Recommended to d4 by: Jonathan Safran Foer's previous writing. Shelves: read-in , reviewed , favorites. This isn't as much of a review of Jonathan Safran Foer's latest book as it is a reaction to it--a reaction to the reactions of others, even. The title of this book garners a reaction from people who haven't read it and who may never read it.
Just carry Eating Animals around for a few days and you'll understand. There's an assumption that a book about eating animals is going to tell you that it is in some way wrong to eat animals--whether for the welfare of animals or for your own welfare--and mo This isn't as much of a review of Jonathan Safran Foer's latest book as it is a reaction to it--a reaction to the reactions of others, even.
There's an assumption that a book about eating animals is going to tell you that it is in some way wrong to eat animals--whether for the welfare of animals or for your own welfare--and most people "don't want to hear it.
We have that general feeling and we don't want the specifics. We don't want to face being held accountable for what we know. We don't want to think about eating animals. Why not? If there's no shame in it, then why is there such an aversion created by the title alone? I say "we" because I'm guilty of the same, and it took this book to make me realize it. It took seeing how the people around me wanted nothing to do with a book that might challenge their eating habits.
Allow me to explain with a little bit of backstory here, which is irrelevant to the book itself, but entirely relevant to my reading of the book: I've been a vegetarian for close to five years. I've had a moral qualm about eating animals since I first made the connection between the meat on my plate and the animals in my backyard. I grew up on a farm. There were cows and they had much happier lives than most do these days, though I never saw what end they met once my parents sold them.
Why then did I only become vegetarian at the age of eighteen? I mean, obviously, I pieced together that burgers were made from cows long before then; I wasn't that slow of a child.
My various attempts to give up meat failed. I'm not sure why. The obvious answer would be that I had weak willpower, but I think that's a cop out.
When vegetarianism did stick, I didn't feel any more self-empowered. In fact, the attempt that succeeded started as a fluke. I had no intention of seeing it through. When the month was over, I didn't want to eat animals anymore. No craving for meat was strong enough to compensate for the amount of suffering inflicted on animals. What can I say? I'm a bleeding heart, a pussy, whatever. I surrounded myself with literature and images of slaughterhouses long enough to fend off the desire for flesh.
The desire disappeared and I felt better. I felt better because I was eating better fresh fruit and veggies was a vast improvement over my childhood diet of Hardees and Mountain Dew. I felt better once the nagging guilt the conflict between my beliefs and my actions caused was no longer.
Or so I thought. The truth is that over the years I became lax in my beliefs. Not eating animals became more habit and preference than moral conviction. People wore down my enthusiasm. Oh, the enthusiasm was there to begin with! There's nothing more exciting and refreshing than newfound vegetarianism! I felt better and I wanted other people to feel better, too.
I thought I could help initiate that. I thought that I could lead by example--I wouldn't push my opinions down anyone's throat, of course, because I didn't want to be uppity about it. It doesn't work that way, or at least it didn't for me in rural North Carolina--in the county supporting the largest Smithfield slaughterhouse in the world, to be exact.
People were interested, but only for the sake of arguing. Foer obviously experienced the same, writing: "I can't count the times that upon telling someone I am vegetarian, he or she responded by pointing out an inconsistency in my lifestyle or trying to find a flaw in an argument I never made.
I have often felt that my vegetarianism matters more to such people than it does to me. To be perfectly blunt, I stopped giving a fuck. I decided to be a vegetarian, not explain my reasons to others, and to stop giving a fuck what others thought about it.
When someone asked me why I didn't eat meat, my responses ranged from "I don't like being overwhelmed by choices" to "I was raped by a butcher. These people aren't that clever to begin with, so they usually don't bother if they have to compete with another's nonchalance. My initial reason for not considering becoming vegan was the difficulty. I felt it was a big enough change to quit cold turkey cold turkey.
Yeah, I know, there's no excuse for my sense of humor. Over the years I should have made the necessary steps to eliminate eggs and dairy from my diet. I have no excuse for that either. I knew neither were essential to my nutrition or well being--that it was just a matter of putting forth more effort. In the back of my mind I knew, too, that my inaction was supporting animal cruelty towards laying hens, as well as indirectly promoting the veal industry.
That nagging guilt was still there, but I pushed it aside. I realized this past week that I can no longer do this. It is no longer acceptable. In fact, it never was. Nothing changed. I was hardly beginning the book when I started to suspect that I was on the brink of a life-altering decision. Was Foer so persuasive that he alone managed to turn me vegan within the first few chapters? It wasn't even the news that Natalie Portman turned vegan after reading Eating Animals , either.
I am ashamed to be part of a system that is inexcusable. In the case of animal slaughter, to throw your hands in the air is to wrap your fingers around a knife handle. Not much. Just read it. Throw your assumptions away, quit looking for someone else to tell you what to expect, and just read with an open mind, and a willingness not only to accept what feels right, but to take the actions necessary so that you may be at peace with yourself. Ideally, he'll read it and never eat another bite of meat again; just as ideally, when I handed my copy of the book to my mother a few hours ago and asked her to please do me a favor and read it, she would have done so in earnest, in an attempt to understand her daughter's lifestyle, instead of putting it down after a few pages and resuming her crossword puzzle, which although not ideal, was what actually happened.
I can't allow myself to expect much to come of it, because there's enough disappointment in life as it is, but I am grateful for this much: that he cares enough about me to read what he would otherwise rather turn away from. We broke up, for reasons unrelated to diet. But if you know any cute, single, straight, literate, vegan boys, send 'em my way. If they do, in fact, exist. If there were any point to it, I'd also amend the previous update to exclude the word "straight" and change "boys" to "men" not the band because it's creepy when grown men want girls, so vice versa?
There's no point though, because I'm not looking. I'm no longer single. We're dating again. Everyone advises against dating an ex, but everyone can go fuck themselves. I'd like to think compassion is about second chances.
For whatever more-complicated-than-that reasons, I've decided to give it a second go. He recently read the book. Kudos, right? Everything in its own time, or something.
He's been vegetarian since, but I announce that tentatively, because obviously, things change: you can see that in just the span of updates to this not-a-review review. I'm happy right now. I'm hopeful. I finally realized I can't change the people I love. I can't shake them until they see what I see if they don't want to look, but I can tell my truth and maybe, just maybe, it will reach someone willing to take off the blinders. View all 63 comments. Oct 10, brian rated it really liked it.
View all comments. Aug 22, Ruby Granger rated it it was amazing. I don't think I've ever read something so important. Starting from a neutral standpoint on the matter, Safran Foer answers the question of whether he and his family should eat meat.
Approaching the subject as a journalist, he includes interviews with family-run farms, activists and slaughterhouse workers. He includes different perspectives and arguments which is great! I knew the situation was bad, but I didn't know how bad. Education is always important -- and this book is education of the highest form.
I would encourage you to read this so that you can make informed decisions. View all 5 comments. Nov 04, JSou rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction.
I am not a vegetarian. Honestly, I've never even tried to be a vegetarian at any point in my life. I love steak. I love bacon.
I love sushi. I could go on, but you get the idea. Foer addresses this in the book about how people just don't want to think about how their meat ends up ready for them to purchase, and that's surely the case with me. I have no issues picking up the value-pack of chicken breasts, yet I can't go to Red Lobster anymore since I feel so bad for those damn lobsters on display.
I've always assumed operations in a slaughterhouse wouldn't exactly be pleasant, but again, I willingly ignored to really think about what goes on there. One of the main points Foer brings up in this is factory-farming. Corporations have taken over the aspect of farming, and of course done everything they can think of just to make it as profitable as possible.
The majority of all meat in this country comes from this type of farming now, and there is only a very small percentage of actual farmers left.
How these animals are treated throughout their short lives in these factory-farms is sickening. I don't think anyone who reads this book will be able to ignore these issues anymore. I know I'm not able to. This book really opened my eyes not only to the ethical standpoint of eating animals, but also to the health-related issues.
The conditions at these factory-farms are vile. There is no way I can feed my kids this kind of meat knowing the shit yes, actual shit it's been through. He talks with ranchers who are still trying as best they can to hold onto the old way of farming, members of PETA, and vegans who are trying to construct more humane slaughterhouses. The book never felt one-sided or that it was attacking people who eat meat.
It did inspire me to make a drastic change though, and I think anyone who reads this would feel the same. View all 48 comments. Feb 26, Sean Barrs rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: meat eaters.
Shelves: nature-ecology-enviroment , veganism-and-vegetarianism , 5-star-reads. Should we stop eating animals? To my mind the answer to this question is very plain and very straightforward; it does not require much thought or calculation: the answer is, of course, yes.
We should stop. We should have stopped a long time ago, but it is very difficult for an entire population to break a habit that is centuries in the making. A habit, though, is not justification enough for eating animals. There can be no justification. Truth is, the animal agriculture industry is the single la Should we stop eating animals?
Truth is, the animal agriculture industry is the single largest contributor towards climate change. Simply put, our diets are destroying the planet.
The amazon rain-forest is being reaped to clear land to grow crops to feed to the animals we harvest for food. A much more sustainable practice would be to eat the crops ourselves; it would be a drastic reduction in the amount of land needed to feed us. Veganism is the answer to climate change. So many climate protesters and influencers lobby governments and local councils to take action on what is now being called the climate crisis, but the single biggest action we can take as individuals is to go plant based and to no longer partake in the industries that are ruining our planet.
We need to take moral responsibility. We need to stop pointing fingers. We need to wake up. We need to change.
And we need to do it right now. Environmental reasoning is one case this book discusses at length. Ethics and compassion are another. Ethically speaking, killing is morally wrong. We live in a world where there are so many viable alternatives to animal products. If we can avoid causing suffering through our food choices, then we should at every opportunity.
Then there is the entire health side of the debate. I am not going to discuss this at length here, but instead point you in the direction of a wonderful book that could change your life How Not to Die. The most effective element of this book is its openness. It is non-threatening, and it provides succinct discussions on why we should stop eating animals. It wants you to think. It wants you to question. It wants you to consider the ramifications of your choices.
And so do I. View all 34 comments. Nov 14, Mario the lone bookwolf rated it it was amazing Shelves: foer-jonathan-safran , 0-environmentalism , 0-social-criticism. Enjoying a good meal sounds so much better than livelong torturing and killing when fat enough.
Please note that parts of this review are unusually short, collected speech notes. Could be offending to some bigoted unknowing victims of cognitive bias too. Go look a pig, chicken, or cow in the eye while eating your freaking bacon, chicken nuggets, or steak. The adverse effects are not limited to martyred animals and sick consumers, because before that is the exploitation and destruction of vast are Enjoying a good meal sounds so much better than livelong torturing and killing when fat enough.
The adverse effects are not limited to martyred animals and sick consumers, because before that is the exploitation and destruction of vast areas of land for animal feed and environmental damage. The contributions to global warming are manifold. The destroyed forests can no longer fulfill their task in the climate cycle.
The methane emissions of livestock are considerable. Transport over the oceans causes immense CO2 emissions. The logistics, industrial processing, distribution, and operation of the meat departments in the retail chains cost tens of billions.
The agony of the animals. Be it the mercifully selected male chicks killed just after hatching, which are unsuitable for laying batteries. The castration of the piglets without anesthesia soon after birth. The narrowness. The cannibalism among the animals. Turkeys can no longer walk properly and permanently tilt forward because they are bred for maximum meat yield.
The feces in multi-level laying batteries rain down. Calves are immobilized by being tied down to give the meat the desired consistency. Darning geese are forcibly fed with corn under high pressure. The beak tips of the chickens are cut off so that they do not pick each other in the narrowest space. One needs tons of medication and antibiotics, because the animals hurt each other and get wounds from the sharp and hard environment. Sweeteners, flavor enhancers, hormones, and all kinds of other chemicals are mixed into the feed to increase efficiency.
One has to keep in mind that everything is subordinated to the increase in profits. If one cubic centimeter of stable space can be saved or the lining can be pimped with some chemicals, that will be done too. Once the meat has been consumed for decades, the health costs for the community are added, just as with other, pathogenic habits such as sugar addiction, smoking, and various other substances.
The ensuing incapacity to work, early retirement, disability, and long-suffering go at the expense of the general public and the relatives of the incorrigible carnivores. The areas around industrial livestock farms are highly hazardous for health because contamination cannot be avoided. Either via the water or the contaminated dust, germs get into the environment. Moreover, as in hospitals, the messengers of the post-antibiotic age slumber here.
If a pathogen manages to make the transition to humans in such large farms, it has resistance against most conventional defensive measures up its sleeves. As already demonstrated with swine flu and bird flu, not much is missing to compose the perfect disaster. And as long as the pharmaceutical companies shy away from the costly development of new antibiotics, as long as the old ones still work reasonably well, no savior can be expected.
It looks bigoted and mentally ill. In one country, the animals are eaten and in another used as a substitute for social contacts and treated as friends. While no expenses are spared for the pets, the purchaser of meat in the supermarket just looks at the price.
Expensive beef? An impudence! Cat food for a higher rate than human food? No problem. Which increases the pressure on the meat producers to still produce cheaper at the expense of the animals. In one state or culture, pet owners sit with their favorite pets and eat different animals together. In other countries, the relationship is reversed.
No, not that the animals eat humans. Feeding the domestic pig with cat and dog in aspic with pasta in a tomato sauce seems bizarre. However, there is no difference and, strangely enough, such a comparison causes more protest than the fact that meat consumption is a deviancy of epic proportions.
People feel personally attacked when confronted, as if the use of corpses is a defensive pillar of their existence. Imagining that the euthanized dogs and cats are mixed into the feed for the vegetarian farm animals, which appears consistently bipolar, is unbelievable too. The pets are raised to the level of humans, the livestock is degraded to objects, and meat consumption is considered legitimate.
However, eat a canary or puppy, or kitten? That is, of course, perverted or even criminal! Alternatively, suppose one would buy headless torsos from dogs and cats in supermarkets. Or one spears the carcass on a suckling pig grill and lets it spin automatically. Alternatively, make the children argue about who is allowed to turn the meat. Or a kitten grill in which dozens of kittens rotate in circles in different cooking stages. In the restaurant: "Saint Bernhard English, raw, medium, done or well done, sir?
Why does the mere thought of such possibilities make one irritated, while the same cruelty to other animals is taken for granted, unavoidable, Flying Spaghetti Monster given, and systemic? Because it has always been that way, because one is so used to it because Grandpa still had one set up the battle shot apparatus and then you ate delicious pork together and went for a walk in the park? It is "nice" together as a family, as a childhood memory, to eat a dead animal. Festivals all over the world revolve around it, are impossible without it.
See the public and religious holidays practiced in every culture related to grazing animals. Sometimes the slaughter itself is integrated into the ceremonies and rituals. As if people needed a corpse in their midst for the confirmation of their sense of family, which had previously been adequately tortured for a lifetime to affirm their sympathy.
Everything is highly ritualized from shopping for food to cooking together with the children. The expectant time until the exceptional food is finally ready. Many adults probably have had one too many and play even more cheerful with the kids. There are gifts. Given the minimal animal suffering associated with organic free-range farming and sustainable farming, the question of the absolute benefits of vegetarian nutrition and the vegetarian movement arises.
An unrestricted yes in contrast to products from animal factories and with animal suffering. However, what is with exemplary farms that preserve cultural landscapes, practice biological pest control, can be visited by children and school classes, act as graces farms for animals and inspire people?
Which are strictly checked for compliance with all production processes? In such cases, giving up on their dairy and eggs harms more than a purely vegan diet would help. Also, why should vegetarians be ashamed of consuming such products if they are extremely low on animal suffering? Indeed the goal is to exploit no animal at all. Only as a society as a whole develops slowly, for example, from theocracy to dictatorship, monarchy, to militaristic theocracy to fascist dictatorship to social, democratic market economy to neoliberal nightmare, etc.
Vegetarianism is a useful intermediate on the way to a broad acceptance of veganism. Only until that happens aggressive advertising for new vegans can be counterproductive and could scare people off, arouse in them the fear of being stigmatized by their carnivore friends too. The author goes through a transformation in the course of the book. Like any average citizen, he has never known the actual dimensions of the problem before, just as the reader who remains baffled after reading.
It tasted good. And now it has got a dark aura associated with environmental destruction, animal factories, industrial agriculture, and immeasurable suffering at every step of the production chain. It literally stinks, and it seems to be surrounded by dark streaks, the associations are no longer sufficiently positive. The symbols of advertisements have got cracks with blood floating from in between.
And sure, the easy way is always the pleasant, joyful one. Procrastination against diligence. Sitting instead of exercising. Passively consuming rather than actively shaping. Eat meat instead of consuming vegetarian food. Lazy evil is strong in us. It is extremely unpleasant, and it begins to tingle in the neck when dealing with such issues.
The fact that we are physiologically composed of this suffering meat, that we are what we eat, is better ignored. It is easier, as always, to point the finger at minorities. Oddly enough, discriminating against someone because of their gender, skin color, or sexual orientation is just illegitimate. To bask against vegetarians and vegans, on the other hand, is instead a trivial offense.
The stigma of militant teachers, do-gooders, and spoilsports is anyway not too politically incorrect. This goes in part so far that they have to justify their children's nutrition and the child's welfare is doubted. So many industries depend on it, so much advertising, so many powerful corporations. Almost everyone is involved. If all people became allergic to meat overnight, the animals and the planet would be helped. The stock markets would collapse. None of the profiteers would allow such a development.
It seems more likely that widespread acceptance and, above all, a dominance of animal-free products will result in a PR advertising and marketing war. A triumphal procession of meatless nutrition would be their downfall, and therefore they have nothing to lose. However, probably the producers of artificial meat will destroy the previous top dogs, while they are still busy discrediting exemplary people.
The future sees many positive alternatives to meat consumption. For example, by cloning small amounts from animal donors who do not suffer for it. Alternatively, eat artificially produced meat that works without any animal components. It can also incorporate positive health effects, be individually adapted to the nutritional needs of different groups of people. Ultimately, the mass application and the ever-cheaper technology will make the difference.
People will not stop eating flesh because of remorse, instead, the meat will be artificially produced. Also, because this is cheaper than conventional animal breeding, it will disappear. Perhaps at most as a deluxe segment for snobs, it will lead a shadowy existence.
Until that happens, the decisive factor will be the readiness of the population to change. If no renunciation, then at least a reduction. So that meat, as in earlier generations, again becomes an unusual and rare food and from that grows a more responsible consciousness. That, at least, like the indigenous people living in harmony with nature, they pay respect to the dead animal. For being able to continue living thanks to its death.
Moreover, if one's health, as well as ethics and morality, do not affect one, then perhaps the future of one's children and grandchildren do. With unreflective, excessive consumption one cannibalizes these too. The occupation of the meat mincer is not in vain defined as detrimental to enlightenment in Asian cultures. Because interpreted metaphysically, one takes in parts of the souls of the martyred creatures.
Whether they continue to scream, become part of one? And one day, after decades of consumption, large parts of one are made of such elements of torment, suffering, and misery? View all 18 comments. Recommended to Lisa by: Christina Stind.
Shelves: biography , 1-also-at-librarything , z , animal-rights , philosophy , goodreads-author , readbooks-male-author-or-illust , non-fiction , reviewed , zz-5star. I was torn how to rate this book. I highly respect Foer. I appreciated how he incorporates his Jewish background into the book, and enjoyed the family stories that he tells. He provides little snippets of information that are so interesting. For instance: Americans choose to eat less than.
DMCA and Copyright : The book is not hosted on our servers, to remove the file please contact the source url. If you see a Google Drive link instead of source url, means that the file witch you will get after approval is just a summary of original book or the file has been already removed. Loved each and every part of this book. I will definitely recommend this book to non fiction, food and drink lovers. Your Rating:. Most are continually given antibiotics in their food or water to keep them alive and speed their growth.
The federal Food and Drug Administration has reported that 80 percent of U. At their worst, intensive operations cram pregnant sows, egg-laying hens, and veal calves into cages so restrictive the animals can barely move. But not all forms of animal farming should be painted with the same brush.
And it's simply inaccurate to suggest that a vegan diet is necessary for optimal health. Although health and nutrition research has yielded diverse and conflicting findings, there is consensus among mainstream experts: overconsumption of meat, dairy, and eggs can be harmful, but the optimal human diet includes some food derived from animals.
Even vegan advocacy groups generally counsel their followers to take nutritional supplements because the majority of vegans are deficient in vitamin B, found almost exclusively in foods from animals, and because the human body is far less capable of utilizing the forms of iron and zinc found in plants.
Yet there is little proof that pills can adequately provide essential nutrients. And a new University of Minnesota study raises fresh doubt about the wisdom of relying on pills for iron and other nutrients. It found that middle-aged women who took nutritional supplements -- especially iron -- had shorter lifespans than those who did not. Meat and eggs, in contrast, contain ample iron, zinc, and B, in forms that are easily absorbed by the human body.
Meanwhile, many popular beliefs about the health-related downsides of foods from animals are being revealed as myths. Take cholesterol. Early human diets apparently included PDF a hefty mg daily dose of cholesterol, more than what's found in two eggs. During the 20th century, consumption of eggs declined and overall animal fat consumption dropped by over 20 percent, while consumption of vegetable fat which contains no cholesterol increased by over percent.
Yet blood cholesterol levels steadily rose and deaths from heart disease increased more than fivefold. Harvard School of Public Health researchers have concluded that eating foods that contain cholesterol does not affect blood cholesterol levels. In short, eating animal-derived foods is not a health risk. Only overconsumption is. At the public health level, the intensive overproduction practices of industrial-scale livestock and poultry operations pose a unique and novel threat.
Recent research conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on behalf of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production shows that crowded confinement operations have "amplified opportunities for zoonotic pathogen transmission to humans" and "increased opportunities for the generation of novel viruses. Environmental impacts, too, differ dramatically depending on how and where animals are raised.
When farm animals are dispersed rather than concentrated and confined, allowed to graze rather than fed only soy and corn, and integrated into farming operations rather than segregated, they remain healthy and can provide environmental benefits. Under careful stewardship, farm animals can be efficient converters of resources and valuable members of ecological communities.
Moreover, animals, which create high-value foods, often render ecologically sensitive farms more economically viable. Without animals, the movement toward sustainability in U. In considering ethics, it is important to recognize that animals live and die in all kinds of conditions.
Whether raised for eggs, milk, or meat, birds and mammals can be treated horribly or humanely. And whether on a ranch, at a slaughterhouse, or in the woods, they can be killed callously, with no concern for their suffering, or killed swiftly and carefully.
0コメント