On “The Botany of Desire”
This is coming very, very late, but part of why “Food Inc.” wasn’t impressive for me is because I’m not the target audience. I’d already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen “The Future of Food” and “King Corn.” And though The Omnivore’s Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were “farmed” a certain way (and locally), there’s so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it’s tough to tell people not to read it.
Because The Botany of Desire doesn’t address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there’s no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore’s Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.
From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that’s the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.
And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).
I should probably actually read this, as it sounds fascinating. I've always shied away from it since Michael Pollan is such a speciesist. It's too bad that he's not a vegan since, because I would probably agree with everything he says.
Modern food, like all other commodities in capitalism, is depressing. It's almost impossible not to participate in the exploitation of people and the sickening of the earth. I get overwhelmed thinking about it. Veganism is really just a small step in the right direction, in terms of the bigger picture of exploitation.
Vegans sound exactly like religious fundamentalists. You can't pull the god card to claim superiority over the rest of us so you demonize the consumption of animal products. It's an absurd point of view that really has no logical backing whatsoever. Trying to convince people to go vegan is like trying to convince people to only reproduce once. Sure it would help the planet, but there is no way in hell it's ever going to happen.
It's an especially ridiculous concept because the vegans in modern western society would not be able to maintain their living standards without the exploitation of dirt-poor humans in third world countries across the globe. You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. You're hypocrites essentially, and the worst kind in my opinion. Loud preaching hypocrites utterly convinced of their infallability.
There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, it's called realism and (most) vegans have absolutely zero concept of what that is or how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles.
Thank you, Spencer, for livening up the comments thread, even if you provide zero backing for your opinions. I'm currently reading Erika Ritter's book The Dog by the Cradle, the Serpent Beneath. When Ritter asks Temple Grandin, designer of "humane" death chutes for making the mass killing of animals more efficient, whether she eats meat, Grandin snaps, "I gotta eat 'em!" And Grandin insists, "I'm about practical solutions."
It must be such a relief to realize that being "practical" or "realistic" coincides with continuing one's "daily lifestyle".
Spencer…
No one is trying to convince you to become vegan nor claim superiority over others who happen to be non-vegan, we just share our point of view and back it up with everyday statistics and facts. We are not perfect, as no one is and it would be impossible to eliminate the suffering of ALL sentient beings in the lifestyles in which we choose to live. It's more about reducing…do you hear me? REDUCING…the amount of pain and suffering as much as possible. Realistically it can be done.
Hypocrisy? Oh yes, everyone at some point in their lives is confronted with it. Here's an example of a debate I've had with someone->
Vegan: "Did you know that pound of beef you're eating takes as much water to produce as taking a 10 min. shower everyday for a whole year? Also by giving up eating sentient beings you eliminate the unnecessary pain and suffering forced upon them and eventual death after a very shortened life. You also help eliminate the ground clearing of natural forests to pave the way for cattle grazing. You also help eliminate the pollution caused by the factory farms, water runoff, air, etc..(mind you, I never even touched on the medical implications that can come about by consuming slaughtered factory farmed animals)
Omnivore: "Well..uh…hey…that Gap shirt you're wearing was probably produced in a third world country by child slave labor!"
Like you Spencer when people are often confronted with true facts that "invade" their lifestyle they attempt to attack the other person with something that isn't even relevant to the topic at hand.
By the way…if the statement made by that person is in fact true then it's easy for me to give up shopping at The Gap.
John you're using factory farmed meat as an example as if it is the only type of animal product consumed in western society, that's ridiculous. I (as many others do) go out of my way and spend significant amounts of both time and money to source all of the food I consume. In fact I think I am much more thoughtful and conscious about what I put into my body and where it has come from than many vegans, because I do not allow myself the luxury of just throwing a blanket statement over the problem and acting as if I have affected real change.
I don't agree with factory farming or pretty much any conventional agricultural practices for that matter. However that doesn't mean I'm going to stop eating meat and potatoes. Just as the fact that I don't agree with driving inefficient gas guzzling automobiles doesn't stop me from owning and operating a car.
Nature tells cows to eat grass and pigs to roll around in the mud, she tells me to eat meat. I have canines and a physiological need for easily gathered protein rich energy sources. Whether for better or worse, killing and eating animals is the only practical way for me to meet that need. In my opinion, to deny that is just as ridiculous as trying to ignore the suffering experienced by factory farmed animals.
The world is not black and white, eating meat is neither good nor bad. This whole subject is a moral/ethical gray area and trying to portray it as otherwise is just completely unrealistic.
You're right, factory farming is not the only method that provides western society with a way to consume animal products but I'll certainly put it in the high 90 percentile of it being so.
Most people remain in the "box" not thinking out of it and go about their daily lives without giving a mere thought of the actions they take and what consequences may derive from it. Am I making a change? Sure I am.
You see most of us as individuals in this modernized western society do not have to go hunt our food down any longer. It's all packaged up for us and readily available at the nearest market. Whether it be tofu, seitan, tempeh, beans or cow, chicken, pig, turkey. My choice of protein/nutrition happens to come from a source that does not feel pain and suffering just as I would not want to feel that pain towards myself or my family. But you're average person isn't even thinking about that when their going through the drive through ordering their double cardiac cow burger w/extra cheese..hell they just like the taste!
Yeah I have those same canine teeth too. Pretty small though and I doubt I could actually go up to say a deer and rip into it's flesh if I could even catch him. Society would look at me rather strange and probably lock me up if they saw me doing that but if I shot him with a .22, mounted him on the hood of my gas guzzler SUV then hey I'm just your "average Joe." Nature doesn't evolve so much as it does with it's need to adapt to current conditions. Those same lions are still using the same method to kill their prey as they did hundreds of years ago. Humans on the other hand do evolve (some anyway) finding new ways to be more efficient as we go about our daily lives and I would say not until too recently thinking about things with a more environmental perspective then they did even 10-20 years ago.
It sounds like you do care Spencer just not in the same manner as I do.