Ambar Delacruz Essay 1: The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma addresses a variety of concerns about food production and consumption. One might ask what exactly is the omnivore’s dilemma? And the basic answer to this question is “what should we eat for dinner”? Being humans makes us omnivores, which means we can at whatever we want. Part of the dilemma is figuring out what is safe to eat and what its safe to think. This is all determined by what your culture tells you to eat. In some cultures it is normal to eat horse while in others it is illegal. This shows how diet varies by region and culture. For example in the Dominican Republic they eat a meal called “Mondongo” and this dish is basically pig or cow intestine including the stomach, feet, and many other inner parts. To the people of the Dominican Republic this meal is part of their tradition and it’s a type of delicacy. On the other hand in many other places it’s seen as dirty or something that shouldn’t be eaten. Being a poor country all parts of the animals are not to be wasted thus making it a norm. Another example of the Omnivore’s dilemma is deciding what to eat and what not to eat based on the condition of how what they are going to consume was grown or raised. Many people choose to eat only organic because it’s said to be healthier but when compared to non-organic food the difference is slim. Regardless people continue to buy organic products. People get emotionally connected to
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.
Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion.
In the Story “Let them eat dong: A Modest proposal for tossing Fido in the oven” Jonathan Safran Foer brings to light the idea of how some animals are seen as special and not eaten. Using dogs as the example in showing how a person wouldn’t dare to eat one, but are okay with eat a pig or any other living creature. Making the argument that all living animals have feeling and are special in their own ways, so none of them should be eaten but rather cherished like a dog is. Although the story is unbelievably well written and with great point on culture about food, equality of animals and the…, yet there is only emotional appeal and bias towards his idea of not eating meat.
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 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.
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.
However, ethics do play a role, in that morals is one of the elements that separates us from other animals. I believe that if you kill an animal or plant for food, you should put a majority of it to use in some way. I also believe animals and plants that are grown as a source of food should have as little interaction with humans as possible. We should not eat animals and plants if we are endangering their existence by eating them. As long as animal or plant does not fall into one of these exceptions, then I believe it is ethically permissible to eat
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
The act of eating meat has caused many questions of morality to arise over the years; starting with Plutarch questioning the morality of slaughtering animals, Shelly writing about the physical act of eating meat, and Welin et al questioning whether growing meat in a lab is morally okay. The first morality question is asked by the Greek philosopher Plutarch when he speaks about the way meat was being “harvested” in his time. To begin, Plutarch brings up his first major issue expressing his disapproval of the idea that people hold the power to decide which animals live and die. Plutarch brings up multiple examples of why he believes this throughout the article, one of the more powerful points was when Plutarch(n.d) said, “Catch the harmless and tame sort, and such as have neither stings nor teeth to bite with, and slay them”(p. 9).
Comparing the Arguments of Meat Consumption In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles. "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them,
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 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.
“The association is so close that meat has become metaphorically ‘male’, such that meat eaters are perceived as more masculine than vegetarians” (Loughnan 2). The perception of animals also plays an important role in eating animals. Those who perceive an animal as “mindful” wouldn’t even think about eating it. “…an animal’s perceived mind…are key factors influencing people’s willingness to eat it” (Loughnan 2). Omnivores will also alter their perception on an animal’s minds to justify the consumption of
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.
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.