Eshippey.uneportfolio.org



Galen ArnoldProfessor Jesse MillerEnglish 110-G17 April 2019TITLEA malleable outlook on controversial topics is critical towards reaching the inevitable compromise between the extremes surrounding it. For most subjects of debate, people seem to gravitate towards the several polarized views a given dispute is able to entertain. Often times the merit of a potential resolution is negated due to the people or ideas associated with it, and the beneficial components of that argument are immediately cancelled and forgotten. This methodology is readily apparent in today’s society in media outlets such as FOX and MSNBC preaching a definitive answer to a complex matter which clearly requires a different approach. A matter of such complexity is embodied in David Foster Wallace’s Consider the Lobster where he debates the morality behind the barbaric culinary preparation of lobster. A mundane premise initially, however this problem cascades to a multitude of ethical dilemmas. For one, should animals be raised in the strict confines through which they are? Should they be slaughtered audaciously simply to provide a protein source to the people who rely on an animal’s meat? At first glance, this demand seems to require a significant price, however this problem entails a tremendous amount of complexity.After reading David Foster Wallace’s Consider the Lobster for the first time, it is easy to dismiss the primal process of boiling the animal alive when it comes to preparing lobster. After all, it is a delicacy, one people seldom eat outside of special occasions. However, the problem with lobster preparation is not only that it is a violent process, but rather it is a representation of a much deeper issue. The barbaric reality behind food synthesis is truly grim. Animals are subject to brutal conditions during their caged lives, yet that often holds little weight to the millions of people, myself included, who consume animal meat on a consistent basis. David Foster Wallace presents an interesting perspective on lobster preparation, enabling readers to indulge the humanity behind conventional food practices. Wallace illustrates the ethical implications tangent to lobster capture and preparation and questions whether the cost is worth the reward with not only lobster, but other industrialized animals. Furthermore, in the essays Animals Like Us by Hal Herzog and What the Crow Knows by Ross Andersen, this idea is further broadened by illustrating the symbiotic relationship, both emotional and practical, between humans and animals. Ultimately, all three of these essays unite ideas in order to capture and explain the unique dynamic between humans and animals in that humans have an intellectual arrogance, yet humans are able to develop bonds with animals, and that the level of consciousness humans possess may not be as novel as many believe. Intelligence is an arbitrary standard. For humans, we pride ourselves on our tremendously advanced intellect that has placed men on the moon, cured a multitude of diseases and has ultimately led to the society we live in today. However, our intelligence, despite the breakthroughs it has enabled humankind to achieve, is hardly anything more than a product of favorable evolution, or in other words, luck. Of course anything can be relegated as mundane when diminished to the most fundamental explanation. Nevertheless, the humans have a an arrogant outlook concerning the level of intelligence we have when compared to other animals. Ross Andersen explains this dynamic is his essay What the Crow Knows, “consciousness was long thought to be a divine gift bestowed solely on humans. Western philosophers historically conceived of nonhuman animals as unfeeling automatons.” Admittedly, this is a fair assumption considering that animals, unlike humans, are unable to communicate emotions and ideas to one another. However, while this behavior may not be as sophisticated or apparent as it is in humans, it does not mean it is entirely absent in animals.Animals have proven time and time again that they do possess unique cognitive ability. Problem solving and ingenuity are two properties a multitude of different species has shown to be proficient in. Ross Andersen describes one of the more impressive feats of animal ingenuity, “In Japan, one crow population uses traffic to crack open walnuts: the crow drops a nut in front of cars at intersections, and then when the light turns red, the swoop in to scoop up the exposed flesh.” I personally find this behavior to be truly fascinating, as these crows are not only responding to the nature of the environment they inhabit, but also the tendencies of the other residents with whom these crows share space with. It is acts such as these which blur the line differentiating humans from other animals. Granted, to us, what these crows do is far from groundbreaking, however, within the world of the crow, this idea is a testament to the intelligence they possess.Despite the level of intelligence some animals such as the crow demonstrate regularly which humans will quickly dismiss, we still tend to pride ourselves on the relationships we develop with some animals. Dogs and cats have become synonymous with family for many people. I am no exclusion to this as I consider my dog Flash to be just as much a part of my family as I am. Moreover, this relationship is not exclusive only to the family pet, but can also be applied to any situation involving frequent human and animal interaction. Hal Herzog illustrates this dynamic in his essay Animals Like Us by explaining a colleague’s research study using cats to determine how brains are able to recover from injury, “he surgically destroyed specific parts of the animals’ brains to observed how their abilities recovered...the problem was that [he] liked his cats...on weekends, he would drive to the lab, release his cats from their cages, and play with them. They had become pets.” The intentions of these relationships are truly pure, as both humans and animals benefit. However, this bond is also selective in that only certain animals are able to reap the rewards of a human companion. Other animals simply become the barbaric savages many people see them as, occupying the wilderness and foraging for their next meal. After all, it is highly unlikely that Herzog’s colleague would see his subjects the same way, as companions, if they were mice.Animals are often times arbitrarily relegated to the confines of a hierarchy established by humans and based merely on the relationships we have with certain creatures. The lobster is an example of an animal that had the misfortune of not having the same relevance to humanity as other animals. Often referred to as the insect of the ocean, lobster is hardly more than a food source, and a delicacy at that. It is these polarized ethical positions on different animals that calls into question why animals have different, distinguishable values to humans. Hal Herzog continues to exploit the flaws in this idea by applying a quantifiable difference between the logistics of housing different animal species as pets, “...a medium-size pet boa constrictor needs less than five pounds of meat a year...the average [pet] cat would consume about 50 pounds of meat in a year.” ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download