September 17, 2010
The Brandeis Hoot
IMPRESSIONS
15
The Self shelf
The value of voting: Voicing your opinion BY ALEX SELF Editor
Is Eating Animals the right thing to do? BY MORGAN GROSS Special to The Hoot
I have always considered myself to be a “green” human being. I have sorted through trashcans to retrieve recyclables and cut plastic water bottles out of my life. I have continuously harped on my family to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, to shop local and organic and to carpool whenever possible—all of this eventually driving my mother to drink (organic apple juice, of course). I have been very content up on my eco-friendly cloud, floating on the fumes of knowledge and self-satisfaction. That is, until two Mondays ago when I experienced a rude awakening. I perused a book kiosk in South Station, hoping pick up some light reading for my six-hour journey home to Philadelphia. Scanning the shelf, a bright green volume caught my eye. Upon further examination, I saw that the cover bore the name of an author who has changed my life before: Jonathan Safran Foer—the same guy who brought us such award winning books as Everything is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. His newest book is entitled Eating Animals and is a work of nonfiction, a memoir inspired by Foer’s recent expedition into fatherhood and the decision that he has been faced with of how to raise his child gastronomically. In this novel, Foer—who has vacillated between kashrut, vegetarianism, veganism, and meat eating throughout his adult life— tells the oft-overlooked story of the livestock and meat production industry. Frequently, those who advocate for animals focus on humane slaughter practices (making sure the death of animals is quick and painless). Foer takes the stance that the lens of
the media should zoom out from the deaths of these animals and should refocus onto the horrific conditions that these same animals often suffer in life. Foer illuminates the factory farm in all of its terrifying glory; huge windowless sheds “45 feet wide by 490 feet long, each holding in the neighborhood of 33,000 birds.” “The typical cage for egg-laying hens allows each sixty seven square inches of floor space” not quite the size of a piece of printer paper. “Such cages are stacked between three and nine tiers high.” Foer goes into disturbing detail on the filth and illness that fills and overflows from these wretched factory farms, but I’ll spare you the graphics. If all of the sentimental animal stuff doesn’t sway you, then consider environmental implications, or possibly more importantly, the implications on human health that the meat production business poses. Every year, factory farmers pump between 17.8 million (as reported by the industry) and 24.6 million (as calculated by the Union of Concerned Scientists) pounds of antibiotics into livestock (in contrast to the three million pounds used to treat humans). These antibiotics are administered not to heal, but to cut the costs of treating sick animals and keep investments (read: profits) safe. This preemptive use of antibiotics doesn’t only negatively affect the livestock’s health; it also poses a serious threat to those who consume said livestock, reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics used when administered to humans. “As far back as the late 1960’s, scientists have warned against the nontheraputic use of antibiotics in farmed-animal feed… Still, the factory farm industry has effectively opposed a ban in the United States.” It’s
almost enough to make you lose your appetite. As disturbing as all of these statistics are, the thing that truly troubles me is the fact that while we openly discuss such “green” issues while consistently letting this problem fly under the radar. As we discuss the environment over burgers from the grill in Sherman, we are contributing to one of the largest suppliers of greenhouse gasses in the world— the EPA states that “livestock produce[s] 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28 percent of global methane emissions from humanrelated activities.” As we contemplate sustainability over Asian Chicken Wraps, we are consuming animals who are so genetically modified and mutated that they are physiologically incapable of breeding without artificial insemination—that doesn’t sound very sustainable to me. Although the scene seems dark, Foer does point out a light on the horizon. Over the past few years, there has been a resurgence of family farms. Places like those that your great-grandpa might have visited to pick out Shabbat or Thanksgiving dinner. Places that treat animals with respect; that give them room to graze and ensure them a quick and painless slaughter. Places that treat animals not like human beings, but certainly like living beings and definitely not like dirt. Although these farms are few and far between—making up less than three percent of the meat business overall—they still provide a glimmer of hope in the eyes of the selective omnivore. While I still haven’t fully processed whether or not “eating animals” is for me, it is unquestionably something that deserves a second thought and a place on the docket of dinner table conversation.
Earlier in the year, I asked my friend George why he never voted. George told me that he knew nothing about the political situation in our country and that his vote would be no better than flipping a coin. Intrigued by this answer, I asked him what he would do if he were forced to vote. George stated that he would either simply flip a coin or vote for his grandmother. At the time, I thought of this as a waste but I later realized that even a vote like this is important. It all starts with the idea of the purpose of a vote. There is a popular misconception that the only valuable vote one could cast is a vote for one of the two major parties. For example, during the 2000 election, people who voted for Ralph Nader were derided by many pundits for “wasting” their vote. And yet you cannot really waste a vote. As long as you are participating in the political system and making your views known, your vote is valuable. Even if your vote is uninformed or even sarcastic, you are contributing to the political system insofar as your basic intentions are made known. If a million people vote for grandma, politicians will know that they are not getting through to the people. But why bother going to the polls and voting for grandma when you could just sit in bed and watch X-Files reruns? What is the difference between not voting and voting for grandma? I would argue that politicians do not get quite the same message when you do not vote. They believe you simply do not care enough to do so and they write off your problems as beyond their concern. Basically, if you do not pay a visit to the polls, the government has little incentive to give your needs any consideration. The strongest example of this problem in action is the extent to which college students’ needs are ignored by the government. College student loans, for example, are the only loans given out which are absolutely required to be repaid. Students can find themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, even if they drop out of college midway through; this debt hangs over their heads for years. Advocates for college students have struggled unsuccessfully to organize substantive relief for this situation and I would argue that one of the main reasons for this is that college students do not vote in overwhelming numbers. The case in point is the opposite of the college student
in the electoral system: grandma. Senior citizens have their every whim catered to by campaigns because they vote in overwhelming numbers. The concern showered upon the senior population far outweighs the paltry dribble that has been leaked upon our own. Medicare and social security have been the crux of myriad campaigns while such subjects as subsidies for college education are often relegated to a back burner. I would posit that there is a clear correlation between the lack of attention we get and our lack of participation in the political system. Staying home instead of voting means tacitly giving your consent to the status quo and thus you have an obligation to yourself to get out and vote. Going back to George for a second, even his flipping a coin would show up in the statistics for people aged 18-24 as a vote. When politicians see that more of the college population is voting, they will take notice and pay more attention to our problems (of which we have many). Specifically, if they see that we have the initiative to go to the polls and vote, even if only sarcastically, they will not write us off as quickly as they do. As long as they see we are voting, they will give our concerns much more merit and will try to win us over. In the status quo, my generation is an afterthought. Even in 2008, very little actual rhetoric was directed our way and as far as I can see, the results have matched the lack of rhetoric. Even more fundamentally, however, I am going to reiterate the old argument about civic obligation. In the end, I would argue that, as a citizen of the United States, you should participate in the electoral system. Voting is like jury duty or taxes or any other civic institution in this country – without it, the United States could not function. Now it is true that the system could run without your vote but it will not run as effectively. The purpose of a democracy is to represent the voice of the people and when you fail to vote, you are depriving the people of a voice. Regardless of my views on the political system as a whole, I believe voting is the most basic and most effective tool in influencing the government. And in a democracy, it is arguably the most significant action one can take. So TiVo the X-files, get out of bed, and get down to the polling both this November – for grandma, for America, and for you.