An Animal's Place

Michael Pollan's article, "An Animal's Place," first discusses a book by Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation." Pollan was ironically eating a delicious steak when he first read this manifesto for animal rights, and it made him feel very uncomfortable. The first part of his essay deals with all his counter-arguments to Singer's philosophical reasons for why we should not eat meat, and Singer's counter-arguments to Pollan's counter-arguments. This part of the essay gets a little confusing. But after that, the argument focuses on Pollan's view of what should be done about the treatment of domesticated animals. He argues for free-range farms that let animals retain their essential animalness, as opposed to factory farms, for instance, that keep chickens in cages so small that all their natural impulses to stretch their wings, preen themselves, etc., are prohibited. These types of free-range farms also help to keep the land healthier.

One element of Pollan's argument that I sort of did not understand was when he said that without humans to domesticate animals, the domesticated animals would not exist. He quotes a 19th-century philosopher as saying, "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all." If we had never had the urge to eat pigs, life for them would have been much different as a species. But obviously we didn't invent pigs, either. If someone would explain that aspect of the argument to me, that would be great.

Overall there was a lot of confusing ethical/moral philosophy involved in the essay, and that made it a challenging read for me, but it also made it really intriguing, and I enjoyed reading it very much. I think I agree with what Pollan is saying.