An Animal Place

Sept 21

Domestication is one of the many processes that Humanity have used to fuel its rise to top food chain. This multi-generational process of selective breeding yields an organism used to produce or accomplish some useful to the breeder. Humans began this process about 10,000 years ago with a variety of plant, animal, and, fungal species to the point where you can’t eat something without it having been domesticated.

Entire species have been molded to humanities whims and desires. In fact, there was an entire breed of dog once made to power turnspits called the “Turnespete”. As soon as better turnspits were introduced the breed when extinct. the relationship between humanity in the specific breed of dog is very much one to extract value. But then again just look at cows there one of the most numerous animals on the planet. They are so widespread and diversified that extinction for them is kind of unimaginable. A lot of these and will stand to gain quite a lot from human domestication.

But, of recently the relationship between humans and its domesticated animal husband called into question by many different groups of humans. This is a lead to a very large argument about the nature of these relationships in what they are. Some of his supports say it’s akin to slavery or genocide and another say that it’s natural order or a necessary part of life. Within this grand, and endless, debate enter Michael Pollan a journalist for the New York Times. The  man who wrote an article called Animal’s Place in 2002. In this article he explores the afar mentioned grand debate attempting to understand the position of a man called Peter Singer and his book Animal Liberation. Pollan position is ever so gently hinted at the begin of article “The first time I opened Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” I was dining alone at the Palm, trying to enjoy a rib-eye steak cooked medium-rare.” (Pollan 1) Pollan immediately establish what side of the argument he is on. It’s very short sentence but it really does help show the reader where he’s coming from.  Pollan goes on to describe Singer’s position in a very similar matter. “Singer and the swelling ranks of his followers ask us to imagine a future in which people will look back on my meal, and this steakhouse, as relics of an equally backward age.” (Pollan 1)To singer he sees the treatment of animals in our day and age as an issue of speciesism within our society. speciesism something on par with racism or anti-Semitism and that we should strive for the elimination of speciesist sentiments in our society.

Personally, I find this idea up a bit ridiculous as comfortable   extended rights to set cetacean, higher primates, members of crows, certain octopods, member of proboscidea, and, certain domesticated animals, but not arthropods, not anything with the shell pretty much. Despite the initial attitude that Pollan shows towards this idea he does do an in-depth on it. The next part of the essay is a series of questions by Pollan and the response is he found in Singer’s book. One consistent idea in the section is that Defining our relationship with animals and how it helps define our relationship with other humans. This relates to an idea that Pollan and brings up about the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. “Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosopher call the “argument from marginal cases.” It goes like this: there are humans – infants, the severely retarded, the demented – whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee”. (Pollan 4) This argument is meant to make us think about the ideas we hold about animals because if we define our relationship with animals we’ve also defined our relationship with disabled people within our society. Course have not, but it sets a moral standard. One thing I do have to say is that this article has changed the way I look at this issue. I’m not going to stop eating meat that’s just part of my diet, but it has given me a new defense which is its part of the deal. Also, the way that this whole speciesism idea works is that we’re supposed to treat animals differently because We can treat them differently. Even though if put in a room with a hungry grizzly bear, lion, or insert random predator here it would gladly eat things and I think it’s thought about it, but the moment I eat something let’s shark it’s speciesist act. Paradoxically the idea of speciesism is speciesist. It’s kind of fries the brain in a way. This is the problem I have with comparing animals to humans is that. A lot of animals are not driven by intelligence are driven by instinct. Given there are highly intelligent and are you capable of incredible things, but saying the chickens are like Auschwitz inmates is a bit too far for me.

Both Pollan and Singer bring up the raising of animal to if not widen they’re protectives, but to fortify there ideas.  Singer bring the horror show that is modern factory farm

Sept 19

Domestication is one of the many processes that Humanity have used to fuel its rise to top food chain. This multi-generational process of selective breeding yields an organism used to produce or accomplish some useful to the breeder. Humans began this process about 10,000 years ago with a variety of plant, animal, and, fungal species to the point where you can’t eat something without it having been domesticated.

Entire species have been molded to humanities whims and desires. In fact thare was an entire breed of dog once made to power turnspits called the “Turnespete”. As soon as better turnspits was introduced the breed when extinct. the relationship between humanity in the specific breed of dog is very much one to extract value. But then again just look at cows there one of the most numerous animal on the planet. They are so widespread and diversified that extinction  for them is kind of unimaginable. A lot of these and will stand to gain quite a lot from human domestication.

But, of recently the relationship between humans and its domesticated animal husband called into question by many different groups of humans. This is a lead to a very large argument about the nature of these relationships in what they are. Some say it’s akin to slavery or genocide and another say that it’s natural order or a necessary part of life. Within this grand, and endless, debate enter Michael Pollan a journalist for the New York Times. He is a man who wrote an article called Animal’s Place in 2002. In this article he explores the afar mentioned grand debate attempting to understand the position of a man called Peter Singer and his book Animal Liberation. Pollan position is ever so gently hinted at the begin of article “The first time I opened Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” I was dining alone at the Palm, trying to enjoy a rib-eye steak cooked medium-rare.” Pollan immediately establish what side of the argument he is on. It’s very short sentence but it really does help show the reader where he’s coming from. He goes on to describe Singer’s position in a very similar matter. “Singer and the swelling ranks of his followers ask us to imagine a future in which people will look back on my meal, and this steakhouse, as relics of an equally backward age.” To singer he sees the treatment of animals in our day and age as an issue of speciesism within our society. speciesism something on par with racism or anti-Semitism and that we should strive for the elimination of speciesist sentiments in our society.

Personally, I find this idea up a bit ridiculous as I’m willing to extend rights to set cetacean, higher primates, members of corvus, certain cephalopods, member of proboscidea, and, certain domesticated animals, but not arthropods, not anything with the shell pretty much. Despite the initial attitude that Pollan shows towards this idea he does do an in-depth on it. The next part of the essay is a series of questions by Pollan and the response is he found in Singer’s book. One consistent idea in the section is that Defining our relationship with animals and how it helps define our relationship with other humans. This relates to an idea that Pollan and brings up about the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. “Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosopher call the “argument from marginal cases.” It goes like this: there are humans – infants, the severely retarded, the demented – whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee”. This argument is meant to make us think about the ideas we hold about animals because if we define our relationship with animals we’ve also defined our relationship with disabled people within our society. Course have not, but it sets a moral standard. One thing I do have to say is that this article has changed the way I look at this issue. I’m not going to stop eating meat that’s just part of my diet, but it has given me a new defense which is its part of the deal. Also, the way that this whole speciesism idea works is that we’re supposed to treat animals differently because We can treat them differently. Even though if put in a room with a hungry grizzly bear, lion, or insert random predator here it would gladly eat things and I think it’s thought about it, but the moment I eat something let’s shark it’s speciesist act. Paradoxically the idea of speciesism is speciesist. It’s kind of fries the brain in a way. This is the problem I have with comparing animals to humans is that. A lot of animals are not driven by intelligence are driven by instinct. Given there are highly intelligent and are you capable of incredible things, but Say the chickens are like Auschwitz inmates he’s a bit too far for me.

 

Sept 12

Domestication is one of the many processes that Humanity have used to fuel its rise to the top food chain. This multi-generational process of selective breeding yields an organism used to produce or accomplish some useful to the breeder. Humans began this process about 10,000 years ago with a variety of plant, animal, and, fungal species to the point where you can’t eat something without it having been domesticated. As of recently, the relationship between humans and its domesticated animal Husband called into question by many different groups of humans. This is a lead to a very large argument about the nature of these relationships in what they are. Some say it’s akin to slavery or genocide and another says that it’s natural order or a necessary part of life. Within this grand, and endless, debate enter Michael Pollan a journalist for the New York Times. He is a man who wrote an article called Animal’s Place in 2002. In this article, he explores the afar mentioned grand debate attempting to understand the position of a man called Peter Singer and his book Animal Liberation. Pollan position is ever so gently hinted at the begin of the article “The first time I opened Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” I was dining alone at the Palm, trying to enjoy a rib-eye steak cooked medium-rare.” Pollan immediately establishes what side of the argument he is on. It’s a very short sentence but it really does help show the reader where he’s coming from. He goes on to describe Singer’s position in a very similar matter. “Singer and the swelling ranks of his followers ask us to imagine a future in which people will look back on my meal, and this steakhouse, as relics of an equally backward age.” To Singer, he sees the treatment of animals in our day and age as an issue of speciesism within our society. speciesism something on par with racism or anti-Semitism and that we should strive for the elimination of speciesist sentiments in our society. Personally, I find this idea up a bit ridiculous as I’m willing to extend rights to set cetacean, higher primates, members of corvus, certain cephalopods, member of proboscidea, and, certain domesticated animals, but not arthropods, not anything with the shell pretty much. Despite the initial attitude that Pollan shows towards this idea he does do an in-depth on it. The next part of the essay is a series of questions by Pollan and the response is he found in Singer’s book. One consistent idea in the section is that Defining our relationship with animals and how it helps define our relationship with other humans. This relates to an idea that Pollan and brings up about the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. “Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosopher call the “argument from marginal cases.” It goes like this: there are humans – infants, the severely retarded, the demented – whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee”. This argument is meant to make us think about the ideas we hold about animals because if we define our relationship with animals we’ve also defined our relationship with disabled people within our society. Course has not, but it sets a moral standard. One thing I do have to say is that this article has changed the way I look at this issue. I’m not going to stop eating meat that’s just part of my diet, but it has given me a new defence which is its part of the deal. Also, the way that this whole speciesism idea works is that we’re supposed to treat animals differently because We can treat them differently. Even though if put in a room with a hungry grizzly bear, lion, or insert random predator here it would gladly eat things and I think it’s thought about it, but the moment I eat something let’s shark its speciesist act. Paradoxically the idea of speciesism is speciesist. It’s kind of fries the brain in a way. This is the problem I have with comparing animals to humans is that. A lot of animals are not driven by intelligence are driven by instinct. Given there are highly intelligent and are you capable of incredible things, but Say the chickens are like Auschwitz inmates he’s a bit too far for me.