Complexity

As a class we have definitely concluded that there is a lot wrong with the way that our food is produced. It is evident that industrial agriculture, specifically factory farming, is harmful in a multitude of ways. Factory farming violates the rights of animals and their well being, violates the rights of the laborers, irrevocably damages ecosystems and the environment, and violates the rights of the consumer - their right to know where their food is coming from and to be provided with the necessary information and resources to supply themselves and their family with healthy food.

Industrial agriculture is incredibly complex. There are so many people, animals, cultures, laws, rights, companies, ideologies, motives, benefits, costs, etc. intertwined in the web of industrial agriculture. If we want the system to change, where do we start?

Do we target emotion and evoke anger and sadness in the population by very publicly exposing the horrors of factory farms? Do we target human rights activists by stating that human lives are being exploited and degraded? Do we target religious groups and argue that the way animals are currently being treated would be scorned by the various gods, going against often universal teachings of love and compassion? Do we target the corporate heads by presenting a logical chart of the costs and benefits of changing to a more sustainable way of production? Do we target EPA by explaining just how detrimental industrial agriculture is to our environment? Do we target the family next door with a new baby by informing them of Kevin's Law, enacted on behalf of Kevin, a boy who died days after consuming E-Coli infected meat?

Which of these target populations hold the most potential for change? What strategy will enact the most rapid change?

In class today we talked about the two most prominent targets - the industry and the consumer. Is it more effective to try and bring down the industry, or is it more effective to bring up the small farmer? Both work for the same ends, just different means. In my opinion, it would be a combination of both. In an ideal world, one would bring the good up, and bring the bad down simultaneously.

But if there were limited resources and we had to pick one - which would bring about the most change? Today, a vegetarian classmate shared with us an experience she had over the weekend. She went to a Farmer's Market to get her groceries and contemplated buying meat. She does not normally eat meat, but she suddenly had an ethical dilemma: would it be more effective in changing the current system of industrial agriculture to abstain from eating meat altogether ("bring down" the bad - the demand for meat) or to support locally and "ethically" raised meat ("bring up" the good)?

This for me raised another question - is anything truly and completely ethical? Is it possible to raise an animal for human consumption and treat it with unwavering love and compassion?

I have a cow named after me in one of the states in the Midwest. My aunt's best friend's son owns a small dairy farm. When I was little, they asked me if I wanted to name one of their cows. Naturally I picked my own name and named it Marly. They sent me a picture of Marly with her little name tag on in one of the stalls in the barn. Marly is and has been for the last decade or so, the best milk and baby producer on the farm. I even got to name one of her children - Madeline.

One year my aunt went to visit their farm. When she got there, she immediately noticed that one of the cow's intestines were hanging out of her rectum. She asked her friend what was wrong with the cow. Apparently, she answered, that is fairly common with cows. Then my aunt asked he same question to the son, who told her that vet visits for something as common, but yet so painful for the cow, are too expensive - maybe he would call someone out to look at it later that week.

If someone is trying to support ethically raised dairy cows, and they buy milk from a farmer that gives cows a decent life, but doesn't have the means to always give them veterinary attention, instead of buying from an industrial dairy corporation that commits atrocities against cows every day, does it count? If there is one, two, three, ten violations of animal rights on an "ethical" farm, is it no longer ethical? Should we no longer support it?

Professor Garcia told us a story that Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of Eating Animals, recounted when he came to UW. He is a vegetarian, but he told someone that he occasionally eats meat - maybe once a year. They immediately condemned him for being a hypocrite saying that if he eats meat even once a year, he can't call himself a vegetarian, and why not eat meat every day of the year at that point. He responded with, "if I tell a lie, however small, one day of the year, does that mean I should therefore tell a lie every day of the year"?

So often we think in terms of black and white, right and wrong. The reality is that things are so much more complex than that. Someone can be really good person, but they unavoidably will sin from time to time. A small "ethical" farm can occasionally make a bad decision, or assign economics a higher priority than a cow's comfort. Someone can oppose the meat industry and want to change it, but eat meat on occasion.

Where do we draw the line? Where does something cross over from good into bad, bad into good? I don't necessarily think that the line has to be drawn. Any progress is progress. Which is better - to buy the Farmer's Market meat or to not buy it? If I'm going to buy chicken, should I buy from a company that keeps them in a dark crammed coop 24 hours of the day rolling around in their own feces and chicken corpses, or one that keeps chickens in that coop 23 hours of the day, and lets them outside for one. ANY progress is progress.

That brings me back to my original question - where do we start? Well, as I have just said, any progress is progress. I would argue that it doesn't matter where we start. There are costs and benefits, some unforeseen, of all of the targeting measures that I mentioned in the third paragraph. If we preoccupy ourselves with being perfect, finding the absolute best possible solution, the most rapid solution, the most accurate solution to everything, we will get nowhere. The key is to look for ways to be progressive, to support progressive ideas. No matter how complex an issue, how many facets it has - visible and invisible - any progress towards a goal is progress towards a better future.