Jack Hamill

Professor Jessie Miller

English 110

16 April 2023

Pearing perspective’s

When looking at David Foster Wallace “Consider The Lobster”, the reader is able to see a very wide spectrum of ideas many people have to offer,  testing the limits of other peoples means and wills by exploring the everlasting question of is it wrong to eat animals. Wallace expands his ideas further by highlighting events at the Maine Lobster Festival and diving deep with the preparation and indulgence of lobsters. The lobster festival is a perfect example of people from all over coming together to celebrate the death of a crustacean for the pleasure of others. Wallace condescendingly continues to talk about how lobsters are able to show a preference to not be lowered into a pot of boiling water by grabbing onto the side of the pot to prevent being lowered, This is similar to the behavior of frogs when they are fried or steamed they often attempt to jump out of the container they are being “housed” in. This behavior has been studied and many researchers claim plenty of animals’ nervous systems are closely wired to ours such as most birds and or the lobster. This would reshape the way many people go about treating animals and the insects that are vital to our environment. In the end of his speech he continues to further ask what the most humane way to kill a lobster is and claims “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. I believe by taking a further look into previous articles read such as what the crows know we will be able to compare and contrast different ideas of each author to gain a deeper understanding of how the question Wallace poses is an everlasting argument of consumption.

David Foster Wallace provides excellent contextual information about how every year people gather to eat and have a good time with friends, family and lobster. Wallace remarks that he finds it interesting that lobsters are one of the only animals to be cooked while they are still living. He goes on about how researchers have done many experiments to debunk the theory that a lobster can’t feel pain, but does our ability as humans to sympathize say otherwise? “The nervous system of a lobster is very simple, and is in fact the most similar to the nervous system of a grasshopper. It is decentralized with no brain. There is no cerebral cortex, which in humans is the area in the brain that gives the experience of pain”(Wallace). I found this quote conflicting with the main argument the essay is trying to portray considering the essay is educating society on the moral concepts of eating animals. When we boil a lobster we are aware the animal is dying but choose to proceed with the process, we know the animal does not want to be boiled but we chose our needs over theirs. I found this interesting when comparing this quote with others from essays such as “What the Crows Know” by Ross Andersen. in this essay Andersen goes into depth on how animals show consciousness and may be much smarter than we anticipate. The article discusses a group of people called the Jains, going on about their different beliefs of animals and their perception of how people should live their daily lives. “According to the Jains, all animals are conscious beings capable of experiencing emotion”(Andersen). This quote introduces the thought that animals without question experience pain including lobsters and to some level are conscious of what is happening with their bodies. I believe this perception can deepen the moral question of is it okay to eat another animal by thinking about the animal’s conscious state of mind. 

As human beings, we are able to make decisions and often make thousands subconsciously like when we are in a grocery store and we pick out a package of steak, many of us aren’t thinking of how the cow dies mainly because it is all done behind closed doors. It gets even more interesting when we arrive at the grocery store, choose the lobster we are looking to eat, kill that lobster and then consume it. Many people, if cooking a lobster the traditional way wouldn’t think twice about throwing the alive and well lobster into a pot to kill that lobster, this is an example of how we subconsciously take a life by making a decision to put the needs of ourselves before the needs of others.“Is it possible that future generations will regard our present agribusiness and practices in much of the same way we now view Nero’s entertainments and mengele’s experiments”?(Wallace) referring to the experiments done on lobsters and how they react when captured and put in a small enclosure with other lobsters, they tend to shy away from being freed or show an unwillingness to be taken out of the tank. This was previously thought to have just been because the lobster was in an unfamiliar environment but we are now learning that they show a much more complex brain than we had anticipated. With this knowledge rising to the surface we understand why lobsters and many other animals share similar tendencies to resist change when they’re perfectly suitable for the environment they are being taken from. This theory that animals live much more complex lives than thought before now allows us to answer the overarching question of is it correct to kill an animal just for food in more depth using more knowledge. “Fish have many more kinds of sensors than bacteria do. Their sensors flare when the water temperature spikes, when they come into contact with corrosive chemicals, when a hook rips through their scales and into their flesh”(Andersen). This example of sensory perception by fish is just one of the thousands of animals that are conscious and capable of receiving pain through receptors. This makes the question of can animals feel pain an easy question with evidence to back up the many answers and explanations possible. My personal perception has been altered in the forthcoming evidence that both David Foster Wallace and Ross Andersen provide in both their articles proving that animals are conscious and capable of showing a preference to not be taken from their environment and killed. Although this is something that is an everyday occurrence, plenty of us just aren’t thinking this is wrong, many are simply thinking of this as a way of life by using what our great ancestors had taught us to do and that was to hunt and gather food. When approaching this concept in these terms we are able to see how this is just something that we had to do because there was no other option. It was simply kill or be killed. 

Yes I believe that there are limits to what one can ask but the way one phrases the question can take many preemptive or negative consequences away from answering that question directly. By asking do you believe it is morally okay to kill a living creature that has no capability to protect itself from your decision? Many people would hesitate and answer in a very careful way, and or not answer at all. But by asking do you consider where you food comes from and how you receive said food is very different. This takes away the concept of killing an animal by broadening our perspectives. I hold the belief that it is important not only for one as an individual to educate themselves on where and how we receive our food but to educate others. This way we would be able to spread culture and awareness of how specific foods and traditions can be prepared and considered morally correct. When summarizing the article consider the lobster, we are able to go into detail about how awareness has been spread about killing animals and consuming them without thought. Wallace then at the end of his article poses the question of is it morally okay to kill an animal just so we are able to eat it. Then when summarizing what the crows know we are able to see how vast amounts of research has been poured into animal behaviors and their perceptions of consciousness, proving without a doubt that all animals experience sensory information through some sort of neurological process. In conclusion I do believe my perception has been altered through reading these articles in the mindset that we as humans should be very careful about the quantity of meat we consume. Wallace discussed lobsters being considered a pest on the beach because of the sheer quantity you would see on a beach and now, we rarely see any in their natural habitat, Furthering my point of how we should consider the lobster and other animals more and consume less. My perception has also changed in the sense of knowledge, previously I had never considered we had prepared and eaten our food but through the evidence shown in these articles it is hard not to. I believe everyone should educate themselves on the importance of consumption and sustainability of the environment.

Works Cited

Andersen, Ross. “Scientists Are Totally Rethinking Animal Cognition.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 May 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/. Wallace, David Foster, et al. Consider the Lobster. Ascensius Press, 2011.