I just finished reading this fascinating book for AP Environmental Science called "The Omnivore's Dilemma," by Michael Pollan. It discusses the rising epidemic facing our nation. We don't know what to eat! Even though we can eat practically everything and anything, we don't know what's the healthiest. Quite frankly, our government isn't providing us with adequate nutrition because they are so corrupted by money, and as a result we are facing a national eating disorder! The entire system disgusts me. Why does my health have to suffer by the hands of the corrupt world. Well, I guess that's what you can expect from sinful humans. But, you're probably asking, why not just eat organic? He shoots that argument down by stating various problems with organic food, that contain the same preservatives in all food. I have to admit, after reading this book, I wasn't exactly in an optimistic mood. But, it was an enlightening experience, and I acquired some different perspectives on life.
The following is a short summary (I paraphrased) of what he said regarding animals rights.
There is a rising controversy about the ethics of eating animals. The number of vegetarians is rising, so what's changing? We are experiencing a type of schizophrenia – we give our dogs Christmas presents while we eat our Christmas ham! A pig is as intelligent as a dog, so why the discrepancy? Our distance from animals allows for our mistreatment. Michael Pollan reads the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, which has turned thousands of people into vegetarians. He has a persuasive argument. Is equality for animals the same as for blacks and whites? Pollan immediately distinguishes his premise by explaining that "domesticated animals can't survive in the wild; in fact without us eating them they wouldn't exist at all" (pg. 310). There's mutualism between us and the animals. Predation actually keeps all species surviving. Isn't it natural, after all, to give rights to one's kind? The problem facing many is, animals can feel pain. Singer writes that "a lifetime of suffering for a non-human animal and the gastronomic preferences of a human being" (pg. 312) is not right. He suggests that you have two options: "You look away – or you stop eating animals." To effectively answer Singer's questions, Michael Pollan became a temporary vegetarian. He realized that he was isolated from society and that it's a "sacrifice of our identity as humans" (pg. 315).
The difference between animal pain and human pain is that human's have emotions: regret, self-pity, shame, humiliation, dread, etc. We have a self consciousness, unlike animals. Another argument religions make it that animals don't have souls, therefore they are (obviously) not as important as humans. Humans also possess language and the ability to have thoughts. But is it still right to make animals suffer? Because we don't "look," we are blind to the cruelty. Egg-laying hens is one example of the disturbing fate domesticated animals face. Our human morality wasn't meant to apply to nature, though. It was meant for other humans; animals are supposed to be our food. Killing animals is unavoidable in food – even wheat involves killing insects with its fertilizers and birds with its pesticides. We should concentrate on the health of nature instead of the moral code of eating animals.
Michael Pollan believes there are three options to the eating animals issue. He thinks that instead of either looking away or cease consuming meat, we should look with respect. We should continue to eat animals with a new perspective on life. All of
Although he didn't mention religion very much, I believe God created animals for us to eat. You can see this by nature! The biology and science behind life displays the complexity of life, and the perfect plan for it all. Here's a funny, yet true quote from the book:
"In a sense, the 'good life' for deer, and even their creaturely character, which has been forged in the crucible of predation, depends on the existence of the wolf. In a similar way chickens depend for their well-being on the existence of their human predators. Not the individual chicken, perhaps, but Chicken – the species. The surest way to achieve the extinction of the species would be to grant the chickens a right to life" (pg. 322).
Isn't that last line ironic? You would think it would be the opposite, but it's all part of God's plan. We depend on the animals for our survival, yet they depend on us for the survival of their species. Fascinating isn't it?
During one part of the book, Michael Pollan decides to go hunting, and make his own meal.
Being a young woman, I have never been hunting, and I don't plan on it. The idea of killing an animal frightens me, and I don't dare to think about the fact that I eat part of a live animal every day. When I was a little girl, I was unaware of this minor detail. I guess I knew (why did didn't bother me, I don't know) that a chicken was a chicken, but I never knew the meaning of the word "beef" or "bacon." Pork and hamburger were just food. When my parents told me that beef and hamburger was a cow, and that bacon and pork was a pig, I was devastated! You mean, I was eating a cow my entire life, oblivious to the situation. I always happily said, "Moo!" when asked what sound a cow makes, but knowing that I took the moo from my cow almost sent tears to my eyes. Poor cow…
Either way, I cringe when I hear my uncle (an enthusiastic hunter) say he killed another deer. Michael Pollan, to my surprise, had never been hunting either. I could actually relate to him! He had never even held a gun, and was reluctant to take the life of an animal. His conclusion at the end of the matter was encouraging, though. He realized the sacrifice of the wild pig had satisfied his family (something we take for granted) and felt gratitude. This is a completely new concept regarding hunting. But, it's what the Native Americans did when they used all of the contents of bison and other rituals – to preserve nature and thank it for providing for them. We do the opposite. Our society is wasteful and spoiled. We vacuum up all of nature's resources and don't care to leave a "thank-you." The Indians appreciated the gift nature brought them. So often we forget this! Because we don't see. We've isolated ourselves from our food and have forgotten the importance of it. Yes, it's difficult to overcome taking the life of an animal. But if that animal keeps you surviving, then thank it! That's a little weird for me, but I understand where Pollan's coming from. It's why he called his final meal the "Omnivore's Thanksgiving."
I think it's healthy to look at what you eat. Not just the nutrition label, but to appreciate what God has provided. That's why saying "grace" was invented. It was a way of thanking God for blessing the family with food. After all, we wouldn't live long without it.
Deuteronomy 12:21 (NIV)
"If the place where the LORD your God chooses to put his Name is too far away from you, you may slaughter animals from the herds and flocks the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and in your own towns you may eat as much of them as you want."
Throughout the Old Testament, God uses animals as sacrifices, to cover the Israelites' sin. Now, Jesus takes the form of a lamb, and died on the cross to wipe away all of our sins. But, I think the Bible is clear that animals were meant for us to eat them. It's how we were created - as omnivores. Unfortunately, we do face a dilemma with our new food chain, industry. The ultimate solution of how to eat is... still pending. Sorry. Perhaps someday I'll find a perfect solution, where we go back to the old ways of eating fresh and healthy fruits and vegetables. For now, I'll attempt to enjoy my yogurt fruit smoothies. Enjoy eating those Cheetos during the Superbowl (which just ended...), but remember the natural food God provided us with! Goodnight.
-God bless, Bubbly :)
-Omnivore's Dilemma picture, and chicken picture found on Google.
No comments:
Post a Comment