- ISBN13: 9780316069908
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
Jonathan Safran Foer spent much of his teenage and college years oscillating between omnivore and vegetarian. But on the brink of fatherhood-facing the prospect of having to make dietary choices on a child’s behalf-his casual questioning took on an urgency His quest for answers ultimately required him to visit factory farms in the middle of the night, dissect the emotional ingredients of meals from his childhood, and probe some of his most primal instincts about right and wrong. Brilliantly synthesizing philosophy, literature, science, memoir and his own detective work, Eating Animals explores the many fictions we use to justify our eating habits-from folklore to pop culture to family traditions and national myth-and how such tales can lull us into a brutal forgetting. Marked by Foer’s profound moral ferocity and unvarying generosity, as well as the vibrant style and creativity that made his previous books, Everything is Illuminated and Extremely Loud… More >>
Eating Animals
I purchased this book for my wife, but she is still reading her last book, so I thought I would try reading this in order to open my mind to other ideas. I couldn’t get past page 50….
See, the author says “This is not an argument against eating meat” when it clearly is.
The example that threw me over the edge is when he tried to have the reader try to imagine what it’s like for an egg laying chicken in an exceedingly small enclosure. This was a not so subtle attempt by the author of trying to project human emotion on to an animal that does not experience that feeling. Does anyone truly think a Chicken feels lonely or claustrophobic? How about a fish… think a fish gets lonely? Now I know from my own personal experience that some animals to have these complex emotions. Coming home to my dog I know in my heart he missed me. THAT DOES NOT MEAN A CHICKEN FEELS THOSE EMOTIONS AS WELL!
Also has anyone seen what it is like for a water buffalo in Africa when a group of lions take one out? I would imagine that being eaten alive must be an unpleasant experience. If we were to use the authors logic then we should stop all predatory animals from trying to commit genocide on there prey, but hat would be ludicrous wouldn’t it? We are predators, not prey, if we should be empathizing with other animals then it should be with other predators.
So considering I did not read the whole book I suppose my opinion is not as important as someone who read the whole book. It’s just the act of projecting complex human emotions on some animals I found so illogical… it’s like it broke my mind. I could not continue reading something from someone who held such beliefs.
First off, I didn’t read the book but I’ve read a lot about it. I tried to give it a neutral review. I whole heartedly think factory farming is awful and wish I could avoid it all costs. However vegetarianism/veganism didn’t help my health at all and I found that meat/animal protein profoundly helped me recover from various health issues.
Again, I know that factory farming is nasty and local farms are the way to go etc… I wish I could be a vegan, but when it comes to my health and well being vs the treatment of animals I choose MY health over a cow’s any day.
Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Safran Foer have made a living by choosing illiterates and children as the narrators of their commercial fiction. Such a writerly choice alleviates them of the responsibility of writing well. Now, in his most recent offering, EATING ANIMALS (2009), Mr. Foer writes in his own language for the first time in book form and still sounds very much like the rather dimwitted narrators of his novelistic fabrications.
Though it never fulfills its promise, EATING ANIMALS belongs to the genre of books that explore the ethics of meat-eating. Foer claims that his research into food production has been “enormous” [14] and “comprehensive” [12]. But from a philological point of view, EATING ANIMALS is the scholarly equivalent to animal compost. How can the male Foer legitimately write and publish a book on the ethics of carnivory without so much as even mentioning the names of Peter Singer and Charles Patterson? A peal of thundering silence drowns out these extremely loud and incredibly imposing references. On page 258, Foer eschews direct statement, but the point is clear: “It might sound naive to suggest that whether you order a chicken patty or a veggie burger is a profoundly important decision. Then again, it certainly would have sounded fantastic if in the 1950s you were told that where you sat in a restaurant or on a bus could begin to uproot racism.” Yes, human rights are equated with animal rights, EXACTLY the equation set forward by Peter Singer thirty-four years ago. It does seem parricidal that no reference to Singer or Patterson is made.
Even worse, Foer’s handling of sources is suspect. He name-drops Walter Benjamin, tells us what Benjamin allegedly said, and then neglects to give us the citation information in the endnotes (he is referring to, but does not cite Benjamin’s 1934 essay on Franz Kafka). He implies that Kafka felt “shame” while visiting a Berlin aquarium merely because Benjamin finds shame as a motif in Kafka’s LITERARY work. He quotes Derrida twice in the book and gives, first, an inapplicable commentary on Derrida’s argument, and, secondly, dispenses with commentary altogether. In his endnote to the Benjamin-Kafka-Derrida passage, Foer writes: “The discussion of Benjamin, Derrida, and Kafka in this section is indebted to conversations with religion professor and critical theorist Aaron Gross” [276]. This discussion, apparently, exonerates Foer of the necessity of reading Benjamin, Derrida, and Kafka himself — and of treating their works with care. I would never dream of suggesting that Foer should have expanded upon Schopenhauer’s groundbreaking critique of Kantian ethics and their exclusion of animality — that would be effrontery on my part.
The prose style is not merely bad — it is abusively, appallingly, annoyingly, and aggressively bad. Foer thinks that “to aggravate” means “to irritate,” that “incredibly” means “extremely,” that the plural of “food” is “foods,” and that “inedible” is a noun. “To aggravate” [etymologically, "to make graver"] should never be used to signify “to irritate” in published prose; “incredibly” properly means “unbelievably” and only means “extremely” in colloquial language; those who think that the plural of “food” can EVER be “foods” are semiliterate simpletons and debasers of the English language. I suppose that we should acquiesce to the mistaken idea that “human” is a noun.
Is it too much to ask the writer whose second novel was described by THE TIMES as “a work of genius” to pursue his research questions? And what ARE, precisely, his research questions? After an unhealthy serving of microwaved family anecdotes (always an easy and smarmy introduction), we get an inkling of what Foer’s point of departure might be, and it is all pretty familiar ground: “I simply wanted to know – for myself and my family – what meat IS. I wanted to know as concretely as possible. Where does it come from? How is it produced? How are animals treated, and to what extent does that matter? What are the economic, social, and environmental effects of eating animals?” [12]. Well, what we get instead are heaps of digitalized information cut and pasted from the internet and fictionalized first-person narratives written from the perspective of animal-rights activists and factory farmers, the kind of “I-am-my-own-Greek-chorus” meta-fiction one often encounters when teaching first-year composition at a university. Excise the persona poetry, and you have a pamphlet.
It is only at the book’s premature climax that we come by something resembling a thesis. Foer endorses “eating with care.” Despite what he says, Foer does not “argue” for this position. Nor does he even explain it. He simply advocates what seems a fairly anodyne stance. He advocates vegetarianism and “another, wiser animal agriculture” and “more honorable omnivory” [244], without telling us what either of these last mentioned things might be.
There is nothing revolutionary or special about vegetarianism or hoping that animals will be treated without cruelty. Vegetarianism is surely good for animals, but does it make of the vegetarian a majestic figure? If this book is distinctive at all, it is merely because of the prefabricated consensus that surrounds it and the writer’s desperate efforts to persuade everyone that he is holier than the rest of us. One is reminded, in particular, of an anecdote that Foer tells of two friends who are hungry for hamburgers or “burgers,” as Foer calls them. One man gives into the hamburger impulse; the other refuses to do so, for “there are things more important to him than what he is in the mood for at any given moment” [74; note the masculine pronoun]. In the end, EATING ANIMALS is an auto-hagiography, the memoir of a sacrificer of hamburgers who becomes holy by refusing to give into his carnivorous impulses, the story of one man’s relationship to his own viscera.
Dr. Joseph Suglia
This book is full of untruths. How about some true facts about animal agriculture from a third generation dairy farmer:
Agriculture’s carbon footprint: Agriculture is responsible for 6% of the greenhouse gas produced in the U.S. Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas attributing about 65% of greenhouse gas in the U.S. Source: Illinois Ag Extension 2008
Antibiotics: Dairy cattle are never feed antibiotics. If a cow is sick and requires treatment, it is placed in the “hospital pen” and treated. During this treatment, the milk from that cow must be discarded. Every single tank load of milk produced in the U.S. is tested for antibiotics and if trace amounts are found, that entire tank of milk is dumped and never processed for human consumption. If dairymen feed antibiotics to their animals, they wouldn’t be able to sell milk from their farm.
Cattle nutrition: Dairymen work with a nutritionist to formulate a balanced ration for their cattle. A common ration would include corn, soybean meal, grain, hay, cottonseed, almond hulls, citrus pulp and other ingredients depending on what part of the country you live in. Cattle always have free-choice, fresh water available.
Housing: Modern farms house animals in clean, comfortable, temperature controlled barns. Modern barns have lots of natural light, good air-flow and are bedded with fresh materials such as sand or sawdust. There is much research available about constructing barns for optimal animal comfort. The goal is providing a comfortable environment for the animals.
Manure: Animals produce manure and there are lots of rules about how this manure must be stored, handled and land-applied. Manure lagoons must be designed by professional engineers to meet specs that are put in place to insure against groundwater pollution. Manure is a great natural fertilizer and is land-applied following guidelines to make sure no runoff pollutes waterways.
Farmers and dairymen are the original environmentalists, conservationists and animal welfare advocates. We care about our land, animals and sustainability. To us, these ideas are not passing trends or the “causes of the moment”. They represent the principles people in agriculture have followed to operate their businesses for generations.
If you want to learn the reality of animal agriculture, talk with a farmer or visit a farm.
There is no doubt that factory farming practices are inhumane and dangerous to environmental as well as human health. The issue of food is not merely an ideological problem though, as Foer imagines it, even if it is seductive to become righteous about it in that way. Biology is, for better or worse, stronger than ideology in the long run (dead in the name of an ideal is still dead, not to mention that it represents an ideological extremism that we really should learn to become more critical about, as it’s done, historically, and continues to do, so much damage to humanity).
I was a vegetarian for years and now have spent years repairing the damage I did to my body because of it. The best ethical solution isn’t righteousness, but balance. People tend to become very passionate when their thinking is locked in extremes, but in fact the issue of healthy eating and healthy ethics is about balancing priorities in a way that doesn’t sacrifice the organism (including the human organism) at the alter of an ideal, whether pro- or anti- animal-eating. The human organism evolved in and through or at least alongside eating animals, and for better or worse our bodies have evolved to require them to function properly and optimally. I realize it’s difficult and painful for some people to face this fact, it was very difficult for me, until my health demanded that I begin to take off the ideological, and far too idealistic, glasses I was wearing.
Studying and applying holistic nutrition was a wake up call for me. The reductive model of nutrition that vegetarians use to defend and justify their ideals just doesn’t hold up (especially in practice as opposed to theory) to the scope and complexity of holistic nutrition. Reductive nutrition is similar to the seemingly logical and practical, and yet ultimately reductive, “science” of factory farming. Weston Price and Francis Pottenger are the historical founders of a holistic view of nutrition, and I highly encourage anyone interested in health to look into their groundbreaking work (plenty of contemporary holistically-minded nutritionists follow in their path, too). Their interest was not to search out the origins of disease, but to search out the origins of health on a global scale, and the answer, they found, was a holistic nutrition that they discovered depended on a variety of animal meats and products.
A truly balanced and healthy (nutritionally, ecologically and ethically) view would eliminate traditional factory farming (which exists only for profit, not health), and implement ways we can take care of our nutritional and ethical needs together. We don’t need to eat massive quantities of meat to be healthy, and the moderate amounts that health requires should be grass-fed/pasture-raised/healthy-ocean-raised. If there are simply too many people in the world to allow for that, the issue of over-population as a problem and unsustainable health-risk needs more serious attention.
Extremism, especially ideological extremism, is seductive, but it’s a dangerous solution. History and our present global political situation make that very clear. It’s a form of thinking and reasoning that is problematic even when it comes to “eating animals.”