|
pollan's main argument in the omnivore's dilemma has to do with the importance of the scale of production and the scale of distribution. there's a secondary argument that has to do with some notion of connectedness to the natural world---when i've taught the book, i've not found that terribly interesting. but the other argument is interesting. it cuts across simple categorizations like "organic" (its main target, really).
when i taught the book i was a vegetarian and found nothing particularly objectionable about pollan's piece from that viewpoint....but i also am of the persuasion that being vegetarian is a political and aesthetic choice rather than a moral one. in general, moral arguments aren't persuasive because the more adamant the premise the more its arbitrariness becomes clear. in my humble opinion of course.
bourdain i haven't read.
a roundabout way of repeating baraka's question, really.....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|