An Animal’s Place (2002)

https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/an-animals-place/

71 67 5 years ago

rewq4321• 5 years ago

This documentary is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko (Dominion, released in 2018, unfortunately requires signing into youtube due to age retrictions)

yboris4• 5 years ago

My favorite documentary is Earthlings

http://www.nationearth.com/

adriand2• 5 years ago

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 (His argument that ruminants are ecologically beneficial is also very outdated; raising cows in particular is a major environmental problem.)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_d2• 5 years 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.

simiones3• 5 years 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.

sweetheart12• 5 years 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.

cheese_goddess13• 5 years ago

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.

These "endless cruelties and indignities" exist in one way of farming only, the factory farms found in modern industrialised nations and spreading slowly like a rot throughout the world as we speak because capitalilsm is a disease that we don't know how to cure, like cancer.

But for most of our history, there were no "endless cruelties and indignities inherent" in farming, as there aren't any still in much of the world today.

Below are a few examples.

Goat farming in Chavignol (to make Crottin de Chavignol AOP):

https://youtu.be/WPeasWmx1og?t=157

Goat farming in Corsica from a maker of Brocciou (pronounced broo-CHOO):

https://youtu.be/EftGyQXyDlo

Cow farming in the France region of Jura (to make Comté, AOP):

https://youtu.be/U0D_a_o9wcQ?t=100

Cow farming in Normandy (to make Camembert de Normandie, AOP):

https://youtu.be/0by1csFhtQg

Goat farming in the Greek Cyclades islands:

https://youtu.be/L6g0xn5TLtE?t=48

Sheep farming in the Greek island of Lesvos:

https://youtu.be/kRptFUO_uzM

Sheep farming in Transylvania:

https://youtu.be/Bcuaf_y_TWg?t=9

Those are from European countries that I'm more familiar with but you can find similar practices in most of the world, although they constantly at risk from large agribusinesses that want to take over the farmers land and business.

More importantly, we have only been able to domesticate the animals we have because of their character and because of our character, and while there was no formal agreement, because a formal agreement can only be made between humans (because it needs language that only humans posses) it is very wrong to say that animals entered their contract with ours unwillingly. We have only been able to domesticate animals that allowed themselves to be domesticated: we have not domesticated zebras, for example, or tigers, or hippos. And we have only been able to domesticate animals because we ourselves, like our domesticated animals, are a gregarious, sociable species, that is kindly disposed towards other kinds of animals and has a natural instinct to care for them and tend to their needs. A lion could not domesticate sheep: it would just slaugther the entire herd. A weasel could not domesticate chickens: it would just strangle the entire flock. We were able to do it because we are, by our nature, as a specias, capable of caring for other beings than ourselves, even for beings of another species than ourselves. Which I think is most clearly seen in ideas like "animal liberation", albeit taken to extremens.

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).

This is true. Absolutely, 100%, heart-breakingly, infuriatingly, shamefuly true. But again this is because of the modern practices of factory farming that threaten to destroy our bond with our domesticated animals, this "mutualism" that Michael Pollan speaks of. Rather, to dig deeper still, the name of the culprit is capitalism and it's the result of the extreme distortions that it causes to the very mechanisms that sustain life on the planet, themselves. That is where the shame and the crime and the horror come from: capitalilsm. And the sooner we realise the mess we're in because of this inhuman economy we have created, the better we'll all be. Unfortunately, before this happens, everything we have achieved as a civilisation and as a species will be destroyed.

Sorry for the rant.

adriand2• 5 years ago

No need to apologize, I appreciate the thoughtful (and passionate) reply.

To clarify one of my points: when I said the terms of the deal have changed I didn’t mean just for animals. The existence of plant-based alternatives for every type of animal product has also changed the terms for us. We no longer need domesticated animals, even if we maintain our agricultural ways.

I also agree with you about unfettered capitalism but I am not sold on the idea that the treatment of animals outside the capitalist system is a utopia. I have seen how animals are treated in developing nations (Cuba and Morocco come to mind) and it’s ugly: scrawny donkeys whipped by their masters. Live chickens bound to one another by their feet next to a heap of dead chickens in a market. Etc.

When it comes to the kindly attitude some farmers have, yes, I’ve seen this myself. My family still eats meat, I ensure we buy it from local farmers like that. I think many of these people feel sad about killing the animals when the day comes, but they justify it with rationale like, “well, there’s no way around it”, or, “that’s the natural order of things”, “people need to eat”, or whatever. But today, in 2021, those rationale are not accurate. There are ways around it, there are other options, and humans are no longer part of the natural order.

Thanks for engaging. ;)

m12k3• 5 years ago

Nature doesn't deal in morality, right or wrong. Nature deals in balance. A fox that kills all the rabbits one year will die of hunger the next. The question isn't whether the fox has a moral right to kill rabbits or not, the question is whether the fox maintains the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is part of. Act too unsustainably and break the balance by too much, and you disrupt the ecosystem, and your place within it.

What we need to do isn't to anthropomorphize animals and project our morality onto them. What we need to do is acknowledge our place in the ecosystem and start acting like an omnivore that knows how to maintain balance instead of taking a saw to the branch we're sitting on.

user-the-name2• 5 years ago

No.

We are unique in that we have the ability to develop morality. We will not throw that gift aside just because the rest of nature can not.

We can and we should judge our actions by our morality. And nature itself is not exempt from judgement by that morality. It is entirely valid to ask ourselves if nature itself is morally wrong.

It is not a stretch to make an argument that it is, in fact, not. Nature is built around massive, unending cruelty. Just because it has existed for a long time, or because we can out of that chaos, is no reason to accept it as a given.

anthony_d2• 5 years ago

We have the ability to develop _a_ morality. There are infinite possible variations.

Being human means we judge ourselves and others. You should expect to be judged as well.

If your sense of morality includes a sense of superiority or an entitlement to enforce your will on others, you can expect to be judged poorly.

yboris4• 5 years ago

Rubbish. By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".

m12k3• 5 years ago

Um, no. Humans do have morality, and can and should apply it to one another - and can expect and even demand the same in return from others. We can't do that with nature, and nature does not need or want that in return from us.

Humans are both animals, that need to fit into an ecosystem, and social creatures, that need to fit into a society. Both domains require rules for how we interact with and fit into them, but those rules are not the same.

tenebrisalietum• 5 years ago

Attention: Downvoting me? You should respond instead or at least additionally. I don't care if my points go to 0. Don't turn this place into a Reddit hivemind.

This appears to be your logic: It's OK if we destroy our planet with global warming and create conditions where a good percentage of humanity could be harmed because portions of humanity have previously created harm and exploited others throughout history.

This seems like "two wrongs make a right". The end result won't be a right.

cheese_goddess13• 5 years ago

Slaves were (are!) humans. Slavery has nothing to do with killing or not killing non-human animals, because it doesn't affect non-human animals, it affects other humans.

There is just no sensible comparison that can be drawn between what we do to other animals and what we do to other humans and once more I'm struck by the surrealism of the positions taken in this kind of conversation. It's as if the obvious has to be stated at every turn: non-human animals are not human. Humans are human. We live in a civilisation built by humans, for humans, that only makes any sense (in asmuch as it does) to humans, not to other animals and it makes no sense to try and treat non-human animals as humans, any more than it makes sense to try and treat humans as non-human animals.

sweetheart12• 5 years ago

Pollan has a tendency to talk himself into pretty weird conclusions, namely that because we can treat an animal well and give it a good life, killing it and consuming it before it naturally dies is somehow good. There is this made up notion that the animal is almost a sacrifice for us: in exchange for a peaceful safe life, it gives us its blood and flesh.

But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die. It can never agree to that trade. Killing an animal that does not want to die when we don’t need to do it to survive is always wrong, whether or not you gave it safe a life. I can’t raise my puppy up as a loving family member and then one day bludgeon it to death once I’m ready to consume (as is often done to pigs. See: “thumping”).

Pollan get so much right and the article is worth a read, but let’s be clear about two things: killing an animal that doesn’t want to die when we don’t need to do it to survive is always wrong, and ridding this planet of factory farms and replacing them with the idyllic farms he mentions towards the end still requires a MASSIVE cultural shift away from the amount of animal products we consume. We can’t meet current demand for animals products with those idyllic farms, so step one is massively reducing how many animals we consume. All vegans are saying is that we may as well shoot for as close to 0 as we can.

Asooka• 5 years ago

I don't see how you can string together such a consistent argument and still be so incredibly wrong. Killing animals for food is not wrong and never was. Killing for the love of killing is wrong, but killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree. You bring up a curious point about dogs - eating dogs is not usually practiced, though there are existing cultures who do it and we have records of past cultures who did it. Western society has decided that the dog is a beloved companion, but a person who did not grow up indoctrinated to think that way would have no qualms about eating one, save for the fact that you get a lot less meat out of one than what you put in, plus the fact it can probably serve you better alive. You can see a similar parallel in people's attitudes to eating rats - some may be revolted at eating such a dirty animal (similar to how some cultures feel about pigs), some would be aghast at eating a beloved pet (similar to how you feel about dogs), and some wouldn't really mind it.

At the end of the day, every living thing on this planet - every tree, every plant, every mushroom, every fish, every insect and every mammal dies and is eaten. I absolutely agree with you on the factory farms though - humanity should strive to not cause other creatures to suffer.

hypertele-Xii4• 5 years ago

At the end of the day, every living thing on this planet - every tree, every plant, every mushroom, every fish, every insect and every mammal dies and is eaten.

Except humans. Humans cremate their corpses.

While we might get into a debate about whether some forms of life somewhere on Earth technically consume your scattered ashes, it's quite the distance from hitting you on the head until you die and then chewing on your flesh.

haste410• 5 years ago

killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree.

I don't know how you can make this argument. Does an apple tree feel pain, fear, or loss when it or another apple is plucked?

LeifCarrotson• 5 years ago

As you state, plucking an apple for food is morally fine - few would disagree, and anyone who does is likely to get quite hungry quite quickly. Meanwhile, killing people for food is obviously wrong, yes? Morally abhorrent, in fact!

But there's a spectrum between those two extremes. To set a boundary, you need to determine the reasons why one is acceptable and the other is not. Maybe you intuitively draw the line right next to the apple, eating plant life only - no fish, crustaceans, shellfish - or maybe you draw the line adjacent to humans, contentedly eating tool-using, communicative, emotional, social, familial, intelligent gorillas without feeling guilt.

But what makes it abhorrent to eat a person, and acceptable to eat a plant? As Bentham wrote, Singer quoted, and the article cites, I would agree that it has something to do with the animal's capacity to suffer. One might add positive capacities for joy, or broader ecosystem health needs, or other questions of relative utility for the victim and the farmer, but the point remains: A pig is a remarkably human-like animal. Not as intelligent or as emotional as a human, perhaps, but it's far closer to a human than that shrink-wrapped package of hot dogs in the grocery aisle might lead you to believe.

What qualities does a human have that a pig or dog does not? What metrics can you use to measure those qualities, and how do you set a threshold for where it becomes moral or immoral? Identify those, and you'll have a much more solid argument for why killing a pig is moral.

jbotz4• 5 years ago

It's not so simple as all that.

We raise chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese completely free range. Our homestead doesn't really even have fence on all sides and most of it is virgin forest. All these sepecies can survive on their own in the forest here, although not in the same population density that they have on our homestead. We feed them, we take care of them when they are sick, and we provide some protection from predators... we also have dogs, and the dogs presence alone helps quite a bit with that. We also take some of their eggs, and sometimes we kill some of them. The birds know all of this, yet they stay, because life is better here than in the forest. Actually, some of the ducks (Moscovy ducks, they are fully native here) do leave, but they do so mostly when there are too many males and they end up fighting a lot.

The bottom line to me is this... we keep the birds for eggs and fertilizer (and because we like them), we really eat very little meat, but we have to manage the population. When we let it get too big they suffer more, there's more disease, more fighting, etc. In fact, sometimes when the population has gotten rather dense, there has been murder and infanticide among them! They can't solve the population problem non-violently on their own, but they do like the benefits of food and safety, so we have to solve the population problem for them. I'm not rationalizing, I love these animals and don't like killing them, and I have gone long stretches of time without eating any meat and don't mind that. But I kill them, because when the time comes it's the right thing to do, and after I kill some I eat them because that's also the right thing to do, not because I want to eat meat.

So you might say: well then don't keep animals! Maybe, but keeping them is the most ecological way to maintain the soil fertility around our homestead (poor tropical soils) and the food we can produce because of this reduces our overall ecological footprint. I think it's a win-win for us, the animals, and the planet.

sweetheart12• 5 years ago

You’re talking about justifying killing these animals to solve problems that are caused by farming the animals to begin with, which you even say yourself.

I can’t say anything about maintaining soil fertility because I know nothing about it, but what is about chickens that preserves the soil, and why can it only come from those chickens?

Something about nutrients in the soil I imagine, right?

cheese_goddess13• 5 years ago

But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die.

In what context does an animal die when it wants to die? When do animals want to die? And how would you know what an animal wants?

Btw, I remember your username. The last time I communicated with your account, a person behind it threatened me with violence:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27534682

I will give your account the benefit of the doubt that this will not be repeated.

sweetheart12• 5 years ago

You can’t even concede that animals don’t want to be slaughtered? You are consistently completely unwilling to admit anything in our discussions.

And no, my use of a common figure of speech is not a physical threat.

yboris4• 5 years ago

Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) is a must-read book. Almost 50 years since its publication, it's still relevant - provides a solid argument in favor of reducing one's meat consumption.

andersonbd1• 5 years ago

Try "The difference of man and the difference it makes", by Mortimer J. Adler

Slade1• 5 years ago

This is my opinion and it's definitely not steadfast set in stone: while I think people who don't consume meat are potentially more morally virtuous than omnivores, I don't think it is a moral obligation not to consume meat. I think there is much to be desired in terms of changes to mass farming practices, but the fundamentals of my beliefs are that we are not in the same moral and social contracts with animals as we are with other people. There are significantly different ramifications for squashing a bug, a dog, and a person (for example, but not as rationale). Is a pig, cow, chicken, or ANY given sentient creature able to comprehend and abide by the rules of morality we enforce on each other? Does a bear think about the moral ramifications of mailing a hiker? If a creature can demonstrate this an a willingness to abide by our morality, it should be brought into the fold of our social contracts and be given rights on par with humans. This doesn't mean it is morally justified to 'needlessly' kill or 'uncessesarily' reduce the well being of animals (what is needless or unnecessary are highly contextual and loose terms). Torturing of animals is a pretty clear example of something unnecessarily harmful and immoral without clear benefit. Ideally, animals unable to abide by moral codes are still granted certain minimal rights and protections, but are not privy to the set of rights and protections we grant each other.

cheese_goddess13• 5 years ago

You mean "mauling a hiker" right?

I agree with your comment and others have made that point: animals don't have any concept of rights, or wrongs, or duties, which can only be understood, and bestowed upon animals by humans. There are rights recognised to humans, like the right to own property or the right to vote in democratic societies, that animals would not be capable of exercising even if we granted them those rights and that alone makes absurd the idea of granting rights to animals modelled after the rights of humans. And even the basic rights, like the right to life, that it would make sense to grant animals, are not anything that animals themselves would be able to understand, or uphold, and they would immediately violate those rights by killing other animals, as cats will kill birds and small mammals without any consideration of their "rights" or any kinds of wrongs.

An Animal’s Place (2002)

Related Stories