Journal (# 5)
Journal # 5: Look over the first two sections of the Pollan reading and identify:
1 passage you agree with
1 passage you disagree with
1 passage that you are conflicted about
For EACH passage, write 3-4 sentences about why you A/D/C with the ideas and how this passage might be useful in a CONVERSATION about animal rights/suffering/morality/the pleasures of eating.
(30-45 min)
10 thoughts on “Journal (# 5)”
A passage I agreed with is when Joel Salatin and his family raised six different food animals. They raised chickens, pigs, cattle, rabbits, turkeys and sheep. I agreed with this because this family let there chicken live like chicken, along with the other animals they raised. These animals lived like animals should, out in nature and eating the right nutrients.
A passage I disagreed with was on page ten when they talked about tail-docking and break-clipping to get rid of stress in a pig or chicken. I would love to know how break-clipping is de stressing for a chicken, when a chicken is suppose to have a break and use it. Chickens are suppose to use their beaks for eating food, if a chicken does not have a break then they can’t eat. So they are starving the chickens in this areas. So the chickens do not have water, food or sunlight. Not okay.
A passage that I am conflicted with is on page ten when they talk about how “…the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint”. I am conflicted with his passage because I thought it was interesting that industrial animal farm(s) can have a glimpse of capitalism.
Kristen Harding
Journal 5
Passage that I have conflict with : Another statement that had me very interested was when the writer says, “ but humans differ from animals in morally significant ways…” Humans are still considered animals we are just our own species, and that to most other animals we have the same basics but we had evolved faster and adapted to the environment. Every animal has the same basic idea, hunt, eat, and reproduce. In a way every animal is the same but humans just evolved faster than most. I have conflict with this due to the fact that people think that humans are different than other animals. The only reason people think that we are different is due to the fact that we had evolved and learned more ways than others.
Passage that I agree with: : When the article states, “If we find suffering, we will recognize it without difficulty.” I find this very interesting because every animal and species is able to detect whether or not another is in distress or not. It is something interesting to think about because it is in basic nature for anyone to feel the distress. I agree with this because it is based on our basic make up. Personally when I see soemone or an animal suffering I want to help and I want to make sure that they are okay. So it is in our nature to make sure that people, things, or animals are okay and that they are not in tremendous amount of pain.
Passage that I disagree with: When the article says, “To think of demestication as a form of enslavement..” I find this interesting because the fact that people think that demesticating animals is a type of slavery is kind of crazy. Yes the animal business is cruel to the animals but it does not mean that we enslaved them. We had developed as the higher species and we did make new regulations for the food business so it is not as cruel but we did not enslave. I disagree with this this statement, but that is based on my personal opion. Most peole would say that we do ensalve them, but I think that its for a cuase because just think, animals who are raised for food dont go to waste, they are eaten or made into soemhting to be eaten. And im pretty sure that we did not eat slaves when we had slavery.
One passage that I agreed with was Joel Salatin when he raised six different food animals such as cattle, pigs, chickens, rabbits, turkey and sheep. They lived on 550 acres of grassland where they could live naturally. I agreed with this because the animals were bale to live in a great environment and were just put in one pen where they were force fed and weren’t happy and being able to get the right food.
A passage that I disagreed with was when they talked about how the American industrial animal farm is a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism looks like. They show this through animal suffering. They would clip off chickens beaks or tail-docking. I can’t think about the amount of pain that those animals feel because they don’t have anyway of communicating that it hurts like we do.
One passage that I am conflicted with is when they talk about Pain and suffering. Pollan says that animals even though they feel pain they seems to get over it quicker but how are we able to know that? I mean animals aren’t able to tell us how they feel because they can communicate with us how unbearable that pain is. No matter what animals and humans both feel pain but the only difference is language because one can express it but the other can’t
Journal 5
In this passage I agree with the concept that any animals that feels pain deserves moral consideration.However I disagree with the fact that Pollan explains how in everyday life the choice is between eating pork or eating tofu. The part that conflicts me is that we as humans can’t figure out how to justify eating animals. (Pg6 P5)
In this passage I agree with the concept that excluding the chimp from moral consideration because he’s not human is no different from excluding the slave because he’s not white. However, I disagree with the example I feel as though another example should have been used because at the end of the day humans are humans animals are animals. Also what conflicts me the most in this passage is when Pollan explains that animals exclusion is a form of racism. (Pg4 P3)
In this passage I agree with Scully when he says that God gave man dominion over animals, just show mercy. However I disagree with how every moving thing that lives shall be meat for us, there are somethings I think that shouldn’t be eating. What conflicts me the most is the people can’t understand that animals are unequal and powerless to us. There should be no equality to a certain extent because there animals. (Pg10 P1)
I agree with the first passage on page 11 when talking about Joel Salatin’s farm. Letting the animals be free, and not tortured. And do what they’re supposed to be doing, out in nature. What he’s doing is letting animals be animals and that is the healthiest thing for them.
A passage i disagree with is the fourth paragraph on page 10. When talking about the beak clipping and tail docking and things of that such. I don’t understand why the animals have to go through so much pain. Why can’t the farms just have more space or be able to separate the animals more? I feel there is a lot of things that could be done to avoid that and make the conditions at least a bit better.
A passage i am conflicted with is on page 10 as well. When talking about the farms. If a reason people want to stop eating animals is their conditions why don’t we make an effort to change the conditions. It is a business and it takes money for everything but that is a part of the business making the conditions better so more people will eat!
Alex Smyth:
One passage I agree with is the human idea of the, “Polyface farm.” To help create a mutualism relationship between human and animal. So that we don’t have to give up what we eat, while benefiting the animals by providing food. Also needs to be seen as a evolutionary, not political, development.
One passage I disagree with is vegetarianism as a an answer. Vegetarianism while may seem the best way to abolish the evil but, soon we will being going into plant rights. This is a whole new changing of our lifestyle which would take time and shame those who use to eat meat, like, “How Americans blame Germans for the Holocaust even when some didn’t know what was going on.
One passage I’m conflicted with is what the industrial businesses do to animals. while this seems unmoral, like tail-whipping and beak break, that is still in the best interest of the animal to avoid certain actions in order to protect them from each other. I’m not sure to side with the businesses or the animal activist group.
Page 12, passage 5: disagree
I disagree with this passage because it is inhumane to feed a cat unnatural supplements to replace actual meat that has real nutritional value. Even though animals kill one another they must do it to survive, humans don’t need to kill animals to survive. However, people see animals eating other animals in a bad way so, as the article says, people are training their animals how to survive without eating meat. Therefore, I disagree with feeding cats and other pets foods that don’t contain meat because there anatomy was build to depend on it.
Page 11, passage 2:
I agree with this passage because it talks about the Salatin’s family who own 550 acres where the family raises 6 different types of animals for food. People shouldn’t have to give up meat completely because some places, such as the Salatin’s family, treats their animals with respect and give them the best possible life on the farm before they kill them for their meat. When slaughterhouses kill animals in an inhumane way is when it is not okay.
Page 13, passage 2:
I am conflicted with this passage because in Tom Regan’s book, “The Case for Animal Rights” it says that because species do not have individuality then they cannot be seen to have rights like humans have. I am conflicted because all animals feel pain, and they all have feelings. Just because animals cannot communicate their issues to another species doesn’t mean they don’t exist. To not give an animal rights to its survival does not make sense.
Interesting in the first paragraph when they are explaining the differences between animals and humans and then immediately go right back to how they’re different.
On page 9 paragraph 2 they start getting into the processes of how the food is made to try to create a guilt and sympathy and gross factor to get the reader to feel bad and mean almost.
On page 10 paragraph 2 they starting bringing in politics and morals along with some reasoning in order to create the feeling that the morals have a big role in the way the animals are treated. Just like in the first pages we read when he’s comparing speciesism to racism.
Page 3, para 1: I agree with this paragraph about our loss of eye contact has affected our relationship with animals. I feel like some people feel disconnected from nature and animals from the lack of exposure to it, and may not consider the feelings of the animal. The loss the connection with animals allows these big companies to treat the animals wrongly, by putting them in tiny cages, cutting off chickens beaks, and trimming hogs tails. This can be helpful in a conversation about animals suffering because the more disconnected we are, the less we care about their suffering.
Page 10, para 4: I disagree with Polan putting this paragraph in because I feel like it doesn’t belong. I feel like some readers would stop there because personally I felt like I wanted to stop from all the facts and inside details about poultry and hog houses. The information before this paragraph was enough for him to introduce the better, more ethical way of farming to brighten up the mood a little more. It also sort of seems like he agrees with people switching the vegetarian, when the main idea of his argument is the opposite. This could ne helpful in a conversation about animal morality because if readers made the switch that could possibly help save a few animals lives.
Page 13, para 2: I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this paragraph because I don’t really agree with what he is saying. Singer’s idea is not to focus of preserving one animals life, but to allow all animals free will, including species. It easier to focus on an individual when determining what is wrong with our techniques on raising and slaughter our nation’s meats because to focus on an entire species would be overwhelming. I can understand though how he comes up with his idea, and I am not entirely sure I am right either. This could definitely be helpful in a conversation about animals right to be free and live their life how they do it.
9-14-18
Page 11: Paragraph 2
“What this means is that Salatin`s chickens live like chickens; his cows, like cows; pigs, pigs.” (Pollen 11)
I agree with this because Salatin lets his animals actually be animals. Yes they are on a farm and they are exactly free to roam everywhere but they are free. They have a system where they are fed properly and what they want. They aren’t trapped in cages sitting in their own feces but they have grass and space to stretch and not standing on top of each other.
Page 9-10: End of Paragraph 3 and Beginning of page 10
“ The U.S.D.A`s recommended the solution to the problem called “tail-docking””. (Pollen 9-10)
I disagree with this because this is just harming the pigs more. Also with the chickens beaks how is this helping anything they do. You want them to be less stressed and not harming each other but instead you take away something of their and cause them more pain. This whole method they want to use is so twisted because chicken won’t eat or pigs won’t eat because chickens eat through their mouths or beaks and now you just take that away. Then for pigs they could just become depressed or in so much pain that they just wouldn’t want to.
Page 8: Paragraph 4
“If we find suffering, we will recognize it without difficulty”. (Pollen 8)
I found this challenging because in ourselves as humans we don’t always see suffering. Sometimes it can be very well hidden. So when they say yes we see it and recognize it well what if you don’t see it. In a sentence earlier they that they do fail but does that mean they don’t suffer. No they could be suffering a lot but we end up putting it off because we don’t exactly see it. I just found this hard to understand because somethings that are so obvious we miss so easily. So what if an animal right in front of us is in so much pain but we ourselves just miss it. Does that mean that it just isn’t suffering?