Quite frankly, most of the time I don't really consider ethics or politics when I'm buying my good. I don't go to the grocery store planning on finding the organic food, and I certainly don't go intending to spend more for the healthier produce and meat. My main consideration, just like many Americans, is cost. The other is comfort. Ethics only factor in after my decision, based on affordability and my habits, has already been made. I buy Jiff peanut butter over the store brand generic because it's when I've been eating since I was a little girl and I know what to expect from it. The few cents more that it adds to my grocery bill is already expected when I write it down on my list at home. I'm also willing to spend a little more on alcohol, like buying smirnoff over karkov, mostly because it's already a luxury item. It's not something I need to buy every week like milk or soda, and again, it's already factored into my life. Switching to spending more at the grocery store every single week and cutting out the few luxuries I have, like alcohol and cable tv, well that just isn't something I want to do.
I have noticed, though, that when I can already factor in cost and comfort, then I feel good about picking the local or organic options. When I went to the grocery store last, I could buy cheese from Minnesota for less than buying Kraft, and it had the added benefit of not being individually wrapped. So I felt good about my choice because it was more local and more environmentally friendly, but rationally I know my choice has much less to do with either of those things, and I would have made a much different one had the Minnesota made cheese been significantly more expensive than the Kraft. I also noticed that when I was at my parent's home over spring break, I felt good about the fact that we were eating wild-caught salmon. I wasn't at the grocery store so I don't know how much more it cost and didn't have to weigh that priority, and had truly nothing to do with the decision making process that put the salmon on my plate, but I was still happy that we were eating that fish instead of the farmed option. So ethics come into play when it's convenient and I feel good about the decision after it happens, but when the convenience isn't there, I don't feel guilty about buying the mass produced option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
in a basic way, this follows how a hunters consider their kill as a once-living creature, especially when directly attached to the food chain as pollen articulates. many historical cultures would mourn or even worship their meal because of a moral aversion their culture associated with killing, or because of a spiritual connection felt for nature and her bounty. My point of course being that hunger in fact must overcome this seemingly ethical intervention against carnivorism. to connect this more intimately with your discourse: suddenly demanding a sustainable food industry is like huntergatherers deciding to be vegitarian.
ReplyDeleteinterestingly we find ourselves hysterically desirous (willing to kill) one moment and wrought with guilt the next.
(to agree with pollen) i find the onmivore's anxiety/phobia quite naturally parallel to heterosexuality. we all want to find a yummy lover. sometimes you feel guilty about sex but sometimes lust is uncontrolable. most convinient, we need both food and procreation to continue.
is intelligence supportive of omnivism the evolutionary partner to such intelligence supportive of language? it seems one requires the other and that they are virtually the same
I love the analogy to sex / love. Gets the body back in the equation. If the solid neuroscience stuff is right, eating patterns get EMBODIED; taste is woven into the organism. Trying to reprogram you body to like new things is a big order. Sort of like trying to stop saying 'like.'
ReplyDelete