I couldn't agree more with
this critique of
The New York Times' recent review of
Eating Animals. I'm really tired of hearing that it's impossible to care about more than one issue at the same time.
To make the argument that Safran Foer somehow undermines his own credibility by not emphasizing enough the many diseases and conditions that bedevil humans (Malaria, hunger, etc.) is to miss two very obvious points.
First, the book is principally about animal rights and the plight of the billions of animals around the world raised and killed for food each year. The fact that humans suffer and die everyday is a tragedy. We should work to reduce human suffering. But that doesn't mean the suffering of animals raised and killed for food is any less real, or any less important.
Second, animal agriculture has a direct impact on human health: from degredation of water quality in population centers located near animal agriculture to high rates of cancer and heart disease associated with consumption of too much animal protein. And the processed meats that make their way into millions of kids' lunch boxes every day are at best nutritionally bereft and, at worst,
downright deadly.
It's fine to slam the book - I myself am struggling to get through the rambling narrative - but to suggest the author lacks credibility because he believes you can care passionately about the welfare of all animals (human and non-human) is, to me, ridiculous and small-minded.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Posts
