Essay #1 (1,000 words)
You need minimum 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Choice A
Read Tad Friend’s New Yorker online article “Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?” and look at two opposing camps on the role of alternative protein sources as a viable replacement for meat. One camp says we face too many obstacles to accept non-animal alternative proteins: evolution, taste, and cost, to name several. An opposing camp says we have the technology and the proven product in Impossible Foods and other non-meat proteins to replace animal protein. Assessing these two opposing camps in the context of Tad Friend’s essay, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the question: How viable is the push for tech companies to help climate change by replacing animals with alternative proteins?
Choice B
Read Elizabeth Anderson’s “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” and defend, refute, or complicate the author’s claim that non-religious societies offer a superior moral framework for human evolution than religious societies.
Choice C
In the context of the Netflix documentary Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened, develop an argument about how Yuval Noah Harari's explanation of the Cognitive Revolution exposes human vulnerability to mass manipulation, deceit, and Groupthink.
Choice D
Support, refute, or complicate Harari’s assertion that the “agricultural revolution was the greatest crime against humanity.”
February 18 Introduction; Homework #1 is to read Tad Friend’s New Yorker online article “Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?” and in 200 words explain the difficulties of replacing animals with alternative proteins.
February 20 Alternative protein debate; Homework #2 is to read Elizabeth Anderson’s “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?” and explain in 200 words how she supports her claim that non-religious societies are morally superior to religious societies.
February 24 Cover morality debate; Homework #3 is to read Sapiens up to page 60 and in 200 words explain how “limited liability companies” and “imagined realities” are part of the Cognitive Revolution.
February 26 Cover Cognitive Revolution in the context of the documentary Fyre. Homework #4 for next class: Read Sapiens, up to page 132 and in 200 words explain how Harari makes the claim that the Agricultural Revolution is history’s “biggest fraud.”
March 3 Cover the Agricultural Revolution. Homework #5: Read Sapiens to page 159 and in 200 words explain how “imagined orders and hierarchies” resulted in “unfair discrimination.”
March 5 Logical Fallacies and Signal Phrase review; Go over Sapiens to page 159.
March 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write first half of the essay.
March 12 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write second half of the essay.
March 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin
Study of “Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?” by Tad Friend
Study Questions
One. What compelling reason is there for the food industry to create an alternative to animal protein?
We read that raising cattle depletes water and creates greenhouse gas:
Meat is essentially a huge check written against the depleted funds of our environment. Agriculture consumes more freshwater than any other human activity, and nearly a third of that water is devoted to raising livestock. One-third of the world’s arable land is used to grow feed for livestock, which are responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Razing forests to graze cattle—an area larger than South America has been cleared in the past quarter century—turns a carbon sink into a carbon spigot.
When the world’s one and a half billion beef and dairy cows ruminate, the microbes in their bathtub-size stomachs generate methane as a by-product. Because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, some twenty-five times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, cattle are responsible for two-thirds of the livestock sector’s G.H.G. emissions.
Every four pounds of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London—and the average American eats that much each month.
Two. Why are fake burgers the focus as opposed to fake steak or fake prime rib?
Because 60% of beef is ground up for burgers.
Three. Before Impossible Burger and Beyond Beef burgers, what has been the state of veggie burgers?
They have been a form of punishment for masochists, people who don’t care about their food but are vegan virtue-signalers eager for self-punishment on the road to being a social justice warrior.
We read: “The existing plant-based armory was unpromising; veggie burgers went down like a dull sermon.”
Impossible Burger doesn’t target vegans. It targets meat eaters, so the Impossible Burger is designed to taste, bloody, fatty, salty, and decadent. Anything less is a failure.
As a result of its target consumer, 95% of Impossible Burger customers are meat eaters.
Four. What are some of the technical marvels of the Impossible Burger?
We read that it is more sustainable, is nutritionally superior to beef (higher in protein but also higher in sodium and vegetable oil), has the luxury taste and feel of beef thanks in part to molecule heme, but falls short a bit in the tactile department:
Brown assembled a team of scientists, who approached simulating a hamburger as if it were the Apollo program. They made their burger sustainable: the Impossible Burger requires eighty-seven per cent less water and ninety-six per cent less land than a cowburger, and its production generates eighty-nine per cent less G.H.G. emissions. They made it nutritionally equal to or superior to beef. And they made it look, smell, and taste very different from the customary veggie replacement. Impossible’s breakthrough involves a molecule called heme, which the company produces in tanks of genetically modified yeast. Heme helps an Impossible Burger remain pink in the middle as it cooks, and it replicates how heme in cow muscle catalyzes the conversion of simple nutrients into the molecules that give beef its yeasty, bloody, savory flavor. To my palate, at least, the Impossible Burger still lacks a beef burger’s amplitude, that crisp initial crunch followed by shreds of beef falling apart on your tongue. But, in taste tests, half the respondents can’t distinguish Impossible’s patty from a Safeway burger.
Five. Do meat producers feel threatened by Impossible Burger?
No, they have too deep of an infrastructure, provide too many jobs and have so much diversity of business, including leather and pharm. Currently, alternative burgers are only 0.1% of the burger market.
We read:
Meat producers don’t seem too worried that Brown will rid the earth of livestock by 2035. The three largest meatpacking companies in America have combined annual revenues of more than two hundred billion dollars. Mark Dopp, a senior executive at the North American Meat Institute, a lobbying group, told me, “I just don’t think it’s possible to wipe out animal agriculture in sixteen years. The tentacles that flow from the meat industry—the leather and the pharmaceuticals made from its by-products, the millions of jobs in America, the infrastructure—I don’t see that being displaced over even fifty years.”
Six. In addition to harm to the environment, what health risks are associated with beef eating?
Cancer and cardiovascular disease are two problems. We read:
In the past decade, venture capitalists have begun funding companies that view animal meat not as inflammatory, or as emblematic of the Man, but as a problematic technology. For one thing, it’s dangerous. Eating meat increases your risk of cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer; a recent Finnish study found that, across a twenty-two-year span, devoted meat-eaters were twenty-three per cent more likely to die. Because antibiotics are routinely mixed into pig and cattle and poultry feed to protect and fatten the animals, animal ag promotes antibiotic resistance, which is projected to cause ten million deaths a year by 2050. And avian and swine flus, the most likely vectors of the next pandemic, pass easily to humans, including via the aerosolized feces widely present in slaughterhouses. Researchers at the University of Minnesota found fecal matter in sixty-nine per cent of pork and ninety-two per cent of poultry; Consumer Reports found it in a hundred per cent of ground beef.
Seven. What is difficult-to-attain Holy Grail in making an alternative burger?
Umami. What is this?
We read in Merriam-Webster:
A Japanese scientist was the first to discover the savory taste of the amino acid glutamic acid, which was found to occur in soup stocks made with seaweed. This fifth basic taste - alongside sweet, sour, salty, and bitter - was named umami, meaning "savoriness" in Japanese. Umami can be experienced in foods such as mushrooms, anchovies, and mature cheeses, as well as in foods enhanced with monosodium glutamate, or MSG, a sodium salt derived from glutamic acid.
We read:
It’s easy enough to replicate some animal products (egg whites are basically just nine proteins and water), but mimicking cooked ground beef is a real undertaking. Broadly speaking, a burger is sixty per cent water, twenty-five per cent protein, and fifteen per cent fat, but, broadly speaking, if you assembled forty-two litres of water you’d be sixty per cent of the way to a human being. Cooked beef contains at least four thousand different molecules, of which about a hundred contribute to its aroma and flavor and two dozen contribute to its appearance and texture. When you heat plant parts, they get softer, or they wilt. When you heat a burger, its amino acids react with simple sugars and unsaturated fats to form flavor compounds. The proteins also change shape to form protein gels and insoluble protein aggregates—chewy bits—as the patty browns and its juices caramelize. This transformation gives cooked meat its nuanced complexity: its yummy umami.
Eight. In addition to the difficulty to achieving mouth feel, nutritional standards, and the elusive umami quality, what other challenges do alternative burger companies face?
One could be biological evolution. We may be hard-wired to crave animal meat. Eating meat can be a way of machismo signalling for greater reproductive success.
We read:
Maple Leaf Foods, a Canadian company, is building a three-hundred-million-dollar facility in Indiana to make alternative proteins. But its C.E.O., Michael McCain, told me, “The human body has been consuming animal protein for a hundred and fifty thousand years, and I honestly think that’s going to continue for a really long time.”
Climate change, which now drives our hunt for meat substitutes, originally drove hominids to turn to meat, about two and a half million years ago, by making our usual herbivorean foodstuffs scarce. Eating animals added so much nutrition to our diets that we no longer had to spend all our time foraging, and we developed smaller stomachs and larger brains. Some scientists believe that this transformation created a powerful instinctive craving. Hanna Tuomisto, a Finnish professor of agricultural science, recently wrote, “This evolutionary predilection explains why eating meat provides more satisfaction compared to plant-based food and why so many people find it difficult to adopt a vegetarian diet.”
An inborn meat hunger remains a hypothesis; meat is the object of many human urges, including the urge to construct all-encompassing theories. In the book “Meathooked,” Marta Zaraska writes, “We crave meat because it stands for wealth and for power over other humans and nature. We relish meat because history has taught us to think of vegetarians as weaklings, weirdos, and prudes.” The anthropologist Nick Fiddes goes further, declaring, in “Meat: A Natural Symbol,” that we value meat not in spite of the fact that it requires killing animals but because it does. It’s the killing that establishes us as kings of the jungle.
Ethan Brown, of Beyond Meat, suspects that nibbling plant patties doesn’t exude the same macho vibe. A bearded, gregarious, six-foot-five man who played basketball at Connecticut College, he has retained a squad of athlete “ambassadors” to help dispel that perception. When I visited Ethan at the company’s offices, in El Segundo, California, he pointed me to a 2009 study of Ivory Coast chimpanzees which suggested that males who shared meat with females doubled their mating success. “Men usually give women the meat first, at dinner, before the sex—you want to be a protein provider,” he said. “Do you think if you take a woman out and buy her a salad you get the same reaction?”
It’s worth noting that the Neanderthals, who subsisted almost entirely on meat, were outcompeted by our omnivorous ancestors. In any case, Ethan told me, meat no longer serves its original purpose, and “we can use the expanded brain that meat gave us to get us off of it.”
Eight. For Beyond Meat, what are the 4 arguments for replacing beef burgers?
We read:
Ethan said that he launched Beyond Meat to mitigate meat’s effects on “human health, climate change, natural resources, and animal welfare—we call them ‘the four horsemen.’ ” One consequence of this compendious mission, with its attention to people’s health—and to their concerns about health, warranted or not—is that Beyond, unlike Impossible, uses only ingredients taken more or less directly from nature.
Nine. What is a good summary of the challenges in making an alternative burger?
Soy is associated with dangerous hormone disruption.
Pea protein tastes like cat urine.
Wheat protein has an awful texture that can create a gag reflex.
Vegetable burgers have more sodium and oil than beef burgers.
Evolutionary hard-wiring may make people crave beef.
The cost of a “tech burger” for producer and consumer remains high.
Ten. What is a good summary of why we need to stop eating beef?
We are ruining our climate at a rate that is equivalent to mass suicide.
We can’t feed meat to the world population by 2050.
We need to stop animal cruelty.
Beef creates heart and rectal disease.
Choice A
Read Tad Friend’s New Yorker online article “Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?” and look at two opposing camps on the role of alternative protein sources as a viable replacement for meat. One camp says we face too many obstacles to accept non-animal alternative proteins: evolution, taste, and cost, to name several. An opposing camp says we have the technology and the proven product in Impossible Foods and other non-meat proteins to replace animal protein. Assessing these two opposing camps in the context of Tad Friend’s essay, develop an argumentative thesis addresses the question: How viable is the push for tech companies to help climate change by replacing animals with alternative proteins?
Sample Introduction and Thesis #1:
The viability problem with alternative burgers like Impossible Foods’ version is a matter of whole vs. processed foods. Is the Impossible Burger a whole food? Clearly, it is not. It is a highly processed food thing larded with oil and sodium, so that anyone like myself aspiring to good health is going to stay away from any kind of Frankenstein Patty. If we want to stop eating beef, then we need not replace our “old girlfriend” with her inferior twin. We need to start anew with no such baggage. Therefore, while the Impossible Burger is a sort of bait and switch, offering a more environmentally-friendly version of a burger, it is not a viable alternative to beef because it is still junk food and should not be looked at as a desirable food for healthy eating. At best, it should be looked at like pizza, an occasional foray into a “cheat meal.”
Explanation of the Above Thesis
In the above example, the writer would focus on why “Frankenstein Patties” are not healthy for regular eating.
But this may not be enough material for a 1,000-word essay, so let’s revise:
Sample Thesis #1 Revised:
Frankenstein Patties may be trendy and hyped in our social media environment, but they are not a viable replacement for beef burgers because they are not healthy alternatives, they are too costly, and they do not satisfy the human inborn craving for real meat.
Sample Thesis #2
While I will concede that the oil and sodium used in vegan burgers are not ideal, feeding the world’s burger appetite with Impossible Burger and other alternatives is a good thing because we need to curtail the greenhouse emissions from cows, we desperately need to save water that is used in raising cows, we need to discourage animal cruelty, and we need to forge paths of feeding the world with sources that can accommodate our planet’s population explosion.
Sample Thesis #3
Since animal cruelty and attacking our environment for the sake of beef burgers are both unacceptable, we have to find a powerful marketing campaign to make plant-based burgers a viable replacement for meat. We can and must do this by making plant-based burgers cool in terms of elevated social status, macho in terms of appealing to “the Joe Rogan bros,” and affordable so that the regular consumer can buy what are now overpriced vegan burgers. Looking at the effective vegan propaganda in the documentary The Game Changers, featuring professional fighter James Wilks, is an effective model for this marketing campaign.
Sample Thesis #4
The claim that we should rely on “powerful marketing” to appeal to “Joe Rogan bros” is an absurdity that makes a mockery of a critical thinking class’ Three Pillars of Argumentation, logos, ethos, and pathos. It is illogical to promote a processed burger soggy with canola oil and sodium, thus a violation of logos. It is not credible to reference the slick albeit highly flawed propaganda piece The Game Changers, thus a violation of ethos. It is demoralizing to promote processed foods as a substitute for succulent beef burgers, thus a violation of pathos.
Sample Thesis #5
That we should encourage plant-based burgers using similar rhetorical strategies in The Game Changers is not at all a violation of The Three Pillars of Argumentation. To the contrary, making more powerful branding can indeed be performed while adhering to the topnotch pillars of ethos, logos, and pathos. It is logical to pave ways of alternative proteins to meat as animal products can no longer meet the demands of the world’s growing human population, thus logos. It is credible to find ways to provide plant-based burgers that offer more protein than their beef counterparts, thus ethos. It is inspiring and ethically sound to find plant-based proteins to spare the torture that is inflicted on cows and other animals, thus pathos.
Sample Outline for Frankenstein Patty Essay Assignment
Paragraph 1, your introduction, explain in the context of Tad Friend’s essay why there is an intense race with millions of dollars being invested, in replacing meat burgers with vegan burgers. This race is for money, saving the environment, and relieving animals of cruelty. Elaborate on these issues.
Paragraph 2, your thesis, stake a claim on the viability of plant-protein burgers.
Paragraphs 3-5 are your supporting reasons for your claim or thesis.
Paragraph 6 is your counterargument-rebuttal in which you address your opponents’ objections to your argument.
Paragraph 7, your conclusion, is a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Your last page is your MLA Works Cited page with a minimum of 2 sources.
Comments