The New Omnivore’s Dilemma
Please, for the time being, forgive me for what I’m about to say next.
People, you are
not omnivore.
I am.
Frankly this is an attention getter, and it’s not very true, but I’m very confident that I am more of an omnivore than many of you, nothing to be proud of, though. I know I should prove it with examples now but trust me, for your own appetite, it can wait.
An abstract of the new omnivore’s dilemma: modern civilized humans are less of an omnivore anymore. Although we still eat both plants and animals, civilization forbids us from eating too many stuff. Do we really want to go back?
Food Industrialization and Its Problems
Just a reminder about my attitude on food industrialization:
Yeah yeah the large scale production of food makes ordinary people lose their options of choosing their own food, even depriving them of the knowledge of what they are really eating. Everything is corn and we can do nothing about it except for planting a few vegetables in the tiny backyard of our own unless we also have a freaking farm in the middle of Virginia (like the author of
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle; thanks, Michael) to which we could escape from the non-organic metropolis.
In a nutshell, the industrialization of food production is bad, the use of GMO to boost yields is evil, and the corn subsidy is wrong.
But again, any good idea?
What’s done can’t be undone. The current situation is set; it is already unrealistic for each person of the very large population to grow their own food while they have other duties. Organic plantation is labor-intensive so it can’t support the huge need for food every day. Although GMO sounds really uncomfortable for us but a lot of economically inferior people are depending on them because of the low prices.
On one hand, we are civilized
The industrialization of food production has caused so many critics that I keep thinking to myself: are we going the wrong way?
As matter of fact, the emergence of the intelligent “human species” itself is already a balance breaker to the nature.
Without intelligence, the human species may still be a common kind of mammals that lives within the food chain. However, human managed to step out of the chain and prolong its average lifespan, using the gifted intelligence. For example, nature decides that human cannot run faster than deer or beat bears with bare hands, so our ancestors invented bows and arrows and spears. For another example, nature decides that human cannot digest raw meat easily, so they learnt to cook. If this went on, before we know it, the damage to the nature will be irrevocable. As some philosophers suggested, this was the reason why human need ethics and rituals to build civilization: we are omnivores, we have the teeth that can both tear meat and grind seeds, and we are insatiable; before we destroy the world, we need regulations.
That’s how, in theory, human started to become civilized. Industrialization is just one of the final steps of civilization, because it sets up the model of human eating collaboratively. This means no direct barbarous slaughter of animals for every male in the family. This means ordinary people can eat pork without killing a pig, not even seeing one being killed. By engaging less and less in brutal activities, human became less of a wild animal and started to have manners and respect each other more.
Today, the civilization is pretty mature. Some of us even become faint at the sight of blood. We developed cultures and religions that prevent us from eating certain kinds of animals or herbs. We have laws and regulations that forbid us from eating rare animals. With all these constraints, the human species has become less of an omnivore.
On the other hand, however, we are natural
Tracing back to its source, the human species is still a member of the nature. It seems like we have a built-in affection toward nature along with disgust toward the non-nature: “natural” is almost always a good description. People are against plastic surgery because it goes against nature, even though it aims to make people prettier. Even though genetically modified organism (GMO) is proved to have larger yields and quicker production, people still feel sick about it perhaps because it’s against the nature.
However, if we want to keep everything “natural”, we shouldn’t have invented cars and built factories that severely increased the pollutions, we shouldn’t have used too much fresh water which quickens up the iceberg melting, and we shouldn't have, coming back to my theme, broken the balance of nature by massively raising certain kinds of livestock and growing certain kinds of plants. But if we don't do so, how can we support a large population? How can we be both civilized and nature?
I’m far from being educated enough to answer this question. I’d call it the New Omnivore’s Dilemma: do we want to go back to omnivore and be natural, or do we want to stay civilized? Is there a win-win solution?
The moral of eating animals
In fact, this blog could be a reaction to Etai’s stories in Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Cambodia. It was after reading his experience when I realized how more of an omnivore I am comparing to most American people. I'm neither proud nor ashamed about this, and I’ll explain.
From this point forward, this post may contain sensitive issues, depiction of explicit violence and disturbing images, and remarks that may seem offensive though they are not meant to be at all.
As I have mentioned, I’m not smart enough to figure out a way to have the human species become both civilized and natural. A fundamental reason is that the nature is brutal. As far as I know, the more “original” a place is, the more likely it is for the people there to own lifestyle that involves hunting and processing the preys personally.
Let’s talk about my hometown for a while. I’m from Canton, China, a province well known for its eating culture nationwide. It can’t be famous worldwide in a sense because chicken feet already disturb too many people. What will happen if you all know that local Cantonese are known for eating “everything”?
It’s going to be infamous, instead of famous.
There is a folk saying about this: Cantonese could eat everything that has four limbs other than a table. In fact, people in other places of China often cast doubts on Cantonese eating habits, sometimes with very critical languages or even curses. Worst part is that as time went by a lot of rumors appeared. Now I’ll pick a few astonishment, introduce them and clear up some misunderstanding in the form of a series of Q&As.
- Q: …so you eat chicken feet, pig ears, fish head, duck head and so on?
A: Yes, and this is very common in the entire nation. They are usually served as delicacies, and there are many ways of cooking them. As Etai mentioned, in Hong Kong you can easily see fully intact animals ready to be cooked everywhere in the streets. It reminds me that before I came to US, my American teacher, Ms. Noble, once told me that most American people will feel unsettling about this, so if I ever hold a dinner party, leave out the legs and the heads and just serve the breast meat.
At first I thought this is because Americans have a more civilized culture than we do: I asked a few friends and the answers are mostly "it felt creepy like eating human hands", not to mention the heads – it felt like the dead and cooked animals are still watching you. However, most Chinese people feel okay in eating them. Does that mean Chinese are more brutal? Or does that mean Chinese people are less civilized?
In fact, China is one of the few countries in the world that had never started an invasion toward other nations. And speaking of culture, the country is more than 5,000 years old, and during Tang dynasty it was the most prosperous nation which its neighbors all came to learn from.
There are many theories about this. I’m prone to the one which claims that China has always been an agricultural country so most people are used to seeing wild scenes. In fact, Ms. Noble had no problem seeing or eating pig feet at all from the beginning because her father was a butcher. Another theory claims that China had been through tough times when food supply was very insufficient, so people ate everything they could see – they didn’t want to waste anything that’s edible. As an old Chinese adage goes, “only wealth can enable men to be courteous”; in bad times, people have the instinct for survival. See Bear Grylls for reference. Today, the ability to “eat brutally” becomes a sole eating habit and doesn't represent boorishness anymore.
I have to confess that I don’t understand where the fear comes from. No matter you see the chicken’s head or not you are still eating its body. It’s dead and you are eating it – how can glancing away from its head makes it better? Is it just a kind of mental avoidance?
- Q: Do you eat animal’s internal organs like chicken hearts, pig kidney, and so on?
A: This is very common across China, too, although I know a lot of us will refuse to eat them. Also, I think this is cultural as well. See foie gras for reference.
- Q: Do you eat rat?
A: Yes, but technically no; it’s usually the South China field mice that are made food. These voles eat crops and stay on farms all the time so they are cleaner than city mice (perhaps because they eat organically but not processed food :P? ); at least they usually don't carry diseases like city mice do. In my view, these mice are very different than those in the city, and are no different than any other livestock.
- Q: Do you eat insects like cockroach?
A: This is one of the top-ten rumors. Yes we eat insects, but it’s very common in a lot of countries; no we don’t eat cockroach, but we have a dish made of water beetles which do look like yet very different than cockroaches. Water beetles are easier to raise and usually don't carry disease.
The major concern of questions 3-5 is, I guess, eating “dirty” food. In my defense, the thought that these ingredients are dirty is purely psychological. Above all, our common senses of the disease carrier (rat and cockroach, in this case) blinded our sight that some creatures with the similar appearance could be clean and edible. Second, if you still feel intestines and kidneys are dirty, well, they are, but so does the flesh of animals before they are cleaned. Although internal organs can’t be as cleaned as flesh, but they are clean enough for people to eat without causing health problems, which is why they can be approved by FDA.
Not to mention the world's most expensive coffee is called civet coffee, or Kopi Luwak in Indonesian, a.k.a Cat Poop Coffee. I bet you know one of the ingredients.
- Q: What unusual meat have you eaten? Do you eat pangolins?
A: Snake, kangaroo, camel, ostrich, wild boar… but definitely not pangolins and other endangered, protected species. I googled the meat of all the animals I listed and found that various cultures eat them…so I guess I’m fine?
- Q: Finally, a big one. Do you eat dogs?
A: Well, this is like asking the question “do you eat rats”. I can’t say no, because what’s on the menu reads “dogs”; but I can’t say yes, either, because I know when you ask the question you are thinking about those cute pet dogs and all the moments of cuddling, walking, and taking selfies with dogs.
This is a very serious question to answer because dogs are recognized as the human’s best friends, which makes eating them sound so evil and immoral. However, although illegal slaughter of pet dogs may exist, most dog meat restaurants kills dogs that are raised specially for meat. Honestly, I feel the fact that people being so furious about eating dog is a little unfair for oxen. If dogs are human’s best friends, oxen help human a great deal, too: in plowing, in transportation, and in producing milk. However, people seem to have forgotten all of these when they enjoy and devour beef steak in restaurants.
Of course, there are beef cattle which are kept purposefully for their meat. Likewise, there are dogs that are specially kept for this purpose, too. Why can people forgive eating beef while they can’t bear the thoughts of eating dogs?
I guess one big reason is that ordinary people can’t see a bull easily in the city, but they can easily find dogs as companions everywhere. When it comes to the idea of eating them, people will naturally think of the companion dogs they see all the time and so feel disturbing; but when they are eating beef, it is unlikely for them to think of the working bulls or milking cows.
Or do people just think oxen as tools but dogs as friends? Isn’t this thought even sadder? Is it because dogs are closer to human emotionally so that they are more respectable? Aren’t they equal living things? But speaking of equality, should we also feel sad for those livestock? Why are they born with the duty of being traded and eaten by human beings?
I think the logic behind the morality of eating animals is like this. One way to look at “we are what we eat” is that the way we eat reflects our culture and civilization.
If we eat our friend, dogs, does that mean we could eat human as well? Dogs are too close to human beings, both physically and emotionally, and this makes the thought of eating the species very immoral. Sometimes civilization is like this – although it is superficial, when there is no drama, there is no consequence.
“We are civilized so we don’t eat our friends.” So we don’t want to eat dog because we want to think in this way.
This could explain why not seeing the chicken’s head yet still eating its breast is not stupid or hypocritical – civilization requires that “we are not brutal”. We eat with manners, we don’t wantonly kill, and we may our food have died in peace.
Although we are still practically killing and eating, we could think better of ourselves if we don’t eat brutally. We need to think this way, because otherwise the atmosphere of the whole society may be evil.
Here’s an evidence of this theory. I googled the image of “dog meat” and found most pictures and research and news regarding this topic involve the mistreatment of dogs. They were either killed in a bad way or had died in an ugly position with a ferocious face. Actually, this is the scene that makes people throw up, not the nature of the dog meat.
The killing of any living thing may be brutal for laypeople to see.
If you have never killed a fish before, you may be afraid or uncomfortable to do so. You have to knock the fish to a coma and then open up its belly and clean up (throwing out what’s inedible and wash the cavity). Yet you are still comfortable to eat the fish, because most of the time you don't engage in the killing and processing so you won’t feel guilty of eating it.
Let’s come back to my thesis and look at the New Omnivore’s Dilemma again: do we want to go back to omnivore and be natural, or do we want to stay civilized?
I can’t find a win-win situation for now, because civilization means nothing brutal, but nature
is brutal. How can we accept the good side of nature and ignore the cruel part?
Come to think of this: If Pollan couldn’t stand the view of machine killing animals which became his food, could he kill the animal by hand and eat it, feeling proud and healthy? Or should he just become a vegetarian, which was clearly against his meat-loving nature?
To eat or not to eat, that's Omnivores n' the pickle.
Appendix
How Canton got its culture
In defense of my mother culture, Cantonese didn’t develop its “all-you-can-eat” culture for no reason. You see it is a tropical province with very warm and humid weather, which made fresh technique very difficult. While some northern parts of the world store cabbage at home for the winter, we have to eat at sight or we should evolve to become scavengers. In the beginning, Cantonese were not cooking experts, nor did we have a brutal initiative; we just need fresh food to survive. Besides the bad weather, Canton has a small flatland that is not rich enough to grow large scale of rice and wheat, so before sweet potatoes were transplanted to Canton, the local people had no normal eating schedule. That’s why they depended largely on hunting animals and gathered weird herbs. Luckily, exactly because of the mountains and seas, wild animals were numerous and active, offering Cantonese a lot of food choices. Plus, Canton had always owned diverse cultures as it was a cross road for many business routes. That’s basically how it developed its special, bold, and somewhat terrifying eating culture.
I think often time it is pointless to attack a culture if its eating culture seems brutal. They usually come with a reason, even it seems against the nature, or against civilization – it’s either this or that. Consider sashimi: it’s basically eating raw animals, but people eat them with chopsticks, sitting in a tatami, and wearing clothes – all these civilized gestures cover for the natural, original eating style.
Etai's blog post:http://the340lowdown.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-omnivores-moral-dilemma_15.html
Michael's blog post: http://voltonsays.blogspot.com/2015/06/local-organic-mealsare-they-affordable.html
