Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism

By Melanie Joy and Yuval Noah Harari

An Introduction to Carnism."An important and groundbreaking contribution to the struggle for the welfare of animals." — Yuval Harari, New York Times best-selling author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind"An absorbing examination of why humans feel affection and compassion for certain animals but are callous to the suffering of others." — Publishers WeeklyWhy We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows offers an absorbing look at what social psychologist Melanie Joy calls carnism, the belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals when we would never dream of eating others. Carnism causes extensive animal suffering and global injustice, and it drives us to act against our own interests and the interests of others without fully realizing what we are doing. Becoming aware of what carnism is and how it functions is vital to personal empowerment and social transformation, as it enables us to make our food choices more freely—because without awareness, there is no free choice.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Aug 1, 2020
• ISBN: 9781633411371

Book preview

Praise for Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

Melanie Joy's book is an important and groundbreaking contribution to the struggle for the welfare of animals. It helps us step outside the box of ‘carnism’ so that we are better positioned to think critically and be a part of the solution, helping to create a more compassionate and sustainable world.

—Yuval Harari, New York Times bestselling author

of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

An absorbing examination of why humans feel affection and compassion for certain animals but are callous to the suffering of others.

—Publishers Weekly

"There's plenty of information in this book, and insight and argument. But the true achievement of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows is that it reminds us of what we already know. With eloquence and humility, Melanie Joy appeals to the values that all of us already have and have always had. She reminds us of who we are."

—Jonathan Safran Foer, award-winning author of

Everything Is Illuminated, Eating Animals, and We Are the Weather

"This is a must-read book for everyone who is horrified by the idea of eating dogs but eats pigs, cows, and chickens. Melanie Joy examines the psychological props that make it possible for us to adore some animals and eat others—and kicks them all aside. Why We Love Dogs is written in a clear and lively style, and I'm delighted to see it out in a new edition with a foreword by Yuval Harari."

—Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton

University, author of Animal Liberation

Melanie Joy is a thought leader whose work is potentially world changing. A few years from now, ‘carnism’ will be a household term, and how we think about eating animals will be fundamentally altered.

—Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, India's longest-serving member of

Parliament and chairperson of People for Animals, India

"Few books have done more to change the way I think than Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. This is a framework for thinking about how dominant ideologies disguise, protect, and conserve themselves. It will help you see not just the ideology that governs our relationship with animals, but the presence of ideologies that want to remain hidden all over modern society."

—Ezra Klein, cofounder and editor-at-large at Vox

"Melanie Joy is one of the great thinkers of our time. Her excellent Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows . . . makes a powerful, novel argument for eating plant-based. Her reasoning transcends just health and is a must-read for anyone who wants to make thoughtful food choices."

—Dan Buettner, National Geographic Fellow and

New York Times bestselling author of The Blue Zones

"Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows is groundbreaking. Melanie Joy brilliantly explains why people resist information that would help them make more healthful food choices—and how they can overcome this."

—Michael Greger, MD, New York Times bestselling author

of How Not to Die and founder of nutritionfacts.org

Why read Melanie Joy? Because her concept of carnism makes us see things differently. Because she addresses readers with empathy. And because she belongs to a new and exciting generation of committed intellectuals. All of these reasons are good. But there is another one that surpasses them all. You have to read Melanie Joy because what she tells us is important.

—Matthieu Ricard, Buddhist monk,

photographer, author, and humanitarian

Melanie Joy's work took me from getting it to living it—all in the time it took me to finish her groundbreaking book.

—Josh Tetrick, founder and CEO, Just

Melanie Joy is a seer: she sees how and why we humans do what we do and she provides passage through our unconscious behavior so that we can make more thoughtful choices. She is infinitely respectful of the reader, and so we walk away feeling wiser and empowered to be changemakers.

—Kathy Freston, New York Times bestselling author

of Quantum Wellness, Veganist, and The Lean

"Why We Love Dogs helped me understand the issue of eating animals from a new, unique, and empowering perspective. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to make more compassionate, rational, and healthful food choices."

—Daniel Negreanu, six-time World Series of Poker bracelet

winner and member of the Poker Hall of Fame

WHY WE LOVE DOGS EAT PIGS AND WEAR COWS

AN INTRODUCTION TO CARNISM

Melanie Joy, PhD

Foreword by Yuval Noah Harari

This edition first published in 2020 by Red Wheel, an imprint of

Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC

With offices at:

65 Parker Street, Suite 7

Newburyport, MA 01950

www.redwheelweiser.com

Copyright © Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2020 by Melanie Joy, PhD

Foreword copyright © 2020 by Yuval Noah Harari

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage

and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Red Wheel/Weiser,

LLC. Reviewers may quote brief passages. Previously

published in 2010 by Conari Press, ISBN: 978-1-57324-505-0.

ISBN: 978-1-59003-501-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available upon request

Cover design by Kathryn Sky-Peck

Interior by Steve Amarillo / Urban Design LLC

Typeset in Baskerville and PMN Caecilia

Printed in the United States of America

IBI

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

www.redwheelweiser.com/newsletter

For witnesses everywhere.

Through your eyes, we may find our way.

The greatness of a nation and its moral

progress can be judged by the way

its animals are treated.

—MAHATMA GANDHI

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Foreword to the Tenth Anniversary Edition

1 / To Love or to Eat?

2 / Carnism: "It's Just the Way Things Are

3 / The Way Things Really Are

4 / Collateral Damage: The Other Casualties of Carnism

5 / The Mythology of Eating Animals: Justifying Carnism

6 / Through the Carnistic Looking Glass: Internalized Carnism

7 / Bearing Witness: From Carnism to Compassion

Afterword

Book Group Discussion Guide

Endnotes

Resources

Selected Bibliography

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the result of a project that began many years ago, with an idea that turned into a doctoral dissertation, which then grew into the volume it is today. Over the years, many people helped shape my ideas and hone my words, and supported me as a professional and a person. To them I am eternally grateful. I want to thank Aimee Houser, my brilliant and inspiring editor, who worked with me every step of the way; my agent, Patti Breitman, who believed in my work and made sure it found a home; Clare Seletsky, who carried this project through the home stretch; Caroline Pincus and Bonni Hamilton of Red Wheel/Weiser, for their enthusiasm and support; Carolyn Zaikowski, who insisted that I write this book; Bonnie Tardella, for her tireless editing; Janice Goldman, George Bournakis, Herb Pearce, and Susan Solomon for being my lifelines; Anna Meigs, for her wisdom and guidance; Ruth and Jake Tedaldi, for helping me when I most needed it; Teri Jessen, for her vision; Bonnie and Perry Norton, for believing in me and giving me the opportunity to carry out my work; Fred and Claudette Williams; Dina Aronson; John Adams; Stephen Cina; Adam Wake; Linda Riebel; Michael Greger; Zoe Weil; V. K. Kool; Ken Shapiro; Stephen Shainbart; Hillary Rettig; Rita Agrawal; Eric Prescott; Laureano Batista; Josh Balk; and Robin Stone. I also want to thank my friends and family who have supported me throughout a very long journey. Finally, I want to thank Josh Balk; Stacey Wells; Daniel Braune; Theresa Lukassowitz; Cristina Castellan; Michelle Schaefer; Sana Al-Badri; my brilliant and beloved husband, Sebastian Joy; and my team at Beyond Carnism, for their invaluable support for the new edition; and I thank Yuval Harari, for the compelling and insightful new foreword he provided and for the invaluable work he is doing in the world.

FOREWORD TO THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY EDITION

If an Olympic-style competition were taking place to determine who was the most miserable creature on Earth today, it is likely that the gold medal candidates competing head to head would be the cows, chickens, and pigs we raise to satisfy our whims and needs. Why do these animals have such horrible lives?

It may seem like domesticated animals have a good life, especially compared to wild animals. Think of a cow on a dairy farm and a zebra on the African savanna for example. The zebra spends her entire day searching for food and water, which she doesn't always find. The zebra is constantly threatened by predators, diseases, and natural disasters like floods and droughts. Domesticated cows, in contrast, seem to enjoy the constant care of the farmers who supply them with food, water, vaccines, and medications, and protect them against predators and natural disasters. However, despite what many of us have learned to believe, farm animals live in conditions that we'd probably find reprehensible were they the conditions that dogs or cats lived in—and these individuals nevertheless sooner or later find themselves in the slaughterhouse. Even in instances where farm animals' basic physical needs are met, their social and emotional needs are ignored. Modern agriculture treats these animals as machines for the production of milk, meat, and eggs, and not as creatures with a rich world of feelings and sensations.

To understand the emotional world of farm animals, we need to look not merely at their living conditions in twenty-first-century industrialized society, but to those of their ancestors thousands and millions of years ago. Examining historical roots in order to understand modern experience is the province of the scientific field of evolutionary psychology, and its findings are relevant for all animals—for cows, chickens, and humans, too. Consider, for example, our passion for sweet and fatty foods. In the twenty-first century, there is no sense to this passion. In fact, it is destructive. Today, on Earth, many more people die of obesity and diabetes than from hunger, wars, and terrorism combined. The average person has a much greater chance of dying from overeating at McDonald's than from an Al-Qaeda attack. So why do we do this to ourselves?

Because our world of feelings and sensations evolved to help us thrive not in today's industrial society, but in the world of our ancestors, tens of thousands of years ago in the African savanna. Fifty thousand years ago, an ancestor of mine was walking through the African savanna and ran into a tree full of ripe, sweet fruit. The right reaction in this situation was to eat as much fruit as possible, as soon as possible, before the baboons from the neighboring troop would eat them all. If my ancestor had a rare genetic mutation that would have made her dislike sweet and fatty foods, she probably would not have survived. When I open the refrigerator door in my house today and see chocolate cake, the DNA and the neurons in my brain do not realize that I live in the twenty-first century; they still think I am in the African savanna, hence, I will feel a strong urge to eat the cake.

The same applies to other animals as well. Consider, for example, the need for puppies to play. Why do they like to play so much? Because tens of thousands of years ago, a game was necessary for the vital survival of their ancestors, the wolves. Wolves are social animals. They cannot survive and reproduce unless they cooperate with other wolves. The way wolves learn the rules of the game in their society is largely by playing games. A wolf puppy who did not feel a strong urge to play due to a rare genetic mutation would not survive.

What happens if today we take a small puppy, isolate him in a cage, give him water, food, and medicine, and when he reaches puberty, take his sperm and inseminate a female dog in heat? This puppy no longer needs to play to survive. But he will still feel a strong urge to play, which is why if we keep him locked in a cage his whole life, he will be very miserable, despite receiving food and shelter. This is because his emotional needs do not reflect his present state, but rather the influence of earlier evolutionary processes.

This is also true for farm animals, of course. Even if farmers provide their cows and chickens with sufficient food, water, medicine, and shelter, they ignore their emotional and social needs, and these animals experience intense suffering.

We can, of course, pose the difficult question of whether it is right to attribute emotions and social needs to animals. Aren't we guilty of humanizing animals, like a little boy who runs into a table and imagines the table hurt him intentionally, having feelings and intentions as if it were a human being? Well, to the best of scientists' understanding, this is by no means humanizing. Emotions are not some spiritual trait that God has given only to humans so they can write poetry and enjoy music. Emotions are biochemical mechanisms that have evolved through natural selection processes, to allow animals to solve the problems they encounter every day, so they can survive and multiply. To the best of our knowledge, all mammals and birds and at least some reptiles and fish have feelings. Therefore, when I say the cow has feelings, I do not view the cow as a human being. I view her as a mammal. And that's fine, because indeed, she is a mammal.

What does it mean that emotions are biochemical mechanisms for problem-solving? Consider the following problem, for example: a baboon sees a bunch of bananas hanging on a tree, but notices a lion not far from the tree. Should the monkey try to get the bananas, and risk being devoured by the lion? Basically, this is a mathematical problem of calculating probabilities. Is the probability that the monkey will starve if he does not eat those bananas greater than the probability that he will be devoured by the lion if he tried to get them?

To solve the problem, the monkey has to take many variables into account: What is the distance between me and the bananas? How far is the lion from the bananas? What is my maximum running speed? What is the lion's running speed? Is the lion full and sleepy, or is he hungry and alert? And what about the bananas? Three small, green bananas are a completely different story from ten big, ripe bananas. But these external variables are not sufficient. To make a truly wise decision, the monkey must also take his internal state into account. What is the level of energy in his body? If he has very little energy, he may starve to death, so it is worth taking a risk, even a high one, for the bananas. If the monkey has a lot of energy at the moment and the bananas are nothing more than a luxury, it's not worth taking the risk.

All these variables should be calculated. If the calculation is accurate, the monkey will survive and pass his genes on. An overly cowardly monkey—one who attributes too much severity to danger—will starve to death, and the genes that shaped this cowardly monkey will not be passed onto the next generation. A reckless monkey—one who does not attach sufficient importance to danger—will be eaten by the lion, and the reckless genes will not be passed on to the next generation. Evolution is based on statistics, which filter the various species every minute of every day, and the next generation receives the genes of the animals whose calculations have optimally calculated the data.

But how exactly does the calculation process take place? The monkey does not pull a pencil out from behind his ear, a notebook from the inside pocket of his suit, and start calculating running speeds and energy levels. The monkey also does not have a calculator. The monkey's body and feelings are the calculator. What we refer to in our everyday language as emotions, feelings, and sensations are actually calculations. The monkey feels hungry or full, he senses the lion as more or less threatening, he feels temptation or repulsion for the bananas. In a fraction of a second, the monkey will experience a rush of sensations, feelings, and desires, which is the process of the calculation; and the result of the process will also be expressed as a feeling: the monkey will suddenly be filled with lust and courage, his chest will swell, he will breathe deeply, all his muscles will stretch out and then . . . Go! To the bananas! Or he will be filled with fear, his shoulders will be bent, and all his muscles will relax. Oh, Mama! There's a lion here! Help! And sometimes the numbers balance so well that it is difficult to reach a decision, and the monkey will be filled with confusion and hesitation. Yes . . . no . . . Should I . . . Should I not . . . Damn it! I don't know what to do!

Obviously, there are differences between the feelings of different animals, such as monkeys and cows, and between the feelings of human beings. There are unique emotions that are characteristic of humans only. Shame, for example, is probably such an emotion. Cows do not (to our knowledge) feel shame. There are probably also unique feelings for other animals, which we do not know of, of course.

But there are basic emotions common to all mammals. Perhaps the most basic emotion that defines mammals is the love between a mother and her offspring. Indeed, this emotion gives mammals their name. The word mammal comes from the Latin mamma, meaning breast. The emotional system that defines me and you as mammals is one where mothers love their offspring so much that they allow them to suckle from their body, and the youngsters, on their side, feel an overwhelming desire to bond with their mothers and stay near them. A baby mammal who for some reason was born indifferent to his mother would not survive for long. A mammalian mother who was born indifferent to her offspring due to a rare mutation may live a long and comfortable life, but her genes will not pass on to future generations. This system works the same way with cows, dogs, whales, and hedgehogs. And since little mammals cannot survive without close maternal help, other emotions can be debated; but it is clear that maternal love and a strong bond between a mother and her offspring characterize all mammals.

It took scientists many years to recognize this. Until recently, psychologists questioned the existence and importance of the emotional bond

Reviews for Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

[sovranty · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This book is more of "an introduction to carnism" than a true discussion of "why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows." With the length of this book, one shouldn't expect an in-depth anthropological adventure; truthfully, it doesn't even really get to a satisfying answer. It is a perfect quick read for anyone who has never considered their meat-eating habits. If you already subscribe to the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, you will find little new information. Yet, the way the information is provided (behavioral and emotional inconsistencies) is interesting. As a long-time vegetarian, I don't think eating meat is wrong. I find the way it is raised and mass consumed to be the problem. This is addressed in the book. The last part of the book, where Joy calls for witnessing, is harsh and not pleasant to read. Being the last words, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[vegetarian_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I LOVE how Dr. Joy so concisely expresses how we see, feel, and believe about these issues and why we choose consistent ethical vegan living over the moral inconsistency that harms the vulnerable.

This is a MUST read for all of us; it's been a real EYE-OPENER for a great many whom I've met recently who also have read this book (or heard Dr. Joy speak).

[lisa2013_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

recommended for: psychology & philosophy classes; public health-health professionals; all thoughtful peopleAs I read this book, I vacillated between saying to myself “well, duh!” and then thinking it was an exceptional book, one where this subject has never been written about before in this exact way. It’s a slim book but it contains a lot of food for thought.I felt as though I were back in a college psychology class because my mind was being stimulated in just the way it was during some of those classes. It’s written in a very reader friendly manner and even though there’s a lot of terminology that might not be familiar to all readers, it doesn’t use a lot of jargon, it’s written so that any unfamiliar words will have a clear meaning with the reading of them. Melanie Joy has coined the word carnism and I really like that the word is now in the vernacular.The book is definitely written for and directed at the carnists, the vast majority of the population who accepts the dominant paradigm; those living as omnivores. However, vegetarians and vegans can also learn a lot from this book.Unless I’m reading for a class of some sort, I rarely take notes when I read books for pleasure or edification, but I took many notes here. I’m going to leave most of them out of this review. I don’t want to just regurgitate the book’s contents here. I want readers to read the book for themselves.This is a psychology and philosophy book and the author’s musings and hypotheses were what interested me most. I cared less for the material about the atrocities committed against farmed animals. However, I because I do believe the author was writing for those who’d maybe never questioned they way things are, that information might be necessary to put what she is saying into context, and it actually makes up a rather small part of the book. I really do love her though!: She specifically says that once we know the full extent and all the details of the suffering of animals, we no longer need to continually expose ourselves to graphic imagery in order to work on their behalf. Thank goodness! I’ve been reading what’s what for over two decades and sometimes it’s just too painful for me to put my focus on the specifics of what goes on.I love the one or two quotes that start off each chapter; they’re so apt. I liked them so much so that I put a few of them in my Goodreads quotes. For Americans who truly cannot care about the 20 billion animals killed for food in the U.S. every year, or even care about the devastation caused to the environment, the 300 million (human) animals might get their attention. I love how the author refers to these 300 million as the collateral damage of carnism: the factory farm workers, those who live near factory farms, and those who eat animal flesh.Most people like to believe that they make their own choices, and that they’re in control of how they act. I’d like to challenge them to read this book because the author talks about how the pervasive and violent ideology of carnism is the norm, how most believe without questioning, how the system is set up so that much of the truth is hidden from the population, and how this system is so entrenched that it’s just the way things are, and most aren’t even aware of their philosophy or aware they even have a philosophy. Vegetarianism has been named because those people are doing something different. Carnism was never named because those people are just doing what everybody does. It’s invisible, legitimized, and unnamed until now. The author writes about how every aspect of society, not just those making money off the killing of animals, goes along with this ideology of carnism, including the legal system and the news media. The system depends on its invisibility, on myth, on conformity, on objectification, deindividulization, dichotomization of the animals, and on confirmation bias, where people get fed what they already believe.She contends that most people feel better if they attain integration, a state where their values and practices are in alignment, that most people are actually disgusted by what they think of as moral offenses, that in order to do what they’re doing as carnists dissociation and denial are widespread, because while society believes eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary, those aren’t really facts.Studies have shown (she uses Stanley Milgram’s experiments as an example) that people will sometimes not obey their own consciences but will cede to those in authority. Joy encourages her readers to question that external authority and question the status quo, and pay attention to their own internal authority. The book ends on a very hopeful note. The author believes that not only can we change and that the time is right for change, but that the vast majority of people would be more comfortable with their values and actions matching. So she believes that people can change and will want to change when they learn the truth. She gives some of those truths in this book. The reader can decide for herself/himself what to make of the information.At the end of the book there is a list of useful resources, notes, a bibliography, and an index.The way I figure it, even those people who are certain that they will want to eat animals their whole lives will appreciate this book. The ideas she proposes here can be generalized to all sorts of subjects, at least some that every reader will find beneficial to contemplate.

[thenovelworld_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Between the reviews here, Goodreads and the first 3 chapters of the book that I read, I decided to abandon this book. Joy's writing is rambling and repetitive. She thrives on scare tactics and doesn't provide any alternatives to the methods she denounces. This is not a well-written book, and it doesn't do anything to bolster the vegetarian movement, nor does it do anything to benefit the vegetarian reputation. For disclosure: I have been dabbling with becoming a vegetarian and I had high hopes for this book. One of the main reasons I want to give up meat is because I'm uneasy about the treatment of animals in these factories and slaughterhouses. While Joy does shed light on the horrors of the animals and how little attention is being paid to their treatment, this book didn't really provide any resources for me. It just presented a thesis that our perceptions of animals gears us to love some more than others. A valid point, but the content of the book seems lacking and fluffed. I think this would have been better as an Op-ed piece for a newspaper rather than an entire book.

[sunnyreader71 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I picked up the book because of the title.It was clear and bold The rest of the book I'm afraid however is not.I'm not sure what it is that I expected but I really was interested in looking at the psychology that goes along with eating meat in the modern world.I suppose I wanted a detached observers view.Unfortunately the book clearly has a bias and that I believe is it's downfall.The book fails to offer any new information and what it did offer was something that one could stumble upon in a wikipedia article.The stories are sad of course but they do little to nothing other then to serve as the vegens version of torture porn.The entire last half of the book is just a sloppily strung along narrative filled with quotes and second hand stories.The Author I'm afraid simply has no skill for writing and comes across very heavy handed and preachy not to mention also fails to address the issues of privilege that I feel go hand in hand when one is discussing changes in diet.

[puddintame-358807 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The best part of the book discusses meat industry, including hygiene, ecological and worker safety issues. Joy argues that it enables us to eat meat because we don't see the connection between the living animal and the food product. I don't want my other remarks to take away from the importance of this issue. I don't think that Joy is any happier about meat-eating that is outside the industry, however. Hunters may actually be eating in a manner that is environmentally sensitive, and Joy would have to do mental acrobatics, to use one of her favorite words, to claim that they fail to understand that they have killed and eaten an animal. But her reasoning about the "walls" on the slaughterhouse enabling us to eat meat is illogical. I would argue that the walls aren't there because we are squeamish, we are squeamish because the walls are there, and we don't grow up seeing animals slaughtered as our ancestors did. If it worked like Joy argues, then vegetarianism should be on decline rather than on the rise, now that we are sheltered from scenes of slaughter. Joy's discussion of the sociological issues of meat-eating leave me wondering how she got a degree in sociology, and if that degree is worth much. She attempts to scare us off of meat eating by telling us that it is part of a culturally constructed schema, as if the S-word would give us the heeby-jeebies. (This is parenthetically, as close as she ever gets to fulfilling the promise made in the title.) So, I might add, is vegetarianism. And yes, she is right, things aren't always very logical, and sometimes seem contradictory. How did Joy get a Ph.D. in sociology without noticing that human culture is like that? I don't really understand why I am supposed to find it bizarre that I relate differently to different animals. I understand that PETA used to ask people what the difference was between eating a cow and eating my dog. The difference is that I have made a companion of the dog. This is a relationship I entered into and in which I accept obligations, not some diffuse, abstract concept of rights held by creatures incapable of understanding and exercising them. I feel no need to have the same relationship with all animals any more than the same relationship with all people. I don't have the same relationship with friends that I have with strangers. Would Joy be happier if I removed the "inconsistency" by eating a dog? Joy emphasizes repeatedly that other societies have other schema (most of which allow eating meat, however) and argues that a person with an independent mind would do things her way. She says in a note that this book is aimed at Americans. More than that, obviously, it is aimed at Americans who don't fish, hunt, or slaughter their own livestock, or who aren't willing to try eating just about anything. If you keep repeating this to yourself, you might be able to repress the fact that historically and anthropologically, Joy's arguments are nonsense. Generally, the Is-Ought problem is framed in terms of unwarranted movements from Is to Ought. Joy moves from Ought to Is. Joy simply cannot connect the dots, to use one of her favorite expressions, about the realities of human omnivorism. She seems to be unable to get past the conviction that if human beings realize that they are eating a once-living animal, they would be so repulsed that they would become vegans, in spite of a wealth of evidence that this isn't true. In some cultures, people actually live with their animals in their homes, and slaughter and eat them. They have more knowledge of those animals than I, and I suspect, Joy will ever have. Although she admits that our ancestors have been eating meat for two million years, she claims that it is neither natural nor normal. If it isn't, then those words have no meaning. If eating meat is cosmically immoral, than explain why god/nature/ whatever the source for this authoritarian statement has allowed omnivorous and carnivorous animals. The usual argument that they cannot choose is stupid--if the universe abhorred meat eating the default would be veganism for all species. Joy calls for us to think of ourselves as being in the web of life, and animal rights activists often tell us that we should not think of ourselves as a special species. When one considers how other species act, this is hardly a clarion call for a vegan lifestyle, or a sense of the rights of others. One of Joy's arguments against normal and natural is that those two concepts are used as authoritative reasons. One has to learn to think about it though, and the natural argument should be carefully used. When someone presses you not to think on the grounds that something is natural, ask yourself, is this person living in a hunter-gatherer band of twenty to thirty people? If not, they aren't being very natural either. It is only to be expected that Joy, on the other hand, has no qualms about using the "natural" argument, as in our natural empathy, when it suits her purpose. So in sum, I think that Joy's reasoning is often faulty, and her use of sociological and anthropological information makes one want to carefully exam her credentials. Still, however natural or normal meat-eating is, it certainly isn't a moral or social imperative. Each person must make their own decisions. This is a pretty standard book for its type, to judge by my not terribly extensive reading. I find Joy's self-righteousness and her assumption that her reader is ignorant and unthinking without her assistance a bit abrasive, but no doubt vegans will find it entirely appropriate. Vegans who want confirmation and support for their positions, will probably enjoy this book.

[kaelirenee · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Joy has a clear thesis: We eat certain animals and not others because we separate them in our minds, and that eating and kind of animal is no different from eating another kind, therefore eating any animal is immoral. She has the notion that eating meat, or carnism, is a myth that we are forced to accept. And how does she do this? By talking about Nazis and dog eating. She includes quite a bit about the meat industry, but rather than use this as a way to insist that our food be treated properly until it's killed (a la Temple Grandin), she says this is evidence of our evil ways. I completely agree with part of her thesis, but we diverge on others. First of all, we don't eat dogs because we are acculturated to NOT eat dogs (or horses for that matter). Many cultures do eat dogs. But what annoys me the most is the comparison between how we get meat on our tables and the Nazis. The irony of this form of Reductio ad Hitlerum is, of course, that Hitler was also a vegetarian. I strongly doubt this books will convince any meat eaters to stop eating meat. It will be an excellent book for some kinds of vegetarians to make them feel better about their decisions. But overall, it started with a weak thesis, presented weak arguments, and used lousy rhetorical tricks to try to prove a point. Vegetarianism and ethical eating are lofty goals. Ethical eating, in particular, is one to which we should all aspire. This book may present some information to convince people of this. But it could have been much better executed.

[mindfulone_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

My first impression of this book is that I need to re-think my diet. I am a carnivore, and I don't feel apologetic about this. However, descriptions of how animals are treated by the industrial food complex were stomach-turning, to say the least. In the past year I have searched for meat sources that provide more humanely raised and slaughtered products; I'm willing to pay more. However, there are limited sources for this. This book will make a reader uncomfortable and force some contemplation, which is all to the good. Other reviewers have done an excellent job reviewing the aspects of the book. I vote this as a must-read for anyone who wants to live a conscientious life.

[adrndack · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Being a vegetarian for 20 years, I was looking forward to Melanie Joy, PhD's book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows and her concept of carnism. In the book she writes: "We don't see meat eating as we do vegetarianism-as a choice, based on a set of assumptions about animals, our world and ourselves. Rather, we see it as a given, the "natural" thing to do. We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing and why because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. This invisible belief system is what I call carnism."Unfortunately, I felt that the carnism concept wasn't examined in enough depth. Granted, it is a short book, under 150 pages when you remove the resources and bibliography but much of the book is composed of descriptions of slaughterhouse practices and the suffering of animals. While I feel this is important to be aware of, it is not something that hasn't been covered by other books (Animal Liberation by Peter Singer) and movies (Food, Inc.). I liked what she had to say about how society justifies the eating of meat through myths. She calls these myths the "3 N's of Justification"; that eating meat is Normal, Natural and Necessary. She discusses how "carnists" are able to continue eating meat through the objectification and abstraction of animals, hence blocking feelings of disgust triggered by empathizing with animal suffering.Overall, I think this is a valuable book, but not one that covers any new ground.

[singer7phillip · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The beginning of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows introduces a concept that Dr. Melanie Joy uses throughout the book. It is a thought experiment of sitting down to a meal and enjoying a nice stew with friends when you ask what kind of meat the chef used. The response is that it is golden retriever. Joy asks you how you know feel about eating the meal. Your feelings and emotions change from enjoyment to nausea. The crux of the book is built around this scenario, why does our emotions and feelings allow for us to enjoy beef, but we do not eat dog. The book is informative and persuasive. But I think that it needs to be mentioned that the book also devolves into a pro-vegan argument for the last half of the book. The first half focuses on the sociological and anthropological mores that allow for our mind to eat one type of animal but to shun another. The second half argues for the moral and physiological impetuses for shunning all types of meat. As a personal aside to this review, after I read the book I decided to experiment with vegetarianism. I did not set a time limit for my abstaining from meat, but I wanted to see if I felt better and healthier with that change. I have not eaten meat in three weeks and I am finding that it is easier than anticipated. Joy writes well and is passionate about her subject. Her doctoral thesis research went into the source material for some of this book. Personally, any book that causes me to think, to change, and to view the world in a different light is one that is successful, and this book fits that criteria.

[monzrocks · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A brief book about animal cruelty and exploitation that happens for meat to reach our plates. There is a lot of information about the slaughtering process, which is painful to read. Personally, I already eschew animal products, but her aim is definitely to get others to do the same. Still, this book has strengthened my convictions.The main argument made is that people are able to eat some animals but keep others as pets only through logical inconsistencies. I haven't read other books on this topic so I can't compare or say whether she is really adding anything new on this subject. In short: a book about animal rights that at the least should make you question why you eat what you do, and questioning is good.

[juliayoung_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Before I start, let me declare my vegetarianism. Despite my inclination to be sympathetic toward animals, I found Joy's book to be naive in the extreme.I was expecting a book on the cultural reasons for why Americans have differing attitudes toward consuming different animals, and, while she has included some of that, there is also content I was not expecting -- perhaps it is my own fault for thinking a book with an attractively cute title and describes itself as an introduction to "the belief system that enables us to eat some animals and not others" would be a bit more about that topic.The one salient point of the book, in my opinion, is her discussion of the slaughtering process. Better oversight and more transparency is needed to ensure the safety of food that is consumed and to give food animals humane treatment at all steps of their lives.The call to activism throughout the book is rather strident and unpleasant to get through. People can decide on their own whether to get involved, and providing some contact information at the end would be appropriate, but the oppressive nature of her encouragement is uncomfortable to get through.Toward the end of the book, she encourages the reader to "view ourselves as strands in the web of life, rather than as standing at the apex of the so-called food chain." From where I sit, the food web includes animals eating other animals. Humans are omnivorous creatures, and simply because eating animals is not strictly necessary for a complete diet does not mean that people are required to, or should, suppress the urge to consume animals.