Gunnar Fryzlewicz
Professor Miller
English 110, H2
19 November 2018
How About the Lobster? (draft 1)
How do you feel about eating lobster? Did you ever consider what the lobster thought? Animals play a large role in our lives. They are used for food, clothing, treatment, entertainment, experimentation, and have many other purposes in our daily lives. Although they are a necessity for the continued survival of human existence, have we ever thought about how they feel or how they are treated? Do we want to know how they are being treated or how they feel? David Foster Wallace, a journalist, wrote a piece discussing the treatment of lobster in his piece Consider the Lobster. In Consider the Lobster, Wallace talks about the history of lobsters, how our rate of fishing may lead to their extinction in the future, and how they are one of the few animals who is bizarrely killed by being cooked alive. The treatment of animals is also discussed in the piece Animals Like Us by Hal Herzog. In this piece, Herzog brings up scenarios where people treat animals in a way that benefits themselves. This idea of benefiting oneself can vary between people, just like discussing death. In an NPR podcast a mortician, Caitlin Doughty, openly talks about death and her view on how it should be dealt with and faced. This view, on openly accepting death upset many and raises conversation and discussion on how to proceed with a funeral. All these views show that peoples preferences and comfort with things like death, food, and animals vary from person-to-person. A major point of division is facing death.
Peoples view many things in different ways, it is what makes each if us unique.
Gunnar Fryzlewicz
Professor Miller
English 110, H2
19 November 2018
How About the Lobster? (draft 2, project 3)
How do you feel about eating lobster? Did you ever consider what the lobster thought? Animals play a large role in our lives. They are used for food, clothing, treatment, entertainment, experimentation, and have many other purposes in our daily lives. Although they are a necessity for the continued survival of human existence, have we ever thought about how they feel or how they are treated? Do we want to know how they are being treated or how they feel? David Foster Wallace, a journalist, wrote a piece discussing the treatment of lobster in Consider the Lobster. In Consider the Lobster, Wallace makes the claim “There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. This claim can also be found in other pieces of writing such as Animals Like Us by Hal Herzog. In this piece, Herzog brings up scenarios where people treat animals in ways that make some people nod their heads and others cringe. The claim can be found in a more personal piece, Against Meat by Johnathon Safran Foer. Here, Foer discusses his on-and-off-again vegetarianism and how his views on the treatment of animals for food affects his culinary life. The emotions and opinion that arise from these scenes of animal treatment are based on morals and preferences, which vary from person to person. Although these preferences differ are, there is a commonality that appears to revolve around benefit.
Animals end up being used at our expense, to our benefit. An example is brought up in Against Meat about factory farming, “I didn’t know the details about factory farming, but like most everyone I knew the gist: it is miserable for animals, the environment, farmers, public health, biodiversity, rural communities, global poverty and so on” (Foer, 3). We are treating animals this way for food. Animals are also shown at our expense in Animals Like Us, by Hal Herzog. Here Herzog talks about a man who feels pity for his caged pet cockatiel, “One afternoon, Jim looked at the bird flitting around her cage and a little voice in his head whispered, “This is wrong.” He carried the bird into his backyard and released it into the gray skies of Raleigh, North Carolina…I knew she wouldn’t survive, that she probably starved. O guess I was doing it more for myself than for her” (Herzog, 2). Both with cattle and with Jim’s bird there was a sense of benefit. The bird was let go not because it needed to be, but because it made Jim feel better, less guilty of keeping his animal caged. Those farmers may feel the same way but at the end of the day, they get to enjoy a nice x oz. ribbie or steak. The cattle are killed for our benefit of eating a juicy, 16 oz., medium rare steak. Our treatment of animals is to our benefit in some way or another. The level that we have to reach for something to be beneficial is based on our preference.
Gunnar Fryzlewicz
Professor Miller
English 110, H2
19 November 2018
How About the Lobster? (Final draft)
How do you feel about eating lobster? Did you ever consider what the lobster thought? Animals play a large role in our lives. They are used for food, clothing, treatment, entertainment, experimentation, and have many other purposes in our daily lives. Although they are a necessity for the continued survival of human existence, have we ever thought about how they feel or how they are treated? Do we want to know how they are being treated or how they feel? David Foster Wallace, a journalist, wrote a piece discussing the treatment of lobster in Consider the Lobster. In Consider the Lobster, Wallace makes the claim “There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. This claim can be seen in many pieces of writing, in Animals Like Us by Hal Herzog. In this piece, Herzog brings up scenarios where people treat animals in ways that make some people nod their heads and others cringe. Wallaces claim can be found in a more personal piece, Against Meat by Johnathon Safran Foer. Here, Foer discusses his on-and-off-again vegetarianism and how his views on the treatment of animals for food affects his culinary life. Our treatment of animals is based on our preferences and needs. Our feeling of remorse and pitty is our logic clashing with our preference. A commonality between people is that our decisions appear to revolve around benefit.
Animals end up being used at our expense, to our benefit. An example is brought up in Against Meat about factory farming, “I didn’t know the details about factory farming, but like most everyone I knew the gist: it is miserable for animals, the environment, farmers, public health, biodiversity, rural communities, global poverty and so on” (Foer, 3). We are treating animals this way for our own benefit, food. This treatment is used so that farmers and companies can make the most money out of their animals. With limited space and no extra pay for cleaning up fecal matter and maintaining the animals, companies can make the most amount of money. Animals are also shown at our expense in Animals Like Us, by Hal Herzog. Here Herzog talks about a man who feels pity on his caged pet cockatiel, “One afternoon, Jim looked at the bird flitting around her cage and a little voice in his head whispered, “This is wrong.” He carried the bird into his backyard and released it into the gray skies of Raleigh, North Carolina…I knew she wouldn’t survive, that she probably starved. O guess I was doing it more for myself than for her” (Herzog, 2).
Both with cattle and with Jim’s bird there was a sense of benefit. The bird was let go not because it needed to be, but because it made Jim feel better, less guilty of keeping his animal caged. Those farmers may feel the same way but at the end of the day, they get to enjoy a nice some-odd ounce ribbie or steak. The cattle are killed for our benefit of eating a juicy, 16 oz., medium rare steak. The level that people will go to, to obtain that benefit is what differs even minded people. I hate the ways that animals are being treated and I try to eat meats from clean sources. However, in the end, I still eat meat and I am still feeding the company that harms animals. I would like things to be in different circumstances but I am still going to eat meat. Two intellectuals can see that animals are hurt, but the difference comes when one switches to a vegan/vegetarian diet and the other switches their beef source to a more open farm, or without steroid selection. Morals and preferences can also be a dividing factor.
Our morals are what shape us, they are the voices that tell us our limits, and regulate our conscious decisions. In the instance of food, our morals seem to be based on preference. Wallace mentions this idea towards the end of Consider the Lobster by saying “I believe animals are less morally important than human beings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven’t succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient” (Wallace, 509-510). Animals are generally looked at as lesser beings compared to humans. We value their lives less than ours. That is why meat factories are still going on because of the necessity of feeding the human populace outways the conditions of those animals. That is why we see more hospitals than veterinarians clinics, and why we’ll spend way more money on our family member’s needs (annual checkups with dentist and doctors, spend more on foods) than we will on our animals.
From what Wallace said about us being selfish are we, in a way, selfish? If we really cared about how animals are being treated then these meat factories and animal hell-holes would have been dealt with by now. We are the alpha species, we are the self-claimed intellectuals of the planet; our species has the ability to change the planet. There would be someone in office actively pursuing the downfall of meat factories, mass riots would break out over these animal crimes, we would see stocks based around the production of animals in these conditions and economic turmoil due to this huge change, but it isn’t. Granted, people are protesting and rioting and there are people in office trying to push this change and some changes have been made. People are changing their way of life to combat it, and that’s the difference between people, but the end goal of animal safety and animal rights is far from being met. What i am saying is if we, as intellectual beings, wanted these conditions to change, wouldn’t it have happened by now? Compare this to a mother trying to get their lost child back. The mother would do everything in their power to get their kid back, true dedication and need for change that people would be woken up at night, and many phone calls being made, and hours of sleep lost in the drive to change the circumstances of the situation. With a mother’s pure dedication to change, things would happen and if there wasn’t any then everyone would be feeling her wraith. However, this isn’t happening. Maybe we feel as though our preferences and benefits are being met, and deep down we are okay with it and that’s why it continues today. I am against this treatment of animals and I attempt to educate others on these events and hope they will change there ways, but I know I’m not doing everything in my power to change these circumstances. Another issue we deal with is our logic versus our preference
I feel as though humans often switch between preference and logic to justify their actions. In Wallaces’s piece about lobster, he talks about the Maine Lobster Festival and how approximately 30,000 people come to it every year. Out of the thousands of people there, many pitty the lobster and the way it is being treated but they eat it anyway and come back next year. The logic behind their decision is mentioned in Wallace’s piece “Lobster, do not…have the equipment for making or absorbing natural opioids…which are what more advanced nervous systems use to try to handle pain” (Wallace, 508). In other words, they can’t feel pain. I know every time my parents and siblings eat lobster this fact is thrown around the table, as though its a comforting phrase for the act of boiling and eating the lobster. Using logic, and the fact they were able to comfort themselves. Compare this to an example in Herzog’s Animals Like Us. Here he compares the preference and logic behind snake and cats. “A medium-size pet boa constrictor needs less than five pounds of meat a year. The average cat would consume about 50 pounds of meat in a year….2 million unwanted cats…are euthanized in animal “shelters” in the US each year. Wouldn’t it make more sense to make these carcasses available to snake factories? Cats are going to die anyway and fewer mice and rats would be sacrificed to satisfy the dietary needs of the python” (Herzog,4-5). The idea of feeding cats to snakes is appalling to many, but it is logical. With so much excess cats they could also be applied to feeding humans.
They produce more offspring more frequently, and they are overpopulating large cities, so why don’t we eat cat more often? From the quote above we would even be saving money and cleaning up the streets, but we don’t eat cats because of preference. We prefer the cat over the snake, even though it’s at the expense of our wallets. The only reason why we chose the cat is that we have grown attached to this animal species, we relate to the tetrapod, emotional animal over the emotionless and limbless reptile. Here, we defy logic and go with preference. We are hypocrites. We switch from using logic to comfort our eating habits with lobster, to preference with not eating cats. We manipulate logic and preference to justify our benefiting from other beings.
I am not trying to sound as if I am above all this because I am not. I fall under these observations just as everyone else does. My family and talk about these meat factories and yet we still eat meat, however, we do try to stick to free-range meats. My family still eats lobster despite knowing the lobster prefers not to be boiled and that there are other ways of killing it. I am not exempt from these issues. If you would like to see these issues change then do something about it. Join a protest or rally, start a diet, limit the amount of meat you eat, buy goods that say free-range, write letters to the companies doing these atrocities, get your friends to write letters, etc. There are ways to change what is going on, but you have to want things to change. So prove me wrong, and go make a difference.
Works Cited
Herzog, Hal. “Animals Like Us.” Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, July-August 2011. Accessed 18 November 2018.
Foster Wallace, David. “Consider the Lobster.” Gourmet, www.gourmet.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster.html. Accessed 18 November 2018.
Foer, Jonathan Safran. “Why Jonathan Safran Foer Chose to Give Up Meat.” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11foer-t.html. Accessed 18 November 2018.
