The Omnivore's Dilemma - 5

In the final part of his book, Pollan takes a major right turn in his subject matter: he makes "The Perfect Meal," a completely natural meal made from foods that he himself gathered.  The first part of his book is industrial, focusing on the corn industry, the second part is pastoral, focusing on local farms and organic food industries, and this final part is a way to tie things together, a focus on personal eating.  To make this meal, Pollan decides that he needs to gather at least one type of food from every edible animal kingdom, plants, animals, and fungi.  Because of his inexperience with gathering, he is helped by several people.  For plants, he grows his own vegetables, which was probably his easiest feat.  For fungi, Pollan chooses the other side of the omnivore's dilemma and goes mushrooming with the intent to actually eat them this time.  For him, the mushroom gathering is slightly harder than the vegetable growing, because he has to walk through muddy areas early in the morning, and the mushrooms are well-camoflauged.  However, the most difficult part of the gathering for him is the meat.  With a couple other experienced hunters, Pollan goes on two pig-hunting expeditions.  The first time, he fails to shoot one, and the second time, he finally succeeds. Strangely enough, Pollan says, "The one emotion I expected to feel but did not, inexplicably, was remorse, or even ambivalence.  All that would come later, but now, I'm slightly embarrassed to admit, I felt absolutely terrific—unambiguously happy" (353).  It is rather interesting to hear that hunting, killing animals, can bring happiness to people.  Before talking about his hunt, though, Pollan goes in depth about the ethics of eating animals and his vegetarianism.

Pollan delves deep into both sides of the argument.  For the vegetarian argument, he refers to Peter Singer's book, titled Animal Liberation.  Pollan writes, "'Equality is a moral idea,' Singer points out, 'not an assertion of fact.'  The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of 'what they are like or what abilities they have.'  Fair enough; many philosophers have gone this far.  But few have then taken the next logical step.  'If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?' (307).  Essentially, this assertion says that equality does not exist in reality, and if humans can't dominate one another with their intelligence, then humans can't dominate animals with their intelligence.  Pollan also counters the "animals kill other animals too" argument by saying, "Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order?  Murder and rape are natural, too.  Besides, we can choose: Humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do" (310).  On the other side of the argument, he admits, "Meat eating helped make us what we are in a physical as well as a social sense.  Under the pressure of the hunt, anthropologists tell us, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the hearth where the spoils of the hunt were cooked and then apportioned, human culture first flourished.  This isn't to say we can't or shouldn't transcend our inheritance, only that it is or inheritance; whatever else may be gained by giving up meat, this much at least is lost" (314).  If we were to abandon meat-eating, the cultural, social, and physical benefits would be lost as well.  So, to eat meat or not to eat meat?

There is so much more that goes into animal-eating philosophy, but personally, I can't see myself living a life without meat, not just because I need the extra calories (because I'm skinny).  I was raised a meat eater, so whenever I see a simmering filet mignon, my mouth begins to water; I can't help it.  At one point, I stopped eating red meat for two weeks to see if I could really do it, and I failed miserably.  Even though the number of vegetarians in the world are rising today, I think that all humans will never evolve to live lives without meat.  I understand the vegetarian argument and I believe it's valid, though I could never be one.  However, what I don't understand are the people that are vegetarians because they don't want to support CAFOs.  If you don't want to support the industrial food industry, you can still eat meat! Just buy meat locally, where the animals are grass-fed and probably "happier."  Actually, that's what I do; my family owns a butchered half-cow.  Not only is it cheaper per pound than grocery store meat, but it is grass fed too.  Anyways...While people are beginning to understand vegetarians, I feel like the struggle between omnivores and vegetarians will never be resolved.

Overall, this book was an eye-opener.  It is incredibly educational and worth the read.  If you happen to be questioning the vegetarian argument, read this book!