Throughout the papers we have read I think that Practicing complexity by michael pollan has been the most influential piece we have read. All of these essays have brought up topics that I am quite interested in and have thought about before, especially in environmental issues class last semester. I very much enjoyed that class and I think it helped me think deeper into these topics and issues for the first time in my life. Overall reading these various passages throughout the year did change my perspective on David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the lobster” because I was able to think more deeply on how my perspective has changed on these topics. Writing paper definitely changed my perspective because putting my thoughts into something designed to share what I am thinking really let me craft what I truly believe, as opposed to trying to come up with a quick response. Sitting down to write paper two my writing approach has changed slightly, and I am considering every essay to use in my paper trying to find the best fit for what I am going to write. This is a challenge I face because although I agree with most of these authors’ points, they all are a little different and all require different conversations, a challenge of mixing opinionated essays. “Consider the lobster” layed down the foundation for thinking deeply about these related topics and I think that my thoughts have stayed in the same place for the most part after reading other authors papers, just evolving deeper thinking because of DFW. Specifically talking about lobsters, my conclusion still remains the same that it is very interesting that as a society we overlook such things like boiling lobsters alive, or not knowing where we get our meat from. I think that this will be the biggest topic for my paper 2 because of the complexity that papers like DFW brings to my original thinking.
After rereading Consider the Lobster, there were a lot of things that David Foster Wallace said that I still agree with. However, there were also a few parts that I changed my opinion on after thinking about the other essays I have read. I have never agreed with boiling seafood alive when cooking them, and with what I have learned about animals’ ability to feel pain and have a consciousness to some extent, I definitely still feel strongly about this. I do not like to eat lobster anyway, but I believe that people should use a more humane way of killing them before they cook. Especially because there are other ways of killing the lobsters less painfully. I am not against eating animals like lobsters, I just do not think that putting them through this much suffering, because it has been proven that they can feel some type of pain, is right. As much as I hate to admit it, I partially agree with Wallace about animals, some of them but not all of them, being morally less important than humans. I hate the idea of animals being slaughtered so that people can enjoy the meat, but I find that I avoid thinking about the ethics behind it as much as possible because I do eat meat. I think after reading Michael Pollan’s essay and really getting an understanding of how industrial farms treat animals, I definitely want to start thinking more about the pain animals feel when they are killed. If there is a more humane way of killing or cooking some animals, specifically the lobster then I am all for it. I know that everyone is not going to just stop eating meat because they might feel emotions, but I am hopeful that some people will find alternative ways to kill animals so that at least they will not have to suffer. This is something that not everybody spends the time to think about, but it is definitely something that I will debate if I am ever cooking lobsters.
After reading David Foster Wallaces essay, “Consider the Lobster,” for a second time with a new focus, I tried to take out information that can be helpful and supportive in my essay. I decided to use “What the Crow Knows” by Ross Anderson to make connections to so as I read through “Consider the Lobster,” I highlighted some points that can make a connection to “What the Crow Knows.” When I first read this essay, the assignment was just to pull out some things that were interesting to me but now my purpose while reading was to find points that I either agree or disagree with so I can create a strong argument in my essay and have quotes from the text to back it up. Rereading this essay reminded me how in detail David Foster Wallace was because he doesn’t just talk about the cruelty of lobsters but he sets the scene with the Maine Lobster Festival, explains the migration process of the lobster, the average weight and size of the lobster, the types of lobster, the history of lobster, the neural activity of the lobsters brain, and even the different ways to kill a lobster. David Foster Wallace does a good job at opening up a new level of thinking about consideration and after reading his essay again, I feel like his essay is more about the idea of consideration and not as much about lobsters.
In his essay, David Foster Wallace asks the reader to consider if eating lobster is ethical. What makes eating lobster ethical is if lobsters feel pain or not, which I believe they do. He describes how lobsters prefer not to be boiled alive. Honoring that preference is called being considerate. Being considerate is one of the aspects of the human condition. These essays we have read in class are about this. Consideration for the animals you consume and consideration for the land you use. Now, it was recommended to think about if my opinions of this text are murky or clear after rereading and discussion. My opinions have neither been made clearer nor made murky. I gather that my opinions have been added to. This time, there is more to think about; more to consider.
Some class discussion made it clear that people’s upbringing determines their predisposition to being considerate or not. People raised in the country are forced to get up close and personal with their food. They are forced to see their food sources as what they are; pigs make pork and pork comes from pigs. Meanwhile, people raised in the city are so far removed from the animal products they are consuming. They get to buy pork from the grocery store, with the reality of it coming from a living, breathing animal being an afterthought.
There is a difference between the feeling that comes from the sight of a pig being slaughtered and the feeling that comes from the sight of a lobster being boiled alive. Perhaps the distinction between these two sentiments is how the suffering creature communicates its suffering. The pig squeals, while the lobster is silent. People have less concern for the lobster, because it doesn’t communicate pain in a similar way to humans. I believe that humans have the duty to be considerate to all things. My reasoning for this is: why not?
As I reread “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, I found that I understood his points a lot better than I did when I first read it. I understand why he formats his essay the way that he does. He starts with talking about the Lobster festival, and the appeal of the tasty lobster. The first several pages are giving background information on this festival and how popular it is, and he tells us the gruesome details of how the lobsters are cooked. The first time I read this, I thought that Wallace was a fan of eating lobsters and burning them alive. As I read this the second time I can clearly see that Wallace is trying very hard to question the morality of eating these creatures. At the beginning of the fourth page, Wallace asks readers if he thinks it’s okay to boil a creature alive for our own pleasure. After this, he goes on to discuss PETA, which is an organization that supports ending the eating of animals and abuse. That really made me think this time I read this, what is the need for the harming of these creatures when we have what we need right in front of us. This generated some of my ideas about the essay, like why we treat animals the way we do. I think Wallace does a good job at explaining why these animals feel pain, and how it is similar to humans. When he talks about the lobsters scratching the pot and trying to get out it really proves to readers that we have a reason to care about this issue. This makes it seem more relevant using the “They Say” Method.
One thing I did not consider during the first reading which came to mind this time around is the idea of honoring the animal before killing/eating it. This is something I believe is common among Native Americans, and or tribal civilizations. From my understanding it goes to say that animals are sacred, and that by killing the animal/eating it, we must honor the animal for providing its body for our own nourishment. Obviously, this is something which seems to be strictly cultural, but it is an ideology I would not mind accepting. Something that has stuck with me throughout these discussions is: “just because we can, should we?”. Like anything else there are two sides to this, and I can’t seem to choose between them. I feel that if we are granted the ability to do something, then we have the ultimate choice, and free will to decide whether or not we go through with it. Except, there seems to be other factors which I may not have considered before, such as: how does it affect others, the environment, etc? But still, I feel that because we have this ability of free will, we should be able to make any decisions we want, regardless of the consequences.
When I first read the article consider the lobster by david Foster Wallace, I felt really awkward reading it. Especially knowing that my family likes to go on our boat in the summer and catch lobsters to eat as well as sell. It was uncomfortable to think about the process of how we eat them, knowing we are putting them in pain by boiling all the lobsters we catch alive. I still agree with the idea that lobsters do feel pain and are conscious. In my mind, it’s more of the thought of how they could not. After reading the other articles that we were given like “What the crows know” which talks about animal consciousness, the more I feel stronger about all animals being conscious and being able to feel pain. I also still agree with coming up with other options or ideas on how to kill the lobsters or other animals. Like the knife in the head of the lobster. It might be gross to think about but at the end of the day, it is a quick and faster way for the lobster to get killed so we can eat it. Instead of having a long drawn out death in a pot of boiling hot water where we have to watch life slowly drain out of them as they try and jump out of the pot.
While I was rereading “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace I realized that my opinions haven’t changed. I think that animal cruelty is a real thing and it is very important to know about. Ever since the first time that I read this article I have been rethinking the way I consume animal products. I have legitimately started to decrease the amount of animal products I consume on a daily basis. I think David Foster Wallace touches on really good points in his article. He says that animal cruelty isn’t just complex but it is also uncomfortable and I have never agreed with something more. The thought of animal cruelty makes me sick to my stomach. I love animals and I have grown up around them and the thought of one of their kind being killed to be used as food is so awful to me. Growing up on an island, we always have seafood and all the restaurants in my town serve seafood. When I went home for winter break my family and I went out to dinner and they all got lobster rolls but I got a salad. All I could think about was “Consider the Lobster”. It made me so upset seeing all the poor innocent lobsters in a tank just ready to be boiled alive. It made my stomach hurt thinking about how this goes on all over the world and much worse happens. Just because lobsters don’t have a cerebral cortex doesn’t mean they want to be boiled alive. Reading about the Maine Lobster Festival makes me so upset because I just imagine how many lobsters are killed and consumed during the festival and no one sees an issue with it. Animal cruelty is real and it is awful and my opinions have not changed since the first time I read “Consider the Lobster”.
When reading all of the different articles over the semester such as “Consider the Lobster” and “What the Crows Know”, my views have been altered dramatically not in the conversation of whether it is right or humane to consume animals for gustatory pleasure, but more in the sense of how many animals we should be consuming over time and when it is truly right to consume animals. In many cultures all over the world, there are places where it is extremely frowned upon to even discuss the slaughter of a cow or a chicken. The reasons range from religion to family beliefs but the concept is the same as every article we have discussed, is it right to consume animals. All of these articles have opened my eyes into the consciousness of animals because previously when I would sit down with my family and or friends and prepare for a meal, it had never really occurred to me the bloodshed that had to take place for this meal to be placed in front of us in the first place. This idea is the reason why many people choose to eat meat on special occasions and or rationally but as many of us are learning, the way animals are treated in many farms is terrible and what a lot of us aren’t seeing are the people that are treating them as such. Many protests have been done at cow processing facilities and chicken hatcheries but there is not much exposure to the outside world. In conclusion I believe that the exposure that people are seeing is real but not too many people are really doing anything to stop it. Regardless of what your thoughts are, the conversation of is it right to eat meat that is from an animal humanely correct or incorrect.
9 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 13”
Throughout the papers we have read I think that Practicing complexity by michael pollan has been the most influential piece we have read. All of these essays have brought up topics that I am quite interested in and have thought about before, especially in environmental issues class last semester. I very much enjoyed that class and I think it helped me think deeper into these topics and issues for the first time in my life. Overall reading these various passages throughout the year did change my perspective on David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the lobster” because I was able to think more deeply on how my perspective has changed on these topics. Writing paper definitely changed my perspective because putting my thoughts into something designed to share what I am thinking really let me craft what I truly believe, as opposed to trying to come up with a quick response. Sitting down to write paper two my writing approach has changed slightly, and I am considering every essay to use in my paper trying to find the best fit for what I am going to write. This is a challenge I face because although I agree with most of these authors’ points, they all are a little different and all require different conversations, a challenge of mixing opinionated essays. “Consider the lobster” layed down the foundation for thinking deeply about these related topics and I think that my thoughts have stayed in the same place for the most part after reading other authors papers, just evolving deeper thinking because of DFW. Specifically talking about lobsters, my conclusion still remains the same that it is very interesting that as a society we overlook such things like boiling lobsters alive, or not knowing where we get our meat from. I think that this will be the biggest topic for my paper 2 because of the complexity that papers like DFW brings to my original thinking.
After rereading Consider the Lobster, there were a lot of things that David Foster Wallace said that I still agree with. However, there were also a few parts that I changed my opinion on after thinking about the other essays I have read. I have never agreed with boiling seafood alive when cooking them, and with what I have learned about animals’ ability to feel pain and have a consciousness to some extent, I definitely still feel strongly about this. I do not like to eat lobster anyway, but I believe that people should use a more humane way of killing them before they cook. Especially because there are other ways of killing the lobsters less painfully. I am not against eating animals like lobsters, I just do not think that putting them through this much suffering, because it has been proven that they can feel some type of pain, is right. As much as I hate to admit it, I partially agree with Wallace about animals, some of them but not all of them, being morally less important than humans. I hate the idea of animals being slaughtered so that people can enjoy the meat, but I find that I avoid thinking about the ethics behind it as much as possible because I do eat meat. I think after reading Michael Pollan’s essay and really getting an understanding of how industrial farms treat animals, I definitely want to start thinking more about the pain animals feel when they are killed. If there is a more humane way of killing or cooking some animals, specifically the lobster then I am all for it. I know that everyone is not going to just stop eating meat because they might feel emotions, but I am hopeful that some people will find alternative ways to kill animals so that at least they will not have to suffer. This is something that not everybody spends the time to think about, but it is definitely something that I will debate if I am ever cooking lobsters.
After reading David Foster Wallaces essay, “Consider the Lobster,” for a second time with a new focus, I tried to take out information that can be helpful and supportive in my essay. I decided to use “What the Crow Knows” by Ross Anderson to make connections to so as I read through “Consider the Lobster,” I highlighted some points that can make a connection to “What the Crow Knows.” When I first read this essay, the assignment was just to pull out some things that were interesting to me but now my purpose while reading was to find points that I either agree or disagree with so I can create a strong argument in my essay and have quotes from the text to back it up. Rereading this essay reminded me how in detail David Foster Wallace was because he doesn’t just talk about the cruelty of lobsters but he sets the scene with the Maine Lobster Festival, explains the migration process of the lobster, the average weight and size of the lobster, the types of lobster, the history of lobster, the neural activity of the lobsters brain, and even the different ways to kill a lobster. David Foster Wallace does a good job at opening up a new level of thinking about consideration and after reading his essay again, I feel like his essay is more about the idea of consideration and not as much about lobsters.
In his essay, David Foster Wallace asks the reader to consider if eating lobster is ethical. What makes eating lobster ethical is if lobsters feel pain or not, which I believe they do. He describes how lobsters prefer not to be boiled alive. Honoring that preference is called being considerate. Being considerate is one of the aspects of the human condition. These essays we have read in class are about this. Consideration for the animals you consume and consideration for the land you use. Now, it was recommended to think about if my opinions of this text are murky or clear after rereading and discussion. My opinions have neither been made clearer nor made murky. I gather that my opinions have been added to. This time, there is more to think about; more to consider.
Some class discussion made it clear that people’s upbringing determines their predisposition to being considerate or not. People raised in the country are forced to get up close and personal with their food. They are forced to see their food sources as what they are; pigs make pork and pork comes from pigs. Meanwhile, people raised in the city are so far removed from the animal products they are consuming. They get to buy pork from the grocery store, with the reality of it coming from a living, breathing animal being an afterthought.
There is a difference between the feeling that comes from the sight of a pig being slaughtered and the feeling that comes from the sight of a lobster being boiled alive. Perhaps the distinction between these two sentiments is how the suffering creature communicates its suffering. The pig squeals, while the lobster is silent. People have less concern for the lobster, because it doesn’t communicate pain in a similar way to humans. I believe that humans have the duty to be considerate to all things. My reasoning for this is: why not?
As I reread “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, I found that I understood his points a lot better than I did when I first read it. I understand why he formats his essay the way that he does. He starts with talking about the Lobster festival, and the appeal of the tasty lobster. The first several pages are giving background information on this festival and how popular it is, and he tells us the gruesome details of how the lobsters are cooked. The first time I read this, I thought that Wallace was a fan of eating lobsters and burning them alive. As I read this the second time I can clearly see that Wallace is trying very hard to question the morality of eating these creatures. At the beginning of the fourth page, Wallace asks readers if he thinks it’s okay to boil a creature alive for our own pleasure. After this, he goes on to discuss PETA, which is an organization that supports ending the eating of animals and abuse. That really made me think this time I read this, what is the need for the harming of these creatures when we have what we need right in front of us. This generated some of my ideas about the essay, like why we treat animals the way we do. I think Wallace does a good job at explaining why these animals feel pain, and how it is similar to humans. When he talks about the lobsters scratching the pot and trying to get out it really proves to readers that we have a reason to care about this issue. This makes it seem more relevant using the “They Say” Method.
One thing I did not consider during the first reading which came to mind this time around is the idea of honoring the animal before killing/eating it. This is something I believe is common among Native Americans, and or tribal civilizations. From my understanding it goes to say that animals are sacred, and that by killing the animal/eating it, we must honor the animal for providing its body for our own nourishment. Obviously, this is something which seems to be strictly cultural, but it is an ideology I would not mind accepting. Something that has stuck with me throughout these discussions is: “just because we can, should we?”. Like anything else there are two sides to this, and I can’t seem to choose between them. I feel that if we are granted the ability to do something, then we have the ultimate choice, and free will to decide whether or not we go through with it. Except, there seems to be other factors which I may not have considered before, such as: how does it affect others, the environment, etc? But still, I feel that because we have this ability of free will, we should be able to make any decisions we want, regardless of the consequences.
When I first read the article consider the lobster by david Foster Wallace, I felt really awkward reading it. Especially knowing that my family likes to go on our boat in the summer and catch lobsters to eat as well as sell. It was uncomfortable to think about the process of how we eat them, knowing we are putting them in pain by boiling all the lobsters we catch alive. I still agree with the idea that lobsters do feel pain and are conscious. In my mind, it’s more of the thought of how they could not. After reading the other articles that we were given like “What the crows know” which talks about animal consciousness, the more I feel stronger about all animals being conscious and being able to feel pain. I also still agree with coming up with other options or ideas on how to kill the lobsters or other animals. Like the knife in the head of the lobster. It might be gross to think about but at the end of the day, it is a quick and faster way for the lobster to get killed so we can eat it. Instead of having a long drawn out death in a pot of boiling hot water where we have to watch life slowly drain out of them as they try and jump out of the pot.
While I was rereading “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace I realized that my opinions haven’t changed. I think that animal cruelty is a real thing and it is very important to know about. Ever since the first time that I read this article I have been rethinking the way I consume animal products. I have legitimately started to decrease the amount of animal products I consume on a daily basis. I think David Foster Wallace touches on really good points in his article. He says that animal cruelty isn’t just complex but it is also uncomfortable and I have never agreed with something more. The thought of animal cruelty makes me sick to my stomach. I love animals and I have grown up around them and the thought of one of their kind being killed to be used as food is so awful to me. Growing up on an island, we always have seafood and all the restaurants in my town serve seafood. When I went home for winter break my family and I went out to dinner and they all got lobster rolls but I got a salad. All I could think about was “Consider the Lobster”. It made me so upset seeing all the poor innocent lobsters in a tank just ready to be boiled alive. It made my stomach hurt thinking about how this goes on all over the world and much worse happens. Just because lobsters don’t have a cerebral cortex doesn’t mean they want to be boiled alive. Reading about the Maine Lobster Festival makes me so upset because I just imagine how many lobsters are killed and consumed during the festival and no one sees an issue with it. Animal cruelty is real and it is awful and my opinions have not changed since the first time I read “Consider the Lobster”.
When reading all of the different articles over the semester such as “Consider the Lobster” and “What the Crows Know”, my views have been altered dramatically not in the conversation of whether it is right or humane to consume animals for gustatory pleasure, but more in the sense of how many animals we should be consuming over time and when it is truly right to consume animals. In many cultures all over the world, there are places where it is extremely frowned upon to even discuss the slaughter of a cow or a chicken. The reasons range from religion to family beliefs but the concept is the same as every article we have discussed, is it right to consume animals. All of these articles have opened my eyes into the consciousness of animals because previously when I would sit down with my family and or friends and prepare for a meal, it had never really occurred to me the bloodshed that had to take place for this meal to be placed in front of us in the first place. This idea is the reason why many people choose to eat meat on special occasions and or rationally but as many of us are learning, the way animals are treated in many farms is terrible and what a lot of us aren’t seeing are the people that are treating them as such. Many protests have been done at cow processing facilities and chicken hatcheries but there is not much exposure to the outside world. In conclusion I believe that the exposure that people are seeing is real but not too many people are really doing anything to stop it. Regardless of what your thoughts are, the conversation of is it right to eat meat that is from an animal humanely correct or incorrect.