Trifecta

Voice Lessons

On to round 3…

I’m still searching around the blogosphere for inspiration for my own blog, and so far have come across quite a few…(by quite a few I mean tons).

One that struck me particularly was “A Philosopher’s Blog: A Philosophers View of the World…assuming it exists.”  It is written by Michael LaBossiere, a Philosophy professor at the Florida A&M University.  Even just by reading his bio you can get a sense of his writing style, witty, informed, and casual without sounding uneducated.  He talks about Ethics in general as well as in terms of food, but although his decisions and writings come from a thoroughly backed knowledge and research base, the opinions are decidedly his own. 

In “Eating the Happy Dead,” LaBossiere talks about vegetarianism and how some “vegetarians” have now expanded their diet to include meat when it is raised in a kind, environmentally stable and enduring environment.  He likens the difference between a death-row prison with cramped cells, abominable food, and hostile living space and a death-row prison that has spacious cells, decent food, and a kind environment to the difference between a factory farm and a farm where the animals are treated humanely.  This powerful example illustrates just how important the issue is to LaBossiere, and in turn how important the issue of factory farming should be to us as readers.  Even though the two outcomes are the same (death), does that mean that we can justify torture of humans before death?  Most people would say that we cannot, and LaBossiere says that the same should ring true for animals.  Through this example, we can see how serious of an issue this is and the dedication of the writer to the subject.

LaBossiere uses rhetorical questions, actual questions, and analogies to make his point stronger and get it across more clearly.  He relates the topic back to himself, and by doing so includes the reader in his discussion further –

“The fact that the animals, happy or sad, end up as meat might be seen as what is important to the ethics of the situation. This seems reasonable. After all, if someone intends to kill me my main concern is with my possible death and not whether the killer will be nice or not?”

By bringing the subject to himself, LaBossiere is essentially thinking our thoughts aloud for us – though we should also be concerned with torture, the ultimate death of yourself is what you’re really worried about.  In this way he makes a far-away idea seem tangible and meaningful. 

Because his writing is sort of looming between scholarly and casual, these personal antidotes make the reading more interesting and involving.  In addition, he links out to other websites almost once a sentence – something that when I first reading blogs didn’t really like.  However, the more I read, the more I like the links out – they serve to further the topic or explain something without doing it yourself.  They can also be used in an ironic or thought-provoking sense:

“In my previous post I mentioned that reading an article in Newsweek entitled “Vegetarians Who Eat Meat”, got me thinking about two issues. The first is whether a person can be a vegetarian and also eat meat. The second is whether the way the meat animal is raised impacts the morality of eating it. I addressed the first issue in that post and I now turn to the second issue...”

Now, I know you are thinking, “Whoa there, slow down and actually write something for once…I can’t read all my tabs at once as it is!”  Never fear blog readers, you will discover the wonders of the hyperlink just as I have. By using the links, LaBossiere has you covered for everything you need to know in order to read (and understand fully) the rest of his blog, as well as more information for topics you might be unfamiliar with or wish to know more about (funny note: I actually found LaBossiere’s blog in a hyperlink from one of my other favorite blogs). 

One of the ways to appeal to the “everyman/woman” is irony, because “everyone” appreciates it (har har).  One of my favorite parts of this post is the ironically funny link to the “meat” tab (see above). Instead of just pushing a wikipedia article about animals, it linked to a wiki about investment.  How money is scaring the meat market into the corner with a cleaver.  In a food/ethics blog. 

In the words of the internet,

lolz

I'll definitely be reading more of his blog soon.

Tribute

This week I’ve decided to do a sort of “tribute” bit about my newfound favorite blogger, “Wayne Yuen,” and his blog, “Piles of Philosophy.”  Yuen updates once every few days, and explores everything philosophical from goth kitties to fish and beyond.  One topic that shows up quite often in his posts is our relationship between ethics and the way we eat food.  Whether you are a carnivore, omnivore, “demi-vegetarian,” vegetarian, vegan, or fruitarian, you will probably be intrigued with what he has to say.  

Because there are so many ways to confront the ethics of eating, it seems almost daunting to pick a subtopic…how about political effects? Social? Health related?  When Yuen talks about the ethics of eating, it is usually related to food production and how it influences his own dietary choices and why.  You might ask, “why does it even matter what I ingest on a daily basis?”  Well for starters Yuen looks at the mass-produced method of factory farming, and the morality involved with killing, confining, and keeping animals in inhumane circumstances.  Do we really want to and do we even have a right to treat animals this way? 

In his blog post “Why I am not Demi-Vegetarian,” Wayne argues for the case that it is impractical (and almost impossible) for morally-minded omnivores to find out where their meat has been and how it was treated before it got to their plate.  In most all instances, if the label doesn’t say where the meat has been, it has probably come from a factory farm, where animals are piledohsoclosetogether.  They are usually feed inorganic feed and usually ingest superfluous amounts of hormones to fend off the diseases that come from living in too-close-proximity to each other and their filth.  And yet most people still accept this as just another way of life for these animals.  Why? Because this type of farming is profitable.  Animals=money. 

And it only gets worse…Wayne introduces the idea that even though a package might say “cage-free” or “organic,” doesn’t mean that the animal was treated humanely.  This was something that hadn’t occurred to me before…when they say cage-free for chickens, the farm can still take the liberty of crowding the animals in too closely, or still practice “beak searing” and selective genetic mutation…what good is a “cage-free” label when the chicken has been so genetically mutilated in search of enhancement of specific traits (such as breasts and thighs) that they cannot even stand up or fly?  I was honored this thanksgiving by getting to spend it with both sides of my family (thought it was A LOT of food!).  My uncle on my dad’s side, being quite environmentally and health conscious, decided to get a turkey that was breed on a small farm in Washington State.  After researching the farm himself, he ordered one for thanksgiving…and it was showing in comparison to what my grandparents on the other side served.  Though I don’t actually eat meat, just seeing the two birds side by side (in my head) was enough.  The one that ran free looked like an animal, it had big legs, a smallish breast, and plenty of dark and white meat, while the run-of-the-mill supermarket turkey had the tiniest legs and hugest breast I have ever seen…there is NO WAY that thing could have ever stood up on its own. 

And even when the package boasts all these humane labels, Yuen points out that who is to say they are telling the truth or that the meat is even safe to eat? (think about how many E. Coli and Salmonella infections from beef you’ve seen recently…)(Hint: it is a lot!)

What does this boil down to? According to Wayne,

“There can't be a middle ground on this until the meat industry is willing to make food production transparent.  Only then can we really be assured that the animals we're eating are humanely treated, and a middle ground, demi-vegetarianism, becomes reasonable.  Until then, the argument for demi-vegetarianism is a good one, but not one that is practicable by the majority of people.”

Being a Philosophy (Ethics) major myself, it delighted me that in some of his posts, instead of random philosophical musings (as philosophers are wont to do) Wayne Yuan actually uses different teachings of philosophy to better understand the relationship between ethics and food.  In his post “Will the Real Nietzsche Please Stand Up,” he is hypothesizing what Nietzsche would think about vegetarianism and if he would approve…

Long story short Wayne thinks it’s a wash…if being vegetarian is what breaks you apart from the crowd in terms of morality and rules, than good for you.  If you can justify your behavior in eating meat, that’s also ok, but I think I agree with Wayne when he argues that in some ways (especially in American culture) the more difficult path to define yourself is vegetarianism…but as he says.

“When it comes to food, we really only have two present choices, an omnivorous diet, or a vegetarian diet.  I think there are plenty of reasons for saying the vegetarian diet is the more ethically responsible, healthy diet than the omnivorous one.  Does that make a person a morally bad person for eating meat?  I don't think so, but I think we can be better people by not eating meat.”

Wayne Yuen’s convincing, rational, and detailed arguments, backed up with concrete evidence is what really makes this post for me.  He has the ability to be witty and serious about the topic at the same time, and lends a sort of dignity to those animals whose dignity has been, so far, stripped away from them.

Hello, World!

Om nom nom…

I love food.  No, I love food.  I love making food and I love eating food – all and any type.  From Thai to Japanese to French to Ethiopian to British to American – there and back again you might say.  But one of my favorite things to do with food is to think about it – how does it affect my surroundings, environment, and political landscape? How does something as basic and universal as food shape our view of the world?

Now, on to something completely different…or is it?  When I first say “ethics,” what do you think of? Usually it’s Big, World-Changing, Life-Or-Death, People-Dying-by-the-Thousands types of problems. But wait!  Upon closer examination, it seems as if ethics has wormed its way into our everyday life choices, and that sometimes those small, pesky issues like food (gasp!) are even harder to face than the Big ones.

In this blog, I want to explore the nature of food and how it is related to ethics. Food you say? How can eating food even be considered close to a moral decision making process?

Upon closer examination, the whole process of food (say from the field to your mouth to your intestines) seems to impact almost every aspect of society.  Because everyone needs to eat, it would seem that Food means big business.  And billions of hungry people means that food has a tremendous impact on the global community, whether that be social, political, environmental, medical, or otherwise (whew!).

Some of the social ramifications of our changing diet in the 21^st century are easy to see – such as the growing number of fast food chains and the growing number of people who eat fast food on a regular basis in turn affecting the growing waistlines of people not only in the US, but around the world.  The associated diseases and health issues that are related to this “obesity epidemic” alone are skyrocketing.  Some of the more obvious, such as diabetes and heart disease, are causing ever increasing strain on our nation’s healthcare system, putting pressure on politicians. One might think that all the pressure would force governments to put limits on consumption or turn to other “big brother” tactics. But as we can see from history, those with money usually get to do whatever they want…and with more Americans every day investing in and eating fast food, corporations like McDonalds have more of that power.

Ethics in food is a particularly hairy subject, but to get started, here are a few sites that I found helpful and interesting on my quest for knowledge and to sort out my own opinions…

Wikipedia is often my first go-to when I want to explore any such topic, but although they try and give a well-rounded view of many of the view points, I believe there is yet so much more to discuss in detail about the aspects that relate to our diet.

Food Inc. is a film trying to tackle some of the big issues of ethics in food – including factory farming, use of pesticides, impact environmentally and in local communities, and in politics.

Fast Food Nation – The dirty little secrets of the fast-food industry, exposed! How the permeation of fast-food into American (and global) culture is taking its toll on health and ethics.

Super-Size Me is a movie exploring some of the health ramifications of eating fast food as a staple in one’s diet. It follows one mans journey to eat nothing but fast food for an entire month, and the physical results could serve as a cautionary tale to many…

Recently, the USDA has come under fire for inadequate inspection of meat and other animal and plant products, especially in regards to E. Coli. This is somewhat ironic, for when you look at the rules and regulations page of the USDA inspection (in this case, beef) the rules are ridiculously complicated and intense. Is this because we need harsher regulations? Or is someone slacking on the job?