Pollan

I thought that Michael Pollan made several interesting arguments in his work The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Throughout his work he employs a lot of rhetorical strategies to reach out to his reader. The most persuasive of these is the pathos he uses in his writing. He really reaches out and identifies with the reader, explaining how this was an experiment and he wasn’t fully convinced about giving up eating meat. He also identifies many of the defenses that a non-vegetarian reader would have which makes the reader feel understood.

The most interesting argument that I thought Pollan made was that regardless of what we eat, some animal are going to perish. He points out that even in farming animals are killed daily, either because of machinery, pesticides, or crop protection. He also cites the balance of nature as a critical point. If we were to survive solely off of agriculture it would be a huge strain on other resources and would not be sustainable without animals to supplement it. He states that “if our concern is for the health of nature….then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do” (Pollan, 327).

I found this argument very unexpected but practical. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard someone make this argument but it makes a lot of sense. Because of the amount of agriculture that would need to be produced to support the number of people in this world, it should be assumed that we are going to have an impact on nature somehow. I think that Pollan uses a lot of logos to support this idea and get people to critically think about what our world would be like if we survived on agriculture alone. Personally as a meat-eater, I found this concept a little reassuring.