Pollan

Michael Pollan made many interesting and persuasive points in his piece on the ethics of eating meat. His discussion really brought to light the question of how far one should go in the defense of animals and their rights. By comparing the excuses that some make defending the mistreatment of animals to the excuses that slaveowners made about keeping slaves, Pollan makes the reader stop and think about what is right and wrong, and makes his audience question some of the ideas they have always had about animals. I thought that his point about how the problem with eating animals lies in the practice, not the principle, was very interesting. His statement that the invisibility of killing operations allows the continued mistreatment of animals is a logical one, and the transparency of operations that he suggests might lead to more public support for humane animal treatment. Overall Pollan presents all sides of the argument clearly and succinctly, and his proposal is interesting. It is important, in my opinion, for people to be more informed about where their food comes from. As long as it continues to come from mysterious factories and impenetrable slaughterhouses, it will be difficult to get humans to empathize with animals' rights and the need for methods of raising and slaughter that enable animals to pursue their "characteristic forms of life."