The Only Way To Have A Cow By Bill Mckiibben Summary
Camdenn Young-Harry
Food Production Essay
Seng Alex Veng WRI 010
09/09/2016
Bill McKibben’s essay “The Only Way to Have a Cow” establishes a sense of comfort as his approach to the meat eating controversy is superbly logical. The current industrial approach to livestock has birthed an issue pertaining to the sustainability and healthy feeding of our lives. Yet there is another problem in relation to our consumption, which tends to be overlooked. If the pricing of meat reflected in the damage done to our environments, feedlot beef would cost more than grass-fed beef both financially and environmentally. It is the rapid, inhumane dietary feeding of the cow which is insulting, not the consumption of it, and taking no responsibility for the run-off is an offense to the earth and it’s inhabitants. These costs alone are part of the reasoning for the current system which is inefficient and uneconomically feasible. The …show more content…
This is a key point to bring to light in this type of controversial argument. McKibben intended to speak open towards a wide range of consumers to plant seeds of thought about the facts in meat production. Although by his non-meat eating decision, McKibben automatically loses a hint of his credibility. Those who are in all for eating meat and see no problem with doing so will possibly overlook his words with a quickness. Individuals against his cause could claim that he is only acting out of self-interest, which now gives them an opportunity to accuse him of exaggerating the statistics. Being objective to an a complex issue is one of the best ways to present your argument in an unbiased, strategic manner. While at the same time it is impossible to ignore the cold, hard facts hidden behind the red curtain of industrial
Food Production Essay
Seng Alex Veng WRI 010
09/09/2016
Bill McKibben’s essay “The Only Way to Have a Cow” establishes a sense of comfort as his approach to the meat eating controversy is superbly logical. The current industrial approach to livestock has birthed an issue pertaining to the sustainability and healthy feeding of our lives. Yet there is another problem in relation to our consumption, which tends to be overlooked. If the pricing of meat reflected in the damage done to our environments, feedlot beef would cost more than grass-fed beef both financially and environmentally. It is the rapid, inhumane dietary feeding of the cow which is insulting, not the consumption of it, and taking no responsibility for the run-off is an offense to the earth and it’s inhabitants. These costs alone are part of the reasoning for the current system which is inefficient and uneconomically feasible. The …show more content…
This is a key point to bring to light in this type of controversial argument. McKibben intended to speak open towards a wide range of consumers to plant seeds of thought about the facts in meat production. Although by his non-meat eating decision, McKibben automatically loses a hint of his credibility. Those who are in all for eating meat and see no problem with doing so will possibly overlook his words with a quickness. Individuals against his cause could claim that he is only acting out of self-interest, which now gives them an opportunity to accuse him of exaggerating the statistics. Being objective to an a complex issue is one of the best ways to present your argument in an unbiased, strategic manner. While at the same time it is impossible to ignore the cold, hard facts hidden behind the red curtain of industrial