Thanks for situating this in terms of “salience.” That’s pretty interesting. Another issue I think worth noting is that “people” (not everybody, but lots of people in the urbanized, post-domestic US) engage in a willing suspension of belief when they encounter meat in a grocery store or restaurant. They have seen Food Inc, heard about the environmental hazards of factory farming, and read about the brutal conditions faced by livestock and chickens in industrial agriculture. They know at some level that the meat on their plate probably doesn’t come from happy cows on Old MacDonald’s farm. But at the same time it’s just too easy to bracket that knowledge when you’re hungry and encounter a plastic-wrapped piece of meat in a store. It’s so far removed from the animal and the context it came from that it’s incredibly easy to either not think about the back story at all or console oneself with the hope that things are probably getting better, and that you don’t really know where what you are buying came from.
Ok, I just re-read your post and think you said it best: “I might say there is an unconscious, but also partially deliberate, effort on the part of society to block thoughts that might lead to discomforting realizations about animals. Discomforting realities are interpreted as psychological threats and are usually rejected by our brains automatically.”

The issue of “elective vegetarianism” is really interesting, and I hope we talk about it more tomorrow. Tanner raises an important point stressed by some evolutionary biologists (about meat-eating being essential to the expansion of the hominid brain). But I wonder how (or if) you could ascertain that meat-eating always means bigger / better brains? Back to the point made last week about “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie” (or whatever the quote was) – Isn’t the brain-meat connection about the quality of the protein in relation to the amount of energy expended to procure and digest it? Molly’s point about our much less active contemporary lifestyles (we do not have to hunt-gather our own food) would seem to suggest that you can still have a big healthy brain even if you don’t eat meat. Also, Molly, no need to feel guilty about not eating meat! (I’ll stop now, but there’s lots, lots more to say about this…)

I agree that the “animal slaughter as holocaust” metaphor has some problems, but we should talk about it more in class. And I’m so glad you picked up on the implicit nature-nurture debate of Bulliet’s tame vs. domestic discussion. This has what has made me spend so much time recently working on Dmitry Belyaev’s fox domestication experiments (which we’ll be reading about in a couple of weeks).
But what I most appreciate about this post is your encouragement to look at what animals actually do (rather than what we think about them)…and I’ve got a huge soft spot for crows, whose tool use is pretty amazing. And it can be quite playful as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dWw9GLcOeA

I agree with your criticism of Bulliet’s writing style. Throughout the reading we did for this week, I felt like I was getting whiplash trying to keep up as Bulliet veered and zoomed through various topics that were very difficult to pull a point out of. I’m sure our class discussion will lend various perspectives, but part of my concern with my blog post for this week was that I had taken the complete wrong meaning away from what Bulliet was getting at…although I can’t be too sure due to the fact that his writing is bogged down with a lot of fluff. I don’t know about you, but I was a little confused as to why it seemed like much of this section of the reading consisted of movie and cartoon titles. I do understand the metamorphosis of entertainment as our views of animal cruelty have evolved, however I don’t get why that point was made through the listing of pretty much every cartoon that contained animals.

I also am glad that you mentioned the development that Bulliet lacks. As I commented on in my post, I think Bulliet fails to examine the details of societal development that would underline some of his points on changing from a domestic to postdomestic society. I’m glad you brought up the change to reliance on machinery for farming purposes, because I think these large scale meat production farms are the real problem with what Bulliet calls our postdomestic society. However, the explanation of societal changes and the development of the problems with current society and an answer to what needs to be done are all things that are missing from Bulliet’s writing. I understand the book is only beginning, but I think this was necessary in setting up the background for his book. Like you, I remain unconvinced and unimpressed by Bulliet so far.

I’m really glad you posted this article. It was interesting for me to see some different perspectives on this type of food source. as a personal preference, the thing that freaks me out about most meat nowadays is that it’s so full of antibiotics and preservatives and it’s created in such a disturbing way. The image of thousands of animals shoved into confined spaces and slaughtered is really unsettling. That being said, this bio-engineered meat gives me the same uncomfortable feeling. I think the problem overall with the US and meat consumption is how artificial it’s all become. I know a lot of people who will only eat locally farmed meats, and I think that’s the best change we could make to how we consume meat. I definitely think lab-grown meat would push us further away from the best way humans could be consuming meat. Thanks for sharing the interesting article!

Sorry… that the first paragraph above was meant to be quoted so you knew which part of your post I was replying to.

It seemed to me that bestiality would be more like a setback in the history of animal domestication; kind of like a mistake in the process of forging a successful, positive relationship between animals and humans.

I question whether forging a positive relationship with animals was ever the goal. If it is the goal, it’s the goal today, but I don’t think it was a century ago. If anything the goal was exploitation or domination with a hint of narcissistic self-preservation.

>>Therefore, it seems that eating foods that give less energy really isn’t such a big deal.<<

This is probably true from a physical activity standpoint. I don't want to get bogged down in unnecessary details, but our brains consume a disproportionate percentage of calories compared to other organs. Meat is just as important for brain function as it is for physical exertion. Some evolutionary biologists believe a major reason our brains grew so much was that we became omnivores (Many of our recent ancestors were herbivores).

The correlation is intringuing, but I would argue it has more to do with emergence of self-expression than our relationship with domestic animals. The Roaring 20s initiated an increasing acceptance of expression of internal feelings that included releasing and displaying our sexual nature as opposed to suppressing it as was done for centuries. This correlation may simply be coincidental in that the emergence of the postdomestic world aligns rather nicely with the explosion of consumerism that created the modern individual that was free to express and fulfill every whim and desire.

I agree that the human race was destined to prevail no matter what, but I do not agree with Dunn’s general reason for it. His claim is bold and intriguing, but he does not go on to support why we magically became top dog. I see your point that genetically, we as humans have many advantages, but I do not feel that Dunn supports his theory with that as well. We each have personal beliefs about how humans became the dominant species, and I wish Dunn would have gone further in describing and supporting his. Overall though, he is a respectable writer and brings up important issues.

I concur about this book being somewhat difficult to follow. My post reflected on it as a very abstract history lesson, linking (somewhat mindlessly) the domestication of animals to human sexuality and violence. While he does support his claims with various examples of the time periods (hence my history lesson title), he could be throwing around claims he has either assumed or completely made up. I think it’s accurate, genius, and hilarious that you pointed out his basing an entire novel off a term he coined himself. While reading it, I felt skeptical of his overgeneralized claims that the level of domesticity accounts for the sexual preferences of society. He brings up interesting and unique points, but I too had to keep re-reading until I finally got what he was trying to say. He also failed to include specific dates, such as when he described Utopia, and I would really like to know exactly where he gets his information from. I have probably never heard of some of these periods, such as the one of open bestiality, due to the taboo nature of the topic, but I do not understand how he seems to know the sexual history of society. Furthermore, he does not always define which area of the world he is referring to; did the whole world act this way? He will say things like the farmers of “blank,” but what about everywhere else? I liked the beginning of the first chapter when he referred to specific time periods readers are familiar with, such as the late 60′s (1969 to be exact), but he becomes more ambiguous and complex after those first few paragraphs. Do not think I don’t find this book interesting or insightful, I just agree that SOME of his claims are a little shady and pretty overgeneralized.