The Debate on Meat Consumption
The debate on whether eating meat is morally right or not has been dominant across the world. In her work, Flesh of Your Flesh: Should you eat meat?, Elizabeth Kolbert illustrates how humanity hold contradicting view on whether they should consume meat. She explains that a greater population, particularly in the United States, love keeping animals as their pets. On the contrary, the same population loves eating animals. Only in a single year, they consume beef from over 35 million cows, 150 million pigs, and about 9 billion birds. To illustrate her stance regarding the consumption of meat, Kolbert use both Foer and Pollan’s points of view to explain the recorded failures of attempts towards vegetarianism. In the text, the author uses various literary devices including symbolism, powerful diction, and formal tone to create impact of the text on the audience to provoke their minds and hearts towards a certain change. These rhetorical analytic tools demonstrate ethos, pathos, and logos to aid in the understanding of the message and the purpose.
Purpose of the Text
In the text, Kolbert explains how individuals and movements have been advocating for the shift towards vegetarianism. She quotes the work of Jonathan Safran Foer who has written various books including "Eating Animals," "Everything is Illuminated," and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" (Kolbert n.p). According to Foer, amidst the attempt to abandon meet as a result of the ethical debate surrounding it, humans fail to use their consciousness to make the choice. Thus, they have remained unable to abandon meat and its products (egg and milk). The key arguments by Foer to abandon meat include: the animals produce a lot of “shit” as the cities lack waste treatment systems; the animals consume a lot of microbes which raises the cases of bacteria resistance; and the resulting pain the animals undergo routinely just to fit the consumption criteria. The author also notifies readers about Michael Pollan who holds a contradictory view on meat consumption. To him, it is a reality that human beings are superior, and as such have the right to consumer the animals. He advises that it is “naïve” to consider animals victims. The author, thus, concludes that amidst the attempt to go vegetarianism, humans are still “addicted” to meat consumption.
The Audience
The main audience of the author is the general public who consume a meat diet. The author discusses the effect of meat consumption on animals and the environment which indicates her intention of vegetarianism advocacy. Kolbert tells the public that although meat is a good diet, it jeopardizes the wellbeing of the animals including cows, pigs, and birds. She explains that the diet is addictive, and even though he had tried over the years to abandon meat, he could not succeed. All individuals relying on meat diet including children, youths, and adults are informed on the ways in which humans mistreat animals for the sake of feeding. She, however, highlights the opposing argument in which meat eating is supported. Since Pollan consoles meat eaters that because of human superiority, they have the right of eating whatever they want as long as it is not intended to cause extinction. Thus, meat eaters are informed on both the positive and negative effects of their diet.
The Essay (Rhetorical Appeals)
In the text, Kolbert utilizes various rhetorical appeals which include ethos, pathos, and logos to convince his audience of the significance addressing the issue of meat-eating. There is evident use of ethos to show the credibility of the study. This form of persuasion is commonly utilized to show the credibility of the author. Throughout the article, the author’s credibility can be observed in the manner in which she articulates her thought; the text is arranged in various themes and she manages to put together different sources to elaborate on a single topic. At the end of the text, the credentials of the author are clearly indicated. She is considered a writer of The New Yorker since 1999 in the Metro Matters column. One key achievement indicated is her receipt of awards for her contents. In the extended link, it is stated that, “Her three-part series on global warming, “The Climate of Man,” won the 2006 National Magazine Award for Public Interest, the 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award...” The article that had received multiple awards is an environmental related content, which is almost similar to the issue of meat consumption and vegetarianism. This proves her credibility in the subject.
In addition, the author uses pathos in the article to persuade the audience on the serious effect of meat-eating. The rhetorical technique refers to the act of invoking empathy and emotions of the audience to attempt to convince them of the issue addressed. In the text, Kolbert managed to draw pity from the general public who consume meat as part of their meal. In her illustration, the author states that the creatures that people use as good are raised in barbaric conditions. She gives an example of the broiler chickens that are raised in windowless sheds in which they are congested. She states, “The ammonia fumes thrown off by their rotting excrement lead to breast blisters, leg sores, and respiratory disease… fryers often become so top-heavy that they can’t support their own weight” (Kolbert n.p). Because of the urge to make meat sales, animals, particular birds, suffer in the process. Kolbert’s narration is able to evoke pity from the audience who feel the inhumane way in which the birds are reared.
The author also uses rhetorical appeal of logos throughout the text to explain her key points. The use of logos involves consideration of statistics, literal analogies, or facts to ascertain a particular subject. In the article, the author has clearly outlined various statistics and logics to support her claims. The introduction clearly reports the estimated number of animals that humans feed on every year. The author highlights the number of pigs, birds, and cows killed including the total quantity of pork, meat, and poultry meat consumed. In explaining the arguments that support meat-eating, the author states that even the ancestors used to feed on meat. He supports his assertion by stating that “Studies of hunter-gatherer societies show that anywhere from twenty-six per cent to ninety-nine percent (the Nunamiut, of Alaska) of their caloric intake comes from eating meat” (Kolbert n.p). This statistics show that even in the past decades, people living as hunters and gathers hugely (99%) depended on meat for their diet. Statistics increase the reliability of information provided, and prove that the author is informed rather than relying on speculations.
Ethics of the Text
The article raises an ethical dilemma of whether meat consumption is actually moral or immoral. On one hand she explains that eating meat results in the misuse and abuse of animals, while on the other hand she justifies the dependence of meat through Pollan’s argument. Kolbert explains that animals, just like home pets, deserve to live in safe conditions. However, by relying on a meat diet, the animals are exposed to cruel environment and subjected to brutal killings. However, the author later quotes Pollan’s work in which he justifies the consumption of meat. He suggested that one of the reasons for meat diet is the fact that humans are superior. The author states, “Different animals naturally have different diets; in our case, this diet includes meat” (Kolbert n.p). This means that since meat is part of the human diet, there should be no guilt in killing the animals. Furthermore, taking care of animals, as indicated in the text, does not preclude eating them. Thus, readers are caught up in a moral dilemma of whether to justify their dependence on meat or change their diet to vegetarianism.
Conclusion
In summary, Koblert highlights the need to be conscious in diet selection. Amidst the fact that meat is a good source of protein, it is important to reevaluate the process through which it is produced. The main aim of illustrating the painful mistreatment that animals undergo in order to get meat is to instigate more humane approaches to rearing animals. Rather than overweighing birds to get more meat, the government could subsidize the prices of the chicken in order to ease pressure on making fast profits at the expense of the animal welfare. Being aware of the poor conditions in which animals are subjected to would also educate the public on the need to resist any form of mistreatment for the sake of food supply. Many measures could, thus, be considered to encourage the consideration of conservation approaches towards animal rearing to protect their wellbeing.
Work Cited
Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Flesh of you Flesh: Should you Eat Meat?” (November, 2009). The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/09/flesh-of-your-flesh
