Reply to comment

I actually don't think Pollan is that pushy about anything. As far as his discourse against vegetarians, I didn't see so much assertion against their views as encouragement to invest in them, to back them up further by experiencing/reaffirming why they don't eat meat. I may be cheating right now, because I've read more of the sections... because I read half of them by mistake... NAY! On purpose! **Perseverance in believing I am intelligent is key!!!!** but his idea of making slaughterhouse walls transparent is excellent. Being vegetarian, it would be an absolute encouragement to me to see that the cows killed are (ideally) slaughtered humanely. Slaughtered humanely, but slaughtered nonetheless~ for better or worse I would remain vegetarian, comforted that I had made a more informed, objective study, before reverting back to my emotions. It at least allows me to discern between moral/political/economic/societal/schma acceptability and my own personal bubblesphere of hippiedom.

I trust Pollan because he has humor. Not that he is particularly funny or wildly entertaining~ more like self-effacement, or an admittance of his inability to write the expose he wanted to, because they wouldn't let him through the blue door. Science offers no opinion, and any conclusion, he says, based solely on science is based, for the most part, on simplicity. One variable at a time is all that can be tested~ though I think extensive studies in some arenas would allow a buildup of individual variables into a very complex system. I think the point he's trying to make is that whatever that system is, we haven't figured it out yet, and to base an opinion on a factor, rather than a whole, is a mistake. I trust him because he relates only what is personal, and because he distinguishes his opinions AS opinions, not facts. And if he does state a scientific fact, he doesn't assign an opinion to it.