Beware of biotechnology . . .

Jeremy Rifkin’s essay “Biotech Century” introduced a discussion that was entirely new to me. I had previously been aware that biotechnology was commonly used in the agricultural industries, but I did not understand exactly how far scientists have come in the field of genetic modification. I am shocked that they can (and willingly do) insert an “antifreeze” gene from flounders into tomatoes to make them immune to frost! (314) Rifkin obviously represents only one side of the debate – that which is opposed to the use of biotechnology. He stresses that unregulated advances in the field will bring about “the uncontrollable spread of super weeds, the buildup of resistant strains of bacteria and new super insects, the creation of novel viruses, the destabilization of whole ecosystems, the genetic contamination of food, and the steady depletion of the gene pool” (318). His argument is very convincing, although I agree with the editors that he has a tendency to overstate his claims (311). Innovation and discovery can be wonderful things, but when we don’t have the capacity to calculate any risks from the creation of new genetic material, new plants and animals, we enter into an unknown, potentially unstable world. I am very sympathetic to Rifkin’s point; however, I do think that he does his argument a disservice by not truly addressing any counterarguments. Why are these companies investing so much in biotechnology? Assumedly, these companies are making large amounts of money, but there must be some possible benefit to society as well. If Rifkin had addressed those points and then successfully countered them, the article would have felt much more complete.

What's wrong with Speciesism? And other thoughts . . .

Michael Pollan’s argument in “An Animal’s Place” travels from an early acceptance of the animal rights point of view, to an acceptance of his animalistic urge to eat meat rooted in humane farming practices. The essay seems to be well thought out and makes a compelling argument for consolidating meat-eating and vegetarian views in a solution that promotes respectful animal husbandry over the practices of large slaughterhouses. I am thoroughly convinced by Pollan’s argument, but, perhaps, it is because I, like Ben Franklin (as referenced in Pollan’s essay) seek to “come up with reasons for whatever [I] want to do” (218). Pollan’s solution to eating meat – looking your food in its face and confronting the fact that you are, in fact, killing and eating another sentient being – is the way that I attempt to approach my meat-eating practices. To round out Pollan’s argument, I would add that “speciesism,” in itself, is not such a horrible thing. Speciesism, unlike racism which was constructed in order to grant certain races dominion over others, is as natural as any other animalistic quality. Cora Diamond in her essay “Eating Meat and Eating People” notes the distinction that humans make between themselves and other animals is a necessary component to species survival. Due to our level of moral understanding, we humans must create mythologies that separate our species from others. It is this separation that gives us the meaning that we need to survive (a meaning that, when absent, can lead to personal destruction). Without some concept that humans are superior and have some purpose to their lives – a concept that we cannot grant to other animals – we would have great difficulty in justifying any of our actions, including eating meat.