To see pictures from the previous contest, look here.
ANSWER: this is a photo of a saucepan,filled with flaming wine, which is the first step in the preparation of boeuf bourguignon.
February 18, 2012
You know times are tough
 |
| Bilbao traffic light |
February 16, 2012
Comfort zone
"If you don't work at the edge of your comfort zone, your comfort zone will shrink"
- Alan Oppenheim
February 14, 2012
The environmental consequences of animal husbandry
My second criteria for moral meat-eating is that the meat should be raised in an environmentally benign way.
The relationship of all living things with the environment is one of birth, resource consumption, waste production, death, and decay. This cycle, replayed within and across a complex web of relationships that encompasses all living things from microbes and lichens to killer whales and baobab trees, is our ecosystem and it is dynamic. This is to say that any equilibrium can be perturbed, for good or bad, by chance or design. This is the stuff that drives evolution, mass extinctions, etc...
We therefore know that the world that we inhabit is affected by our actions, both in predictable and unpredictable ways - nothing Earth shattering here, this is a banal assertion. What we see perhaps less clearly is that the environment that we consider to be "natural" is man-made to a significant extent, particularly in the US and Western Europe. This is particularly true of what we like to call "the countryside".
Would letting pasture revert to forest be so bad? After all, isn't forest "good for the environment"? isn't it better than pasture?
Well, perhaps or perhaps not: some species have conquered the pastures of the Vosges and Bretagne, and would doubtlessly find themselves challenged in dense forests. In some ways, this environment that we've created has created its own biodiversity and ecosystem, which one could argue are worthy of some form of protection.
Why do I go through all of this trouble to argue for the future of pastures, hedgerows, and the animals and flowers that inhabit them? It is because extensive animal husbandry is a prime factor in the maintenance of these rich environments. Should we abandon the consumption of meat altogether, we would remove all incentive for farmers to maintain this environment. What would likely happen is that steep slopes would be surrendered to forest (perhaps not a bad thing), but flat areas would likely be turned over to farming wheat, corn, or carrots, as there would be no financial incentive for the farmer to maintain the fractured environment, and no help from livestock.Farming plants, unless it is done by hand on small holdings, uses mechanized equipment which is hampered by hedgerows and small parcels. Fractured pasture and fields, fenced off by hedges, low walls, or trees are much more resistant to soil erosion from wind and rain than plowed fields.
A farmer with pastures and fields, who rotates the use of his land over time to raise animals and plants (fodder and/or human food), will preserve both the rich ecosystem of "the countryside" and raise tasty meat in a way that is arguably environmentally and "ecosystematically" equivalent to one raising plants only.
Need I point out the obvious: this ain't no factory farming that I'm describing here.
Next: livestock, water, and the atmosphere.
February 08, 2012
Animal suffering
I'll try to address here the first of the criteria for moral meat eating.
The first thing that we have to remember is that livestock animals (cows, sheep, fowls, pigs, and all animals that we might raise for food) are mortal.
If we accept that livestock are animals like any others, an argument voiced to argue against their organized slaughter, then we must accept that, as herbivores, they are in the middle of the food chain, destined to be some other animal's prey. As such, their destiny is to be hunted down and killed, whether by a lion, a bear, a wolf, a human, etc... Alternatively, they can die of disease, fire, drowning, or starvation. Dying from old age isn't quite an option for animals, except for pets. Old and/or weak herbivores (think gazelles, zebras, gnus...) are the easiest preys for the lion, crocodile, or what-have-yous that lurk in the tall grass. As part of natural selection, predators routinely pick-off the weakest prey. It's not philosophy, it's Darwinism.
In the wild, to the extent that such places exist, the herbivore has a fair chance at escaping his predator. Domesticated livestock meets their demise at an appointed hour. This is because we control every aspect of their life, from birth to breeding to slaughter. This control, in turn, means that we have a dual responsibility to ensure that:
One might object that a cow born in captivity has not willingly entered into this bargain: comfort and death against freedom. However, HFW makes a convincing point that, on a species basis, livestock animals have entered into this bargain with humans, growing more numerous and healthy than they could ever have dreamt to be in the wild (i.e.: compare the number of gazelles to the number of cows worldwide). In this sense, a symbiotic relationship of sorts has been established between humans and livestock, albeit one that involves the slaughter of one half of the symbiosis to feed the other.
Going back to item 2 above, the farmer is also responsible for choosing a slaughterhouse where his animals can meet their demise in a stress-free manner. While this might seem unrealistic, it should be clear that there is a big difference between a place where animals are killed after a wild stampede where some might be gored or trampled to death, and one where only a few animals at a time are killed in individual pens, by a person who administers a swift death. The difference might seem artificial, but it is fundamental in my view.
It should be clear that what I described above is the exact opposite of factory farming, where animals are kept in confined spaces, pumped up with antibiotics and hormones (in the US), and fed fish or other animal meal. Further, I essentially rule out eating meat that has been slaughtered in an industrial slaughterhouse.
Of course, that means ruling out most of the meat available in supermarkets in France and US today, but that's another story.
The first thing that we have to remember is that livestock animals (cows, sheep, fowls, pigs, and all animals that we might raise for food) are mortal.
If we accept that livestock are animals like any others, an argument voiced to argue against their organized slaughter, then we must accept that, as herbivores, they are in the middle of the food chain, destined to be some other animal's prey. As such, their destiny is to be hunted down and killed, whether by a lion, a bear, a wolf, a human, etc... Alternatively, they can die of disease, fire, drowning, or starvation. Dying from old age isn't quite an option for animals, except for pets. Old and/or weak herbivores (think gazelles, zebras, gnus...) are the easiest preys for the lion, crocodile, or what-have-yous that lurk in the tall grass. As part of natural selection, predators routinely pick-off the weakest prey. It's not philosophy, it's Darwinism.
In the wild, to the extent that such places exist, the herbivore has a fair chance at escaping his predator. Domesticated livestock meets their demise at an appointed hour. This is because we control every aspect of their life, from birth to breeding to slaughter. This control, in turn, means that we have a dual responsibility to ensure that:
- the life of our livestock is free of the pain and suffering that befalls wild herbivores
- the manner of death is as painless and stress free as possible
One might object that a cow born in captivity has not willingly entered into this bargain: comfort and death against freedom. However, HFW makes a convincing point that, on a species basis, livestock animals have entered into this bargain with humans, growing more numerous and healthy than they could ever have dreamt to be in the wild (i.e.: compare the number of gazelles to the number of cows worldwide). In this sense, a symbiotic relationship of sorts has been established between humans and livestock, albeit one that involves the slaughter of one half of the symbiosis to feed the other.
Going back to item 2 above, the farmer is also responsible for choosing a slaughterhouse where his animals can meet their demise in a stress-free manner. While this might seem unrealistic, it should be clear that there is a big difference between a place where animals are killed after a wild stampede where some might be gored or trampled to death, and one where only a few animals at a time are killed in individual pens, by a person who administers a swift death. The difference might seem artificial, but it is fundamental in my view.
It should be clear that what I described above is the exact opposite of factory farming, where animals are kept in confined spaces, pumped up with antibiotics and hormones (in the US), and fed fish or other animal meal. Further, I essentially rule out eating meat that has been slaughtered in an industrial slaughterhouse.
Of course, that means ruling out most of the meat available in supermarkets in France and US today, but that's another story.
February 02, 2012
The morality of eating meat
Eating meat is under attack. Countless vegetarians make potent, rational, and cogent arguments about the moral precariousness of eating meat. However, these arguments have never felt completely compelling or satisfying to me, and so I've kept on eating. At the same time, I've had a feeling that I couldn't quiet provide an appropriate response to my vegetarian friends. Now that I'm reading HFW's book, I feel that I can better articulate a moral position for meat eating, and so I'll try to do it here and in future posts.
While I am no great philosopher, I can see that encouraging the suffering of sentient, social animals for my selfish pleasure is wrong, especially as alternative sources of food abound. I can further see that consuming a product whose production is bad for the environment is morally fraught. I understand and respect the position of moral vegetarians, but I think it is too narrow.
I am just not convinced that it is inevitable that meat will be both the result of great suffering and bad for the environment. I posit that meat consumption can be moral if it complies with the following:
While I am no great philosopher, I can see that encouraging the suffering of sentient, social animals for my selfish pleasure is wrong, especially as alternative sources of food abound. I can further see that consuming a product whose production is bad for the environment is morally fraught. I understand and respect the position of moral vegetarians, but I think it is too narrow.
I am just not convinced that it is inevitable that meat will be both the result of great suffering and bad for the environment. I posit that meat consumption can be moral if it complies with the following:
- the meat I (and you, perhaps) consume came to my plate without additional animal suffering, as compared a hypothetical 'wild' state.
- animal husbandry does not harm the environment any more than its absence would.
- meat consumption is total, meaning that every part of the slaughtered animal is consumed as food, fuel, leather, or other raw material, etc... and no part is wasted.
- the consumption of meat is done with full disclosure of the conditions under which the animal is raised, slaughtered, aged, and sold, so that meat consumers can understand the provenance of their meat and be responsible for their actions.
February 01, 2012
Who's funding Mitt Romney?
In today's NYT, you'll find this nice bit of multi-lingual humor.
It turns out that one of the large contributors to Romney's "Restore our Future" PAC (love the doublespeak!) is one Edward Conard.
Now, Mitt Romney, who speaks French very well, ought to know what that name means, and I'm sure he's banking on the fact that few Americans will know that one of his 1-million dollar sponsors is really named Edward Asshole.
PS: ok, I'll concede that the spelling isn't exact, as the correct spelling of the French insult is "connard"
It turns out that one of the large contributors to Romney's "Restore our Future" PAC (love the doublespeak!) is one Edward Conard.
Now, Mitt Romney, who speaks French very well, ought to know what that name means, and I'm sure he's banking on the fact that few Americans will know that one of his 1-million dollar sponsors is really named Edward Asshole.
PS: ok, I'll concede that the spelling isn't exact, as the correct spelling of the French insult is "connard"
January 26, 2012
Pauvres chéris...
LEMONDE.FR | 26.01.12 | 08h42 • Mis à jour le 26.01.12 | 08h55
Baisse significative des bonus en vue. Selon une étude de Sia Conseil, publiée en exclusivité par La Tribune jeudi 26 janvier, les traders français pourraient voir leurs bonus versés au titre de 2011 chuter de près de 50 %.
Pauvres petits... on se demande comment ils vont mettre de l'essence dans leur Porsche.
January 25, 2012
HFW's Meat Manifesto
Clearly, the kind of meat you buy has several ramifications. The most obvious are taste and texture, morals, and economic.
Morality comes into play because buying intensively farmed meat means that you condone the bad treatment of animals that is commonly practiced on intensive farms. While it's possible to be a moral person and eat meat, it's not ok to willingly engage in practices that deliberately hurt another living creature. I would argue that if you can't afford to eat meat that is farmed in a way that doesn't hurt the animals, you should eat less meat. Call me elitist, but at the same time realize that most people eat way too much meat as it is.
There's an economic component, clearly, to the kind of meat you buy. Of course, it's not the same thing to purchase meat that is mass-produced by giant conglomerates as to purchase (possibly for a higher price) meat produced by a single smallholder who carefully raises individual animals in humane and even comfortable conditions. With one option you are furthering a world where the concentration of the means of production leads to the reduction of choices and a sort of tyranny of large corporations (which we accept in return for the appearance of lower prices). With the other, you are fostering competition between smaller producers who retain a degree of independence that is the best guarantee against the uniformization of culture and the preservation of regional differences that form the rich cultural fabric that sustains us as humans.
In this way, the economic component becomes a cultural preservation component. Please note that I am not making the case that smallholders are inherently better, culturally speaking, than large corporations. Rather, I am saying that the fact that smallholders must be numerous, they will provide more diversity of options and cultures than a single large corporation. This diversity will manifest itself in the types or breeds of animals that they will raise, in how they will butcher them, etc... even within a single country. This diversity is what leads to a genetic guarantee against debilitating diseases that could wipe out a too uniform livestock population, saddening everyone from PETA-types to meat lovers.
All of these considerations, together with others raised by HFW, mean that a meat eater must be educated, adventurous, and thrifty with meat, ensuring that he gets the most of the meat that he purchases so that it is a satisfying experience informed by a carefully articulated moral stance.
Morality comes into play because buying intensively farmed meat means that you condone the bad treatment of animals that is commonly practiced on intensive farms. While it's possible to be a moral person and eat meat, it's not ok to willingly engage in practices that deliberately hurt another living creature. I would argue that if you can't afford to eat meat that is farmed in a way that doesn't hurt the animals, you should eat less meat. Call me elitist, but at the same time realize that most people eat way too much meat as it is.
There's an economic component, clearly, to the kind of meat you buy. Of course, it's not the same thing to purchase meat that is mass-produced by giant conglomerates as to purchase (possibly for a higher price) meat produced by a single smallholder who carefully raises individual animals in humane and even comfortable conditions. With one option you are furthering a world where the concentration of the means of production leads to the reduction of choices and a sort of tyranny of large corporations (which we accept in return for the appearance of lower prices). With the other, you are fostering competition between smaller producers who retain a degree of independence that is the best guarantee against the uniformization of culture and the preservation of regional differences that form the rich cultural fabric that sustains us as humans.
In this way, the economic component becomes a cultural preservation component. Please note that I am not making the case that smallholders are inherently better, culturally speaking, than large corporations. Rather, I am saying that the fact that smallholders must be numerous, they will provide more diversity of options and cultures than a single large corporation. This diversity will manifest itself in the types or breeds of animals that they will raise, in how they will butcher them, etc... even within a single country. This diversity is what leads to a genetic guarantee against debilitating diseases that could wipe out a too uniform livestock population, saddening everyone from PETA-types to meat lovers.
All of these considerations, together with others raised by HFW, mean that a meat eater must be educated, adventurous, and thrifty with meat, ensuring that he gets the most of the meat that he purchases so that it is a satisfying experience informed by a carefully articulated moral stance.
January 22, 2012
A presumptuous announcement and endeavor
Because nothing comes of doing nothing, and because it's time I did something other than complain or mock others (no matter how pithily) on this blog, I've decided that I'm going to re-start this great book that I've been reading and keep a journal here.
Announcing, with great presumption and pretentiousness, the start of a blogging extravaganza about "The River Cottage MEAT Book" by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (HFW).
OK, so I love to eat meat, and it's a bit of a problem, if you will, because I'm also an environmentalist and a water specialist to boot. It's hard to combine a love of meat with a philosophy of respect for the Earth and its non-human inhabitants. I decided to read this book in its entirety because I started reading it months ago at some friends' ranch in Texas and I know that it offers a different philosophy about meat eating (also, because my wife bought it for me for Christmas).
You'll have to excuse the haphazard way in which this is going to go, because I'm not much good at book reports (never was, really). What I'm going to do is read a few paragraphs or pages a night and drop down a reaction here.
HFW and I agree that there's a major problem with the way most of the meat produced in the Western world reaches the plates of the people consuming it. There's a problem with quality, there's a problem with quantity, there's a problem with preparation. In addition, there's an ecological problem: the intensive production of meat is extremely bad for the environment, and a moral problem: intensively farmed animal live miserable, sick lives in inhumane (one should say in-animal) conditions.
While HFW is a bit of a megalomaniac, aiming to change the way millions of people consume meat (no less), he's got a very good point and one worth making at length and in detail, so that we can learn enough that we'll never have to finish our plate (of meat) and be sorry that "an animal had to die for that".
Announcing, with great presumption and pretentiousness, the start of a blogging extravaganza about "The River Cottage MEAT Book" by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (HFW).
OK, so I love to eat meat, and it's a bit of a problem, if you will, because I'm also an environmentalist and a water specialist to boot. It's hard to combine a love of meat with a philosophy of respect for the Earth and its non-human inhabitants. I decided to read this book in its entirety because I started reading it months ago at some friends' ranch in Texas and I know that it offers a different philosophy about meat eating (also, because my wife bought it for me for Christmas).
You'll have to excuse the haphazard way in which this is going to go, because I'm not much good at book reports (never was, really). What I'm going to do is read a few paragraphs or pages a night and drop down a reaction here.
HFW and I agree that there's a major problem with the way most of the meat produced in the Western world reaches the plates of the people consuming it. There's a problem with quality, there's a problem with quantity, there's a problem with preparation. In addition, there's an ecological problem: the intensive production of meat is extremely bad for the environment, and a moral problem: intensively farmed animal live miserable, sick lives in inhumane (one should say in-animal) conditions.
While HFW is a bit of a megalomaniac, aiming to change the way millions of people consume meat (no less), he's got a very good point and one worth making at length and in detail, so that we can learn enough that we'll never have to finish our plate (of meat) and be sorry that "an animal had to die for that".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)