As always Jonathan Safran Foer expresses himself with a rare blend of petry and pragamtism when it comes to the subject of Eating Animals.
You'll enjoy this interview in the Sydney Morning Herald.
These two quotes, particularly, are thoughtful and inarguable:
''Do I think there is any chance in the world that half of Americans will be vegetarians in 10 years? I would say there is virtually no chance in the world of that. Do I think there is any chance that half of the meals eaten in America will be vegetarian in 10 years? I think there is a good chance of that. And that would have the same impact on the world - whether it's half the people or half the meals. It's just that we are not used to thinking about that second way because we've become so convinced that it's a question of identity or lifestyle as opposed to the end that we want.''
''It gives the appearance of being incredibly profitable and efficient, even though it's not. It's not profitable if the costs weren't externalised. If you simply made them pay for their environmental clean-ups, they would all go out of business tomorrow.''
And here's one more. Another example of how he states radical propositions so calmly:
''We have to eat much, much, much less, just because there isn't enough earth on Earth. And the other caveat is we pay the real cost - and people would eat a lot less.''
Is that such a bad thing? Given our losing battle with obesity in First World countries such as Australia, eating less seems like a positive. Foer says: ''The bad thing is the rich people would get to eat what they want, the poor people wouldn't. But that's already true.''
That last sentence makes you cringe; it's an "ouch" moment. But it's true. And if we were all eating better quality food that was less damaging to the planet, theoretically we all would benefit too.
Foer has turned quiet persuasion into an art form.