Comments

1
Korb's is a mostly thoughtful essay, but after impliedly warning against anthropomorphizing animals (e.g. to believe they fear death), Korb validates Pollan's Darwinian take on things:

"Domestication took place when a handful of especially opportunistic species discovered…that they were more likely to survive and prosper in alliance with humans than on their own. Humans provided the animals with food and protection in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk, eggs, and—yes—their flesh. Both parties were transformed by the new relationship: The animals grew tame and lost their ability to fend for themselves in the wild…And the humans traded their hunter-gatherer ways for the settled lives of agriculturalists."

Pollan uses the language of contracts to imply a bargained-for exchange, including "parties" and "relationship." The idea that some species in effect bargained might make some sense in an evolutionary construct, but as an ethical argument, it essentially anthropomorphizes animals as arms-length contract partners. Viewed in that light, humans owe no duty to animals - after all, we had a deal!

While natural selection certainly marches forward for all species, including humans, dressing up the keeping and butchering of animals in the terms of an everyday contract obscures the real ethical issues, and gives unearned/psuedoscientific cover to the "it's the natural order" crowd.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.