons. Ethical consumption of meat and vegetarianism has been a notable debate for quite a long period of time with a lot of arguments still going on. Vegetarianism has failed to take a strong ethical stand since the nature of all human beings is to adapt omnivorous diet and a major part of human body demands nutrition that can only be obtained from non-vegetarian diet. Even though it seems wrong to kill animals cruelly for the sake of consuming them, animals are not moral in this world and they do not have any culture. Humans are generally viewed as omnivores (Fischler, 1981), and they are naturally designed for omnivorous diet.
Since the early stages of civilization, meat has been a staple in the dietary consumption known to humankind. The meat paradox is to like eating meat, but at the same time to dislike the act of killing and harming animals. This meat paradox challenges the morality and ethics of humans. Some vegetarians could have trouble with understanding this concept, where it is okay to eat meat from an animal, yet harming an animal is morally incorrect. The act of slaughtering an animal would seem cruel enough, no? 90 percent of our population consumes meat are aware of the fact that it comes from an animal that has short lived their lives due to our dietary practices.