I eat animals. A lot of them. I eat a lot of plant foods too, but I rarely eat a meal that does not contain meat, seafood, or eggs. And I eat animals on purpose – both for health reasons and ethical reasons. It’s part of my identity. It often seems that paleo is the anti-vegan. Not only do these two groups have opposite attitudes on eating animals (vegan: use no parts of the animal vs. paleo: use all parts of the animal), their tribal identities have polarized. So it may seem a little odd that I've been reading two vegan books: Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and Thrive: The Vegan Nutrition Guide by Brendan Brazier.
These two books address complementary concerns of veganism: Eating Animals focuses on ethical and environmental issues, while Thrive focuses on health and athletic performance. I could have chosen from a number of vegan books on these subjects. These are decent picks. Thrive is one of the most popular vegan diet books, written by a high performance vegan triathlete who owns a successful vegan food line. Eating Animals was written by a high-profile and gifted author who spent three years researching factory farming and interviewing some of the leading figures in ethical animal husbandry. Both books are commercial successes.
I will start with my review of Eating Animals, and will post my review of Thrive next.
Eating Animals
Eating Animals is about the stories we tell ourselves, the stories that define us. Foer gives the same title to both the first and last chapters: “Storytelling”. He knows that food choices are strongly driven by our sense of identity. And as a young man, he dabbled in vegetarianism precisely to gain a sense of identity:
"In high school I became a vegetarian more times than I can now remember, most often as an effort to claim some identity in a world of people whose identities seemed to come effortlessly. I wanted a slogan to distinguish my mom’s Volvo’s bumper, a bake sale cause to fill the self-conscious half hour of school break, an occasion to get closer to the breasts of activist women. (And I continued to think it was wrong to hurt animals.) Which isn’t to say that I refrained from eating meat. Only that I refrained in public. Privately, the pendulum swung." (7)
Foer downplays his youthful motivations, and writes that the birth of his son caused him to take issues of eating animals more seriously. His newborn adds a moral heft that his high school insecurities lack. He finishes “Storytelling” (the first one) with a moving story of his grandmother, a Jewish refugee in World War II. Fleeing Nazis, a Russian farmer offered her shelter and food. The food was pork, and though starving, she declined because she was kosher. Foer asks his grandmother why:
“He saved your life.”
“I didn’t eat it.”
“You didn’t eat it?”
“It was pork. I wouldn’t eat pork.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean why?”
“What, because it wasn’t kosher?”
“Of course.”
“But not even to save your life?”
“If nothing matters, there’s nothing to save.” (17)
Similarly, Foer ends the book with his grandmother’s poignant declaration: “If nothing matters, there’s nothing to save.” Between these bookends about storytelling and identity, Eating Animals is Foer’s quest to figure out what matters, and to tell a compelling story about it.
In the body of the work, Foer explores many of the familiar ethical arguments for not eating animals (Why not eat dogs? Many cultures do!). Moving beyond well-worn philosophical arguments of animal rights advocates, Foer vividly describes commercial fishing and factory farming, describes environmental consequences of the factory farm system, and considers the conundrum (to him) of ethical animal husbandry and ethical meat-eaters.
In closing, Foer considers the tradition of the Thanksgiving Turkey, our celebratory symbol of survival and harvest and food and being American. Foer challenges us to re-imagine our Thanksgiving tradition without the turkey. A tradition is, he suggests, a story we tell to ourselves about who we are, about our identity, about what matters. And ultimately, is that not what Thanksgiving is all about -- giving thanks for what matters?
Where we agree: factory farming
Foer is not the first to describe the abuses of the factory farm system, but he is a particularly vivid writer. It’s hard to read about factory farming and not conclude that we need to do better. “Do better” understates the case. The ethic of the hunter-gatherer, the ethic of the herder-farmer are lost in the mechanized, impersonal, and de-sensitizing factory. The world’s fishing methods are devastatingly effective (our wild fisheries are increasingly depleted) and wasteful (there’s a lot of by-catch that is thrown out).
Factory farming methods also have unintended health consequences, such as breeding super-bugs resistant to antibiotics. Filthy conditions, unnatural diets, stressed and sick animals, and the over-use of antibiotics create a paradise for pathogens. For example, e. coli thrives in the stomachs of cattle eating a grain-based diet, not in cattle eating grass, as nature intended. These conditions also increase the likelihood that pathogens will mutate in animals and jump to humans – the vector of disease taken by the most devastating influenza outbreaks. Of course, pathogens jumping species is likely to happen anytime humans are in close proximity to animals – it’s been happening since the beginning of animal domestication and husbandry 10,000+ years ago. But these factory farm conditions increase the odds of it happening, and the resulting death toll.
Where we disagree: stories are not solutions
Foer’s answer to factory farming is simple: stop eating animals. Perhaps a little too simple. Simplicity makes for a good story, and Foer is nothing if not emphatic about the value he places on the stories we tell ourselves. But there are a few moral plot twists that Foer left out:
- Foer never examines the implications of a vegetarian food system. What does it look like? Wheat, soy beans, and corn (all vegetarian staples), are being grown in vast industrial monocultures using fossil fuel fertilizers. These methods still have an enormous cost in animal life from giant threshers, pesticides, fertilizers, and destruction of habitat. A vegetarian world is no ethical or environmental paradise. Even if people stopped eating animals (though the global trend is to eat more animals, not fewer), you’d have a one-time reduction in the size of these monocultures. But you’re still left with industrial farming. Books like Meat: A Benign Extravagance by Simon Fairlie and The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth cast doubt on the pessimistic statistics that eco-vegans have been throwing around, nay-saying sustainable alternatives. So how do you actually create a more sustainable alternative? Foer not only fails to give a convincing answer – he doesn’t even ask the question. A good bet: it involves animals.
- Foer is dismissive of people who are trying to create a viable alternative to industrial farming. These are people like Mario Fantasma of Paradise Locker Meats, ethical ranchers like Bill and Nicolette Niman of Niman Ranch, and ethical foodies like Michael Pollan. Foer gives space to a PETA activist (he also gives space to ranchers) who views ethical meat-eaters as a threat:
“Saying that meat eating can be ethical sounds “nice” and “tolerant” only because most people like to be told that doing whatever they want to do is moral. It’s very popular, of course, when a vegetarian like Nicolette [Niman] gives meat eaters cover to forget the real moral challenge that meat presents.” (214)
By the end, you want to ask Foer if he thinks that someone like Michael Pollan has, on net, improved the food system and our country’s discourse on food. Because you’re not really sure. Michael Pollan! (Pollan is referenced on pages 55, 99, 113, 214, 227-228, 255).
- Foer thinks small numbers of vegetarians can make a difference, but small numbers of ethical meat-eaters can’t. On the one hand, he hammers ethical meat-eaters because right now ethical meat accounts for such an insubstantial portion of meat that gets eaten:
“We shouldn’t kid ourselves about the number of ethical eating options available to most of us. There isn’t enough nonfactory chicken produced in America to feed the population of State Island and not enough nonfactory pork to serve New York City, let along the country. Ethical meat is a promissory note, not a reality. Any ethical-meat advocate who is serious is going to be eating a lot of vegetarian fare.” (256-257)
In the same chapter, only five short pages later, he lauds the influence of solitary vegetarians:
“I realize that I’m coming dangerously close to suggesting that quaint notion that every person can make a difference…As anyone who has been a vegetarian for a number of years might tell you, the influence that this simple dietary choice has on what others around you eat can be surprising.” (261)
How does he pull off this switcheroo? He argues that ethical meat-eaters never exclusively eat ethically-sourced meat, and thus they still send money to factory farms. This argument reveals a lack of understanding of entrepreneurship. Ask any sustainable farmer which makes more of a difference to their success: your abstaining from sending money to gigantic agri-businesses (who are already rolling in dough and who make money off of vegetarians too), or your buying their products (even if you don't devote your entire meat budget to them). It's a no-brainer. Talk to any entrepreneur about the importance of getting those first dollars, breaking even, and getting to cash flow positive. It is more impactful by far to contribute some of your meat-eating budget to places that are doing it right than it is abstain from places that are doing it wrong. $100M lost to factory farms by vegetarians may be a tiny percentage loss to Tyson; can you imagine what percentage gain $100M would mean to the grass-fed beef industry? Ethical meat is not a promissory note, it is a wise investment.
And remember: the reality is that many animal rights advocates don't want any eating of animals, even if "ethically" done.
- Foer never addresses hunting. A strong ethical case can be made for deer hunting. If deer over-populate, then some deer will starve. And the deer that tend to die will be the youngest deer, which do not have the strength, height, or knowledge to identify food sources. So if you were to outlaw hunting, then you would reduce the number of deer who had a relatively quick death and increase the number of Bambi's who slowly starved to death out in the woods, out where nobody will ever see.
- Foer never examines other ways we use animals besides eating them. If Foer is as serious as he claims, why does he stop at food? What about leather, medical testing, or glue? My guess is that sticking to food makes for a simpler story. Food, after all, is more closely tied to things like identity – and disgust. I have to assume that Foer made a tactical decision to focus on food, leaving un-addressed some of the most complicated philosophical arguments around animal welfare and rights.
- Foer devotes little space to questions of health. He's clear that health is not his primary concern:
“I don’t think individual health is necessarily a reason to become vegetarian, but certainly if it were unhealthy to stop eating animals, that might be a reason not to be vegetarian. It would most certainly be a reason to feed my son animals.” (145)
Now Foer is a smart guy -- he's certainly heard people question the healthiness of a vegan diet, much less a vegan diet for newborns. This is going to sound harsh, and it is harsh, but I couldn't help but feel that Foer's motivation for the book -- the birth of his son -- was bit of a literary device to add moral weight to his manifesto. Here's why: whatever you believe about the health of a vegan diet, a book about eating animals in relation to the actual interests of a newborn would have spent more than 5 of 267 pages on the direct physical consequences of eating a vegan diet (143-148). Foer cites a position paper from the Amercian Dietetic Assocation:
“Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, and adolescence, and for athletes.” (144)
Of course, you have to wonder why a vegetarian diet needs to be “well-planned”. And particularly at times when the body is used most intensively (pregnancy, children, athletes). But health is not Foer's focus.
The message matters -- and the messenger matters too
- [X] Matters. Other reviewers have pointed out that Foer over-uses the phrase “X matters”. You encounter a lot of these passages, assertions that something matters, and that saying it makes it so.
"Feeding my child is not like feeding myself: it matters more. It matters because food matters (his physical health matters, the pleasure of eating matters), and because the stories that are served with food matter." (11)
“Food matters and animals matter and eating animals matters even more.” (264).
This would be a minor annoyance if it didn't feel emblematic of the book as a whole: Jonathan Safran Foer making assertions that will be self-evident to other people who are like Jonathan Safran Foer. I really don't want to say anything in this review that could be construed as ad hominem, but I feel like I have to address Foer's emphasis on identity and ask...
- Who is Jonathan Safran Foer? Well, for one, he grew up with no contact with animals or love of them:
"I spent the first twenty-six years of my life disliking animals. I thought of them as bothersome, dirty, unapproachably foreign, frighteningly unpredictable, and plain old unnecessary.” (21)
And this guy is going to teach us about animals? But wait, there's more...
"And then one day I became a person who loved dogs. I became a dog person." (21)
Oh, please. He saw a puppy while walking with his wife in Brooklyn, and took it home. And that's supposed to make you
Temple Grandin? Again, it feels like Foer is using his dog as literary device simply to say, "Look, I'm an animal person, really!" Then, from his long and deep understanding of animals, pets, and animal nature, Foer launches into a lecture on our moral hypocrisy when we don't eat our dogs. He even includes a Filipino recipe: "Stewed Dog, Wedding Style". Well, Mr. Foer, careful what you wish for --
we're already eating my little pony. Look, you don't need to try to prove that you're an "animal person" to criticize factory farming -- that just takes eyes that see.
This next part I don't know how to say any other way: Foer comes off as an arrogant and pretentious. This
review pretty much nails it:
Midway through the book, Foer visits Paradise Locker Meats, a rural Missouri slaughterhouse known for its "cleanliness, butchering expertise and sensitivity to animal welfare issues." The affable owner, Mario, offers a tour of the plant, which Foer inspects with barely suppressed disgust, noting the guts and organs, the "gloop." "It’s not just because I’m a city boy that I find this repulsive," Foer writes, though that is debatable. A skilled rural tradesman, Mario comes across as a man unaccustomed to being interviewed and answers highly pointed questions with meandering, unguarded stories that Foer subsequently picks apart with prosecutorial zeal. He is dissatisfied with Mario's offhand explanation of one animal’s agitated behavior ("That's just a pig thing") and his vague replies to burning questions such as "Do you like pigs?" He finds Mario's account of his gory work "nice, troubling, nonsensical." My thoughts about Foer's presentation of this visit: priggish, condescending, naive.
Unfortunately, Foer reinforces just about every urban-vegan-coastal-elite stereotype.
Stories versus reality
Eating Animals is a book about the stories we tell ourselves. The stories that give us our identity -- and in some very real sense, the stories that give us our humanity. Foer's core message -- that factory farming is often deeply inhumane -- is one that needs to be heard. Foer is the wrong messenger. His story, his identity is polarizing. He knows there is something wrong, but is already so distant from nature -- animal nature, human nature, mother nature -- that he cannot provide a positive vision for what a healthy and humane world actually looks like.
That task will fall to others.
Comments
Why attack Foer for being
Why attack Foer for being "dismissive of people who are trying to create a viable alternative to industrial farming" as if this is something that's actually happening? If you read the book, you'd know that the bulk of animal pollution, even with factory farming's massive carbon emmissions, comes not from the factories but the shear volumes of animals. Alternative farms do not solve this issue. In fact, NUMEROUS studies show that methane in grass fed cattle is higher, sometimes as much as 70% higher, than grain fed cattle. And methane itself is about 25x worse than carbon as a greenhouse gas.Here's a few of the studies for your perusal: http://news.discovery.com/earth/grass-fed-beef-grain.htmlhttp://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-p...
The discovery piece you
The discovery piece you linked to basically settled on the conclusion that the total environmental impact of factory farms is far worse. And that the grass-fed / corn-fed comparisons were incomplete.
Incomplete as to what was
Incomplete as to what was worse. It's a toss up, depending on perspective. It's not a viable solution to factory farming from an environmental standpoint.
Incomplete as to what was
Incomplete as to what was worse. It's a toss up, depending on perspective. It's not a viable solution to factory farming from an environmental standpoint.
I hate to break the news to
I hate to break the news to you but Jonathan Safran Foer is not a vegan, he's a vegtetarian. He says he still eats eggs and dairy products. So, this really isn't a "vegan book." Nor was it meant to be. It's more of a farm animal rights book in my opinion. If you want to read a REAL vegan book you should check out the "Food Revolution" by John Robbins.
Okay, Foer seems to use the
Okay, Foer seems to use the word interchangeably in his book and I read that he was a vegan in one of the reviews. Duly noted. By calling "Food Revolution" a REAL vegan book, what do you mean? That it is more explicitly against using animals in any fashion? You sound like you know the lay of the land better than I do.
Great review and great
Great review and great comments.I've been a vegetarian for nearly ten years, then luckily came across an article about Art DeVany and switched to paleo diet. I've always had problems with the digestion of the all the grains (brown rice, oat porridge, etc.). Eggs and milk products gave me stomach pain. I imagine my interestines in that time were like a beer brewing barrel.Having switched to paleo I feel much better and can eat lots of eggs again. I make sure that I only purchase organic and grass fed/grass finished.The funny thing is that a few years ago when I was talking to a raw food vegetarian friend he told me that this diet is the most natural, original one and that even the Roman soldiers would grind grains to make their porridge (what do you call it when it's not cooked? also porridge). I replied then that hunter/gatherers must have eaten meat . So when I came across that article it immediately made sense to me.Re your review: In it you mention the book "The Vegetarian Myth". I've wanted to look more deeply into the effects of different kinds of diets. However on amazon I read this convincing critical review:http://www.amazon.com/review/R3M4LC3USB5H3S/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASI...There seem to be a number of plain wrong information and also a lot of dubious references in that book.Unfortunately the reviewer hasn't found books on the subject she can recommend.Any suggestions?
Just noticed that your text
Just noticed that your text editor here apparently doesn't pass on line breaks. For better reading it would be helpful to get this fixed.
Thanks for the suggestion on
Thanks for the suggestion on the text editor -- it's on the list. And for the link to the criticism of the Vegetarian Myth...Meat: A Benign Extravagance is the more scholarly work.
Great site, very good
Great site, very good review. I found it to be respectful while in disagreement. Sadly, this is in short supply in this particular discussion, in my view. Perusing the paleo-ish web world, and this comment section, it is easy to spot a lot of condescention and overgeneralization that are not conducive to conversation. I am a former vegetarian (7 years) who has over the last three years has transitioned to near-paleo (doing a semi-strict 30 days now, and committed to listening to and understanding what my body really wants). I agree with nearly 100% of your review. Yet as I read the comment section, and many other vegan/vegetarian baiting comments elsewhere, I cringe. These comments aren't helpful, and usually they aren't true. Tribalism is alluring, though. To the charge that vegetarians are dogmatic: sure, some are. So are some paleos (but they're right)! I think, though, that is important to keep in mind that there are many more ex-vegetarians than vegetarians. Given this, it might be helpful to view vegetarianism as more of a developmental stage than as an absolute end state (for most, it isn't). And I think acknowledging, as you did, the points of agreement- is vitally important to conversation. Many can and will engage. Even during my vegetarian days I was open to respectful dialogue. It was respectful dialogue (and information) that convinced me to change my mind. Not only is it a stage, I think it is a fairly virtuous one, for most. There are lots of motivations, and I think you are spot on that for some the impulse comes from separating ourselves from the animal kingdom, failing toconnect withour animal nature, and anthropomorphising the non-human world. But for many, that isn't it. Many, like myself, were motivated soley by the ecological and moral disaster of factory farming, which is indefensible. From the beginning, I was opposed to this, not our natural carnivourous nature. It just did not seem to me that there was a viable alternative. I learned that there is, and I am joyfully now in the ranks of the omnivore. Vegetarianism puts this conversation forward. And that is good. It is also, in the big picture, incorrect- which you aptly point out. But if you are paleo, and unconcerned with the enviromental and moral concerns of meat production (only a teeny-tiny bit of meat is produced ethically in this country) you are doind it wrong, in my view. The idea that ethics matter in eating is important. Before I renounced vegetarianism, I was beginning to feel extremely trapped trying to balance health (my veg diet was relatively healthy in that I abstained from processed food, but it was hard and never reached optimal) and ethics (all these monocrop grains!). When I embraced meat, I realized I'd been trying to practise ethical eating with one metaphorical hand tied behind my back. It was possible, but much harder. I even eat some factory farmed meat now, which is, for me, a necessary evil. I simply can't afford 100% grass fed. About 60-75% of my meat is responsibly raised, which I know is building an alternative. The other stuff is the stuff I buy because I will no longer subvert my health to a puritanical sense of ethics. I got stuck. Many get stuck. But that might be a more helpful way to approach vegetarians- as individuals stuck in an important but incomplete developmental stage- than as a static, monolithic group. I share this in the hopes that it helps some understand the complexities of how a vegetarian might think, and to demonstrate that there are effective and ineffective ways of interacting with them. Some will not be open to discussion. And it is a free country, right? At some point, people can make whatever lifestyle choice they want.
John, I appreciate your
John, I appreciate your respectful tone and lack of snark. You are a fine writer. I always look forward to visiting your blog except the white on black is REALLY hard on the eyes. If you ever redesign your website, I hope you will think about changing this.Many thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent, and elegantly written posts.D-
Nate, thanks for sharing.
Nate, thanks for sharing. Vegans and paleos share two big beliefs: 1. moving away from factory farming for both health and ethical reasons. 2. moving away from processed foods. And those a pretty solid points of agreement. That said, there are always going to be people (paleo, vegan, whatever) who are not going to hear the other side, so I actually think it's good to have different identities available to arrive a better place on food. It's good that a big macho police officer can walk into a CrossFit gym, break some shit, and pick up his sustainably farmed grass-fed steer on the way out. Cause he ain't gonna go eat lentils at the yoga studio. That's why you'll hear me take pot shots at vegans every now and then. :) Anyhow, thanks again for sharing. And yes, at some point people can choose to live however the f*@& they want to live!
John-I hear you, and I
John-I hear you, and I generally agree. I am certain that the reason I tend to try to build bridges is that my wonderful, compassionate and beloved wife is still a vegetarian. This is hard. My three year old won't eat meat, despite that Emily and I have a truce on the issue- we offer but don't interfere. This is hard, although I have to say he is very healthy and developmentally advanced- as a vegetarian (a whole foods vegetarian). At this point, I make two dinners most nights. So I live this conflict every single day, and find the tribalism off-putting. Mostly I think it interferes with people listening in and finding what is right for their body and for their life. Plus, I'm trying to find my way into this larger community and find the hippie bashing obnoxious, because it perpetuates stereotypes that really aren't true. But I definitely and emphatically agree that finding ways to improve our food system via outreach to people who would otherwise not be listening. So I guess I'll have to tolerate the hippie bashing from all you f-ing meatheads;) Because this paleo stuff is pretty right-on. From a hippie perspective.
*Impish grin* As the son of
*Impish grin* As the son of Hippies and an 'end of the boom' baby boomer I resemble that remark. You make very good points Nate, however, I'll tell you what I've learned growing up in the 'Hippie' Community, no one Hippie Bashes like another Hippie. After all, we've got the insight to the subtle hypocracies that allow us to point fingers and declaim, "I'm more Hippie/Vegetarian/Holistic/(Insert your subset categorisation here) than thou. I always found that odd (once I copped to what was going on) because I had been raised to believe that we hippies didn't do that sort of thing and yet, there we were, pontificating and proscribing and being elitist and exclusive, in a word, delinieating our 'Tribe'. I found that people who were truly open minded and welcoming were the ones that I wanted to hang out with and that the ones who engaged in one-up-manship and 'superiority' games were the ones I wanted to avoid. I found this dynamic even worse in the Neo-Paganist movements that I fell in with.The problem is, sorting the wood from the trees as the saying goes. I've found that people are seldom paragons of virtue and that if someone has been attacked for their lifestyle or dietary choices they will reciprocate, sometimes unintentionally. From my own personal experience, I have had Vegans who are not interested in open minded discussion get outraged and vitriolic with me. However that is unsurprising as I have had the same reaction from anyone not interested in discourse among equals. I applaud your efforts to bring reason and equilibrium to the debate, and I encourage you, because I know how hard it can be. It is a long and hard task, but in the end I believe it is worth it.
John,Have you seen Jonathan
John,Have you seen Jonathan Safran Foer's talk on fora.tv? I haven't read the book but saw this.He's pretty much preaching to the choir here, but one vegetarian asks Foer why veg*ns don't support hunting, as he thought it was the most "natural" way to get food. Foer's reaction spoke volumes. You could tell he was disgusted by what this man said. He basically called hunters barbarians before writing off his question as irrelevant to the topic at hand.As a hunter myself, I have gotten into an argument with a veg-leaning friend once who thought that what I do is sub-human. I think the normal veg*n attitude towards hunting--especially in light of their typical acceptance of grass-fed, patured meat production--shows that it's less about meat coming from a happy animal that was able to live its life (game animals always win out over farmed ones here) and more about a fear of death and misunderstanding of those who see it, particularly since it's not a case of pure bloodlust on hunters's part.
Yeah, hunting is so far out
Yeah, hunting is so far out of his ken it's incomprehensible. Reminds me of that article in the NYT where that philosopher took veganism to its logical extension where we prevented carnivores in nature from preying on other animals
I've had much the same
I've had much the same experience, and am inclined to agree with you. Vegans really seem to be in profound denial of the realities of nature, predation, and what human beings are.
Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the review. Another book I don't have to read. The only problem I have with vegetarians and vegans is they have a close mind. Close mindedness is the reason people can't learn. A persons belief system can be changed but the individual has to do it. Someones belief system can't be changed from an outside source. Years ago when our country was started, it was ran by OPEN MINDED people. Today there are a hand full of open minded individuals. Because the close minded people far out weigh the open minded, society is forced to agree with the larger group of close minded people. This equals the downfall of society.
John, why oh why are you so
John, why oh why are you so obsessed with veganism? I think you secretly admire vegans P.S. Eating animals is not a "vegan" book and Foer isn't a vegan
All the paleo crowd are
All the paleo crowd are obsessed with vegans!
*Very Impish Grin* But of
*Very Impish Grin* But of course we are Denise. They're so TASTY! Toss 'em on the barbi, flip 'em over, a little salt, some greens and you've got a well rounded meal. *Feral Grin* And yes, I'm being naughty ; }
In the book, Foer uses the
In the book, Foer uses the words "vegetarian" and "vegan" interchangeably, and you never quite know what he means by either word. I'm quite sure that was his intent. I had read in one review (I believe the one I linked to) that he had come out as a vegan, and I knew that Natalie Portman described EA as the book that moved her from vegetarian to vegan. So that's why I described it as vegan.
Just wait until you see my review of Thrive, I think you'll like it.
Oh, and John, completely
Oh, and John, completely unrelated, but I've been meaning to link you to these guys for a while: http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/spear-hunti... Interested?
I'll take that as a
I'll take that as a rhetorical question because the odds of my not being interested in that are nil!
They have some videos:
They have some videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmd4_Xtw8DE The little doggy flak jackets on the pit bulls kill me.I'm in the process of recovering from a back injury, but am hoping to be able to get down there this year and take a stab at it. I already have the spear :).
This doens't look like my
This doens't look like my idea of hunting: They release the dogs.Dogs chase the boar and bring it to stand still.Guy comes with a long spear and stabs the boar.Doesn't seem to be much skill in it.
I have to concur, to me, Boar
I have to concur, to me, Boar Hunting involves personal danger, while I approve of the jackets for the dogs (seeing as what I know of Boar hunting involves the hunter wearing chain mail) this has all the hall marks of a Captive hunting operation aka Canned Hunt, done on a shooting or game ranch. While I understand that money can buy just about anything, as the grand son of an outdoors man and hunter I find that I have a problem with it. While on the one hand the animals are privately breed and therefore the 'hunter' is not despoiling crown land et cetera nor impinging on the wild life, I find the 'sanitised' aspect of this 'hunt' to be, well, to use an old cliché, unsportsmanlike. I am not advocating that there is some equality between hunter and prey, or that hunters should take unnecessary risks, (hence the chain mail) but in a controlled environment, one is not really hunting, it is like going to a camp ground to say that one has gone camping. Sure there may be a tent involved but it is not to my mind camping, it is a visit to a camp ground. There is no immersion in the totality of the wilderness. It is staged and therefore to my mind, inauthentic. This is only my opinion, and I realise that it does take a certain amount of chutzpah to kill an animal, even in a situation like this, however in this kind of a situation, it is to me, not Hunting.
Yeah, it's tricky what counts
Yeah, it's tricky what counts as sportsmanlike. Here's a list of technologies we use to be successful hunters: arrows, poisoned arrows, wood spears, steel spears, dogs, guns, horses, language, walls, nets, snares, memory. Some are sportsmanlike, some aren't. You know it when you see it.
All too true John, which was
All too true John, which was why I had some difficulty in writing my opinion. I know from personal experience that to just walk up and kill a creature is not easy. Especially when it is not a threat and can't harm you, the 'necessity' of self preservation is not there. Then again, in a situation like what I saw, putting the animal out of its misery is part of the equation. Again, from personal experience, being bitten by a dog isn't pleasant and from that experience I can presume that being savaged by one is a much worse one. However, this staged event is not what I would call hunting. The animal has no chance of escape. What I see in this video is a conflict of ethics. The boar is doomed from the outset. Nor, being raised in a safe environment, has it developed the skills to fend for itself against predators (to quote the Wizard of Oz "lions and tigers and bears") that its wild cousins will have faced on a daily basis. On the other hand, which is more ethical, to kill an animal that has been specifically raised to be killed or to run down some wild creature. Both will experience the terror and adrenaline rush associated with being hunted, one will have the chance to get away while the other will not, but then, there is the consideration that you may wound the wild one and it will still get away only to possibly die later on from either infection or blood loss. Then, as to your points about how we as humans have improved our abilities to hunt other animals is very salient. Stalking a boar in the wilderness or lying in wait for one and then pouncing on it bare handed is suicidal and frankly there are kinder ways for both you and the porker to come to that arrangement. For me, I guess the question comes down to, does the prey even stand a chance of escape. If not, then it is not hunting but a variation on trapping. Seeing as my grandfather was also a trapper, I can then only question how humane your trapping methods are. The longer the animal suffers the less humane the trap is, in my opinion.
All fair thoughts!
All fair thoughts!
I think that Foer misses one
I think that Foer misses one critical question; what are human beings? One thing that struck me about his book (and Singer's Animal Liberation, for that matter) is that they seem to not only anthorpomorphize animals but never seem to address the fact that we're animals. And once you look at us from an ecological perspective, or rather, look at humanity's evolutionary past in ecological perspective, veganism becomes every bit as hard to defend as factory farming, but for different reasons. Both are perversions, but one is just ecopsychologically immature as opposed to pathological...
I would say that small scale
I would say that small scale veganism is no more or less ecologically disastrous as following a palaeolithic diet would be, however I concur that when moved to the economies of scale that would be required for all of the world to adopt such a diet would be disastrous. Life in the high Arctic for one thing would either have to be abandoned or subsidised by expensive investments in petrochemicals just to transport the foods to sustain the current populations. The concomitant health issues associated with a radical dietary shift would also place a heavy strain on the health and welfare systems of circumpolar countries and the cultural genocide frankly is unconscionable.
I was thinking more in terms
I was thinking more in terms of ecological niches and roles rather than impact, but you are absolutely right.
Very nice review, John.
Very nice review, John.
Thanks, Stephan
Thanks, Stephan
Good review John. It's
Good review John. It's important for paleo eaters to take moral questions about meat-eating head on, and I'm glad to see you doing this. The cruelty to animals that occurs in many factory farms is unconscionable. We evolved as omnivorous animals, but we also evolved empathy, which allows us to feel for each other, and for non-human creatures as well. The paleo community is 100% behind taking chickens out of cages, feeding cows grass, letting pigs forage, not using antibiotics as a routine part of animal feed, growing vegetables without pesticides, and generally finding a way to farm and iive on this planet sustainably. We'll all (farm animals and people) be healthier and happier if we push these practices into the mainstream.
Amen
Amen
A very interesting and
A very interesting and insightful review, There are a few points I'd like to add; While I'm sure his grandmother may not have known it, Rabbinical law allows for the eating of non-kosher food if the alternative is starvation. Life, in Judaism, is paramount. Adherence to the law is secondary to survival. As I read this review and got a feeling for Mr. Foer's Urban Vegan cultural perspective I was reminded of a discussion I had with a vegan at a party once. He was pointedly pontificating on the moral and ethical superiority of his dietary choice when I looked down at his feet and noticing his shoes (a nice pair of ersatz leather loafers) and asked "I presume then, that those are not leather shoes?" he admitted that they were not, that they were in fact plastic. "Plastic?” I repeated and then asked. “Plastic is a petroleum by-product, I wonder how many ecosystems, not just animals, but ecosystems were endangered, damaged or destroyed to procure the petroleum to manufacture your shoes?” He was suddenly abashed to realise that he had never considered the implications of his purchases. I continued. “I suppose you could use canvas shoes, but canvas is made form cotton which often utilises vast amounts of water for irrigation, causing soil erosion and depletion et cetera.” Once more he was aghast at the unconsidered implications of his choices and I pointed out to him that all human activity impacts upon the environment and that to endeavour to do so ethically is commendable but that it must be holistic in approach to be above reproach. He never lectured me about Veganism again.Thank you
Thanks for making the point
Thanks for making the point on Rabbinical law. I didn't know the official stance on that, but I ALMOST got into those issues in my review. No one would EVER say that his grandmother was somehow less Jewish for accepting pork on the verge of starvation. In start contrast, in the middle of the book Foer lies and says he IS kosher to avoid eating pork offered to him by an ethical rancher. He could have just told the truth. But I felt like this was getting too personal and emotional to discuss in a review.
Great story on your vegan exchange. You're right.
really well written. great
really well written. great review.
You should do a post about
You should do a post about Cuba. I just saw this one video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_P... and it's about how Cuba went from using more fertilizer than the US, to being 80% organic because of simulated peak oil (from the fall of USSR). I wish it went into animal production more. There are a few scenes about chickens, but thats all. If Cuba can be 80% organic and feed its entire population, certainly we can.
Thanks for the link, I'll
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out
Thank you for your excellent
Thank you for your excellent review.I've been trying to read this book for the past year. I'm about halfway through but end up finding other books I'd rather read.Foer does an excellent job giving you an inside look into factory farming (why I continue to read it) - and you did an excellent job presenting a different solution.
A very well thought out
A very well thought out review!
It will be interesting to see the growing conflict between ”vegans” and “paleos” over the next few years… one that will likely become more vitriolic. I can only hope that there will be more civility between the camps. However, whereas one side sees their actions stem from evidence and history, the other has an uncompromising, fundamentalist view of life.
Given this situation, is there likely to be any meaningful discussion?
*If* paleo folks are serious
*If* paleo folks are serious about supporting an alternative to the factory farm system, I think most vegans and paleo folks will be on good terms. After all, we have two big things in common (in theory): moving away from factory farming for health and ethical reasons, and moving away from processed foods. But there are going to be a sliver of vegan / animal rights activists who will hate us no matter what. Like serious Paleo Antichrist shit.
"Unfortunately,
"Unfortunately, Foer reinforces just about every urban-vegan-coastal-elite stereotype."Well he did become a "famous author" for writing a "fictional" account of him traveling to his grandfather's village in the Ukraine. Has "Vegan American Jew Memoirs" been coined? Can we start now?
Excellent review. Very well
Excellent review. Very well written and logical and fair throughout. Just discovered your site and its in my regular daily bookmarks now. Great stuff.
Excellent review. Very well
Excellent review. Very well written and logical and fair throughout. Just discovered your site and its in my regular daily bookmarks now. Great stuff.
No matter how they frame it
No matter how they frame it , vegans cannot escape the fact that they are plant murderers.
I concur, The Arrogant worms
I concur, The Arrogant worms said it best: I've heard the screams of the vegetables, scream scream scream
Watching their skins being peeled, having their insides revealed
Grated and steamed with no mercy, burning off calories
How do you think that feels, bet it hurts really bad
Carrot juice constitutes murder, and that's a real crime
Greenhouses prisons for slaves, let my vegetables grow
It's time to stop all this gardening, it's dirty as hell
Let's call a spade a spade, it's a spade it's a spade it's a spade