5 ms·

Of the arguments Pollan presents for why it's okay to kill animals for food, the most persuasive is that domesticated animals evolved in symbiosis with humans —

Of the arguments Pollan presents for why it's okay to kill animals for food, the most persuasive is that domesticated animals evolved in symbiosis with humans — that they essentially made a deal with humans whereby we would take care of them in exchange for their "products" and their lives: "[...] domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own. Humans provided the animals with food and protection, in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk and eggs and–yes–their flesh." The problem with this argument is two-fold. First, only one party in this "deal" has a full understanding of what the deal consists of and the endless cruelties and indignities inherent in it. Second, the terms of the "deal" have changed tremendously for both parties since it was first "signed" (that is, when humans and animals first entered into the symbiotic relationship of domestication). The way in which the terms are different for animals is obvious (e.g. CAFOs), but the terms for humans have also changed tremendously, including in the past 20 years since the article was written. An Impossible Burger is so similar to a beef burger that when I first tried one, I thought perhaps the restaurant had screwed up my order and given me beef accidentally. It is, for almost all intents and purposes, meat: with the exceptions that eating it doesn't serve the interests of the cruel and planet-destroying agriculture business, and it doesn't involve taking the life of an animal. (His argument that ruminants are ecologically beneficial is also very outdated; raising cows in particular is a major environmental problem.) What this means is that it's increasingly difficult to claim that eating meat is anything other than a gastronomic preference. There is no need for it, but if we feel we must, we have "meat" that doesn't come from animals with which to satisfy that desire. He writes, '[...] we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere “gastronomic preference.” We might as well call sex–also now technically unnecessary–a mere “recreational preference.” Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed.' Just like birth controls means we can have sex without procreating, plant-based meat allows us to eat meat without killing. If we wish to satisfy the "deep" desire to kill and eat animals (I find this silly — scarfing down a burger is hardly a spiritual or evocative practice), we can. The world has changed: the terms for the "deal" we made with domesticated animals are no longer relevant and ought to be renegotiated.

anthony_d 5y ago
There's a problem with these conversations about eating animals that is frequently hard to articulate. I think it's related to the famous quote: “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” - Jonathan Swift? The argument against is detailed and seems logically consistent. Most people who are in favor of eating animals simply won't engage though. Those that do engage generally make a poor showing. My theory is morality isn't logical so arguing morality is simply a lack of self awareness. People who share your morality follow the logic and possibly change behavior, but without a shared sense of morality the argument is just a collection of empty words on par with a solved sudoku puzzle. Of course morality can and does change with time, just not via a logic based argument.
simiones 5y ago
To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent position that killing animals for food is morally evil, but only if you also consider all carnivores as morally evil. I believe Hinduism for example holds this position. But I don't think you can consider a human killing a lamb morally evil while thinking that a tiger doing the same is morally neutral. I'd also note, as I have elsewhere, that the way we sacrifice animals is much, much nicer than how they usually die in nature. Unfortunately, the way we raise animals is often incredibly cruel, much worse than necessary and much worse than we generally used to do it historically. I feel this is mostly the same as other horrible practices that savage capitalism has brought and that will hopefully end one way or another because of global warming.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask. Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivores to the same specifically because we have a choice and they do not.

anthony_d 5y ago

There's a problem with these conversations about eating animals that is frequently hard to articulate. I think it's related to the famous quote: “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” - Jonathan Swift? The argument against is detailed and seems logically consistent. Most people who are in favor of eating animals simply won't engage though. Those that do engage generally make a poor showing. My theory is morality isn't logical so arguing morality is simply a lack of self awareness. People who share your morality follow the logic and possibly change behavior, but without a shared sense of morality the argument is just a collection of empty words on par with a solved sudoku puzzle. Of course morality can and does change with time, just not via a logic based argument.

simiones 5y ago

To me the main argument around the morality of killing animals for food has to do with the natural life cycle. You absolutely can have a self-consistent position that killing animals for food is morally evil, but only if you also consider all carnivores as morally evil. I believe Hinduism for example holds this position. But I don't think you can consider a human killing a lamb morally evil while thinking that a tiger doing the same is morally neutral. I'd also note, as I have elsewhere, that the way we sacrifice animals is much, much nicer than how they usually die in nature. Unfortunately, the way we raise animals is often incredibly cruel, much worse than necessary and much worse than we generally used to do it historically. I feel this is mostly the same as other horrible practices that savage capitalism has brought and that will hopefully end one way or another because of global warming.

sweetheart 5y ago
Applying questions of the morality of eating meat to obligate carnivores makes no sense; there can be no moral question if there isn’t an option between two paths. Obligate carnivores MUST eat meat, so whether or not they “should” makes no sense to ask. Humans are not obligate carnivores, though, which is morally relevant. We can hold human beings to a standard (don’t eat animals if you can avoid it) but not carnivores to the same specifically because we have a choice and they do not.