Here's final post, & a link, that I hope won't be too late to catch barrylove & RipMike's eyes:
"How Michael Pollan ruined my life - Thinking about where our food is coming from"
Catherine Price, the San Francisco Chronicle, May 7, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRFIL0AK1.DTL
Michael Pollan's the author of a new book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma." The approach he takes is, I suspect, more or less in line with the one barrylove & RipMike would recommend for all vegans/vegetarians & perhaps even AR advocates as well. I haven't read the book myself so have no in-depth opinion to offer on it; all I know is what I've read in this article. Pollan doesn't tell people to stop eating meat; in fact he eats it himself. Rather, in the course he teaches & (apparently) in his book he tries to get people to see that what they eat is a "political choice" that can be "empowering" (these are words used in the article, written by one of his students) as it's a way for each consumer to take direct action with regard to how the world's food-production industries operate. Information is presented about factory farming, but also about issues ranging from genetic modification to the virtues of buying locally. "I'm not expecting to change everyone's diet," says Pollan. "I just want people to think about where their food comes from and ask themselves whether they're all right with that. That's all. In the book I don't really tell you what to eat."
Interestingly, the article's author describes (humorously) how all this new information increased her anxieties connected with food purchasing & eating, & even questions how "empowering" such an increase in anxiety can be said to be; this from one who voluntarily signed up for the course. One could easily imagine how somebody being exposed to such information without asking for it might respond defensively - resentfully. How much more defensive & resentful might that person then be when asked not only to consider a wide variety of issues connected with their food purchases, but to consider ("be made to feel," some might say) that they are behaving immorally because they're eating a "sentient being," & are responsible for that being's suffering & death. Does that push too hard too fast? That's the question I hear barrylove & RipMike (underneath all their guff) asking. OK - bearing the perspective offered by the article on Pollan in mind, it seems a legitimate enough question. I feel like I've talked enough; my position should be fairly clear by now: briefly put, it's that, imo, the lack of consideration currently given nonhuman animals is not satisfactory; my arguments for this are based in the AR ethos; & I feel strongly enough about nonhuman animals' right to live free of exploitation (to not be held as "property") to support PETA & like groups in their efforts, & to contribute to that effort on my own. Are they - we - too aggressive? . . . That's the question. More specifically, would it be a better tactic - for the animals - to go the route of Pollan? Simply present the information & let people make up their own minds? Is that what PETA's doing, or does their deeper pro-AR agenda make any pretense of just wanting to "expose" people to information regarding animal treatment a lie? Or, am I just becoming deeply, deeply confused? Enquiring minds want to know. . . .
"How Michael Pollan ruined my life - Thinking about where our food is coming from"
Catherine Price, the San Francisco Chronicle, May 7, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGRFIL0AK1.DTL
Michael Pollan's the author of a new book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma." The approach he takes is, I suspect, more or less in line with the one barrylove & RipMike would recommend for all vegans/vegetarians & perhaps even AR advocates as well. I haven't read the book myself so have no in-depth opinion to offer on it; all I know is what I've read in this article. Pollan doesn't tell people to stop eating meat; in fact he eats it himself. Rather, in the course he teaches & (apparently) in his book he tries to get people to see that what they eat is a "political choice" that can be "empowering" (these are words used in the article, written by one of his students) as it's a way for each consumer to take direct action with regard to how the world's food-production industries operate. Information is presented about factory farming, but also about issues ranging from genetic modification to the virtues of buying locally. "I'm not expecting to change everyone's diet," says Pollan. "I just want people to think about where their food comes from and ask themselves whether they're all right with that. That's all. In the book I don't really tell you what to eat."
Interestingly, the article's author describes (humorously) how all this new information increased her anxieties connected with food purchasing & eating, & even questions how "empowering" such an increase in anxiety can be said to be; this from one who voluntarily signed up for the course. One could easily imagine how somebody being exposed to such information without asking for it might respond defensively - resentfully. How much more defensive & resentful might that person then be when asked not only to consider a wide variety of issues connected with their food purchases, but to consider ("be made to feel," some might say) that they are behaving immorally because they're eating a "sentient being," & are responsible for that being's suffering & death. Does that push too hard too fast? That's the question I hear barrylove & RipMike (underneath all their guff) asking. OK - bearing the perspective offered by the article on Pollan in mind, it seems a legitimate enough question. I feel like I've talked enough; my position should be fairly clear by now: briefly put, it's that, imo, the lack of consideration currently given nonhuman animals is not satisfactory; my arguments for this are based in the AR ethos; & I feel strongly enough about nonhuman animals' right to live free of exploitation (to not be held as "property") to support PETA & like groups in their efforts, & to contribute to that effort on my own. Are they - we - too aggressive? . . . That's the question. More specifically, would it be a better tactic - for the animals - to go the route of Pollan? Simply present the information & let people make up their own minds? Is that what PETA's doing, or does their deeper pro-AR agenda make any pretense of just wanting to "expose" people to information regarding animal treatment a lie? Or, am I just becoming deeply, deeply confused? Enquiring minds want to know. . . .
