Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

3.79 of 5 stars 3.79 · rating details · 1,051 ratings · 232 reviews

Combining the intellect of Malcolm Gladwell with the irreverent humor of Mary Roach and the paradigm-shifting analysis of Jared Diamond, a leading social scientist offers an unprecedented look inside our complex and often paradoxical relationships with animals.

Does living with a pet really make people happier and healthier? What can we learn from biomedical research with m...more

Hardcover, 326 pages

Published September 7th 2010 by Harper

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat by Hal Herzog

The Stranger's Child by Alan Hollinghurst

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke

Books I Started on My Kindle But Have Not Finished

2nd out of 10 books — 5 voters

2011/2012 Reading Challenge List

32nd out of 65 books — 7 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Mar 15, 2011 dara rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-in-2010, reviewed

I'm torn between one star and two. I would have given it a two just because the author seems to be making steps similar to those of Michael Pollan--"humane" meat, eating less meat, etc. And although the author seems to be conflicted with his own choices, I feel that these steps could make a difference if enough people adopted them. Would I much rather the guy be vegan? Well, duh, but that's not the world we live in. If this book manages to convince someone to even CONSIDER the moral implications...more I'm torn between one star and two. I would have given it a two just because the author seems to be making steps similar to those of Michael Pollan--"humane" meat, eating less meat, etc. And although the author seems to be conflicted with his own choices, I feel that these steps could make a difference if enough people adopted them. Would I much rather the guy be vegan? Well, duh, but that's not the world we live in. If this book manages to convince someone to even CONSIDER the moral implications of food, then that's progress, right?

However, I have to say he destroyed his credibility with me rather early on: at the point in which he states that Hitler was a vegetarian, to be exact. He neglects to mention documentation from various sources--one being Hitler's chef--that refutes this (unless you're one of those special people who think that vegetarians eat sausage, game, grouse, and caviar). He only cited one source to support it; I'm surprised it wasn't vegetariansareevil.com.

He would also like to link vegetarianism with anorexia (I WISH! Wouldn't that solve all my problems?*) and bulemia. (How this has ANYTHING to do with the relationship between animals and people is beyond my understanding--and I'm guessing it's beyond the author's as well. Does liking animals put you at a higher risk for an eating disorder?!? Instead of discussing his field of "expertise," his writing derails into an attempt to discredit vegetarianism as "dangerous.")

*This is a joke in bad taste; deal with it.

For someone who makes a career out of studying the relationships between animals and people, he seems as misguided and confused as anyone else. It's sad to see someone justify cockfighting by saying it's more humane than the way chickens are treated on factory farms.

"Karen Davis tells me that no chicken in the world would want to live the life of a fighting rooster. I'll lay 25-20 that she is wrong." (P 170)

I'm sure some people would rather be stabbed to death than be placed in a concentration camp for their entire lives, but that doesn't justify either action. (And no, I'm not equating human suffering and animal suffering; these are just analogous situations.)

"The war on cockfighting is about cruelty, but the subtext is social class. The eighteenth century movement against blood sports was directed toward activities that appealed to the proletariat, such as bull-baiting and cockfighting, rather than the cruel leisure pursuits of the landed gentry, such as fox-hunting. It's no different today. Cockfighters come from easy groups to pick on--Hispanics and rural, working-class whites. Animal activists, on the other hand, tend to be urban, middle-class, and well-educated. They dismiss rooster fighters as a motley group of shit-kickers and illegal aliens."

What a fucking generalization. Last time I checked every animal activist I know is against blood sport of ANY kind and probably even more resentful of those undertaken by the wealthy (ahem, trophy hunting). Perhaps it seems otherwise simply because the wealthy have lobbyists to protect their interests and so animal activists gain a lot less ground. I would also like to point out (just for the fuck of it) that I come from a rural family. I'm also currently vegan while making $8 an hour at a part-time job where I work less than ten hours a week. I don't pay rent, but I do manage to buy my groceries with money left for gas and general waste (concerts, dining out, the occasional shiny object, etc.) and so it irks me a bit when people dismiss animal concerns as something left to people who can "afford" to care. As I stated before, bravo to the author for buying meat from free-range, organic, grass-fed farms instead of factory farms(!), but honestly, touting this option as a solution for everyone comes across as the ignorance of the wealthy and "well-educated" middle- to upper- class. (Thanks to the author's picture on the back cover I can now envision him giving Michael Pollan a well-deserved reach-around.)

He mentions how people frame questions and situations to mislead and yet he's guilty of exactly this. His foray into animal research mentions nothing of the alternatives to animal research. You're either for torturing animals to save lives or against--never mind that we may just be beyond the necessity of such experiments. "Yes, I would swap a million mice to wipe out Dengue. In a heartbeat. But a million mice for a treatment for baldness? Or erectile dysfunction? Hmm...probably not." While that's a lovely sentiment, why is someone's desire for a hard cock any less important than someone else's desire to consume animal flesh for the sake of TASTE? Well, if a guy has less cholesterol blocking his arteries, he might have less trouble getting blood flow down there, but that's not the point. The point is: why draw the "moral high ground" between the desire for vanity or sex and the desire for taste?

At the end of the book, Mr. Herzog is content with not particularly understanding "why it's so hard to think straight about animals." He doesn't seem like a bad guy, just very confused for someone who dedicated an entire book to a question he doesn't answer. I'd suggest he read Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows by Melanie Joy... since she actually fulfills the promise of explaining the contradictions we feel towards animals.

Let me reiterate a third time: I WOULD RATHER SOMEONE EAT MEAT FROM A FREE-RANGE, ORGANIC FARM THAN FROM A FACTORY FARM. I WOULD RATHER SOMEONE REDUCE MEAT INTAKE RATHER THAN THROW THEIR HANDS UP IN DEFEAT AND DO NOTHING AT ALL, but what I don't see the need for is another book, echoing Michael Pollan's sentiments without adding any more clarity or understanding to the issue. I take a chapter titled "Why Is Meat So Tasty?" as seriously as I do t-shirts that proclaim "If we're not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?" At least other books that lean towards animal-welfare reforms instead of animal-rights lend the issue the gravity it deserves.(less)

34 likes · like · see review

Apr 20, 2013 Shomeret rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: anthropology, my-reviews

Although I liked this author's attempt to be fair to all perspectives, there were some questions that he chose not to explore.

Herzog points out that many dog lovers live with cats instead of dogs. In fact, he is one of them. But he never asks why this pattern has developed. Is it because cats make better apartment dwellers or are there other factors not related to urban living?

Also, in discussing the domestication of wolves (which is of particular interest to me), Herzog mentions a theory that w...more Although I liked this author's attempt to be fair to all perspectives, there were some questions that he chose not to explore.

Herzog points out that many dog lovers live with cats instead of dogs. In fact, he is one of them. But he never asks why this pattern has developed. Is it because cats make better apartment dwellers or are there other factors not related to urban living?

Also, in discussing the domestication of wolves (which is of particular interest to me), Herzog mentions a theory that wolves first approached human settlements because they wanted to sift through garbage heaps. Herzog considers this likely. Herzog is assuming that wolves are scavengers like dogs. They aren't. They are carnivores. Dogs really did evolve into a separate species. So why would wolves have been interested in garbage? Any canines who approached human settlements to scavenge trash would already have taken steps on the evolutionary path away from their original wolf identity. Herzog doesn't wonder how that could have happened. I do. Maybe it's a mystery beyond the scope of this book, but I think that given the fact that most humans have very different attitudes toward wolves than they do toward dogs, I would have thought that this would be an important issue for Herzog to deal with.

A GR reviewer accused Herzog of saying that vegetarianism causes eating disorders. Actually, he doesn't say this at all. He cites a number of studies that show a correlation between vegetarianism and eating disorders, but academics like Herzog know that a correlation is not the same as causation. He consulted with a colleague who works with young women who have eating disorders. She said that some anorexics are using vegetarianism to cover up their eating disorder. In other words they claim to be vegetarians, so that omnivores won't question the fact that they aren't eating when a meal includes meat. It occurs to me that if the omnivores immediately presented them with a vegetarian alternative meal that would expose the anorexics' true motive. They wouldn't be able to hide behind their alleged vegetarianism.

In a discussion of animal experimentation, Herzog discusses his qualms about using mice. Actually, I found his revelation about the gassing of "surplus" mice who aren't used in research even more disturbing.

In conclusion, this was an interesting book, but I would have liked to have seen more about some issues.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 26, 2010 Courtney rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Everyone

Shelves: 2010, non-fiction, books-about-food

I watched a video one time on Youtube of a soldier in Iraq throwing a puppy off of a cliff for fun. You could hear the puppy's cry get farther away as it plummeted lower and lower. You can probably still find this video if you search "soldier throws puppy off cliff." This video deeply affected me, and I do not really consider myself an "animal lover." I felt very strong hatred toward the men, very intense sadness for the puppy. How could someone do that? And yet...I eat meat.

In fact, I eat meat...more I watched a video one time on Youtube of a soldier in Iraq throwing a puppy off of a cliff for fun. You could hear the puppy's cry get farther away as it plummeted lower and lower. You can probably still find this video if you search "soldier throws puppy off cliff." This video deeply affected me, and I do not really consider myself an "animal lover." I felt very strong hatred toward the men, very intense sadness for the puppy. How could someone do that? And yet...I eat meat.

In fact, I eat meat every day. I love meat. There is nothing quite as satisfying as a still-bloody hunk of cow, seasoned and with a side of loaded mashed potatoes. And I sleep well every night. Not a single toss or turn for the likely thousands of animals that have been outright slaughtered for simply my mealtime pleasure. I am aware of this strange inconsistency. I do nothing to change it. And thus is the moral predicament, the seemingly bizarre relationship humans have with animals of the other species that both Hal Herzog, and now myself, are completely fascinated by.

Hal is an anthrozoologist. He studies, through various and rather crazy research adventures, how humans relate to animals. He's been to cock fights, animals rights marches, the homes of hoarders. This book was so incredibly interesting. I found myself laughing at my own irrationalaties when it comes to my views about animals. Cock fighting, for example. Evil, right? Debased men working through some sort of Freudian penis-envy debacle by putting their literal cocks in a ring and having them duke it out. Well, sort of. But not quite. Cock fighting is an intricate and perhaps not all that inhumane sport when you compare it to the lives of chickens raised for eating. I think anyone who just had some nice Tyson Chicken Snackers did much more of an immoral inservice to animal kind than a single cock fighter. Cocks raised for fighting get very special treatment for two years before theyre put in the ring. They get a very special diet, and loads of sunshine to help bring out their inner Muhammad Ali. Sure, in every race 50% of the contestants wind up thrown into a bin with the other losers. But, at the end of the day, two years of doting and thirty minutes of intense battle leading to death is still far better than the life a normal feeding chicken lives, cooped up in a ridiculous pen with a ridiculous number of other chickens, until within a very short period of time they're man-handled and taken somewhere that mechanically and quickly cuts their heads off and lets their bodies bleed out on an assembly line.

I guess my point is, the book makes you stop and think about why we deem some animal treatment as cruelty and other forms of animal treatment as the "way life is." Why do I love pandas and give a rat's ass about the fate of the Peruvian scorpion? Why are there 3 times as many women in animal rights activism than men? Why, oh why, do I have absolutely no response to the fact that millions of lab mice are euthanized before experimentation every year simply because they are surplus, and yet I had two quite dear pet mice as a child for many years?

It's a conundrum. And a really fascinating one. The book is incredibly well-researched, the voice is tongue-in-cheek, down to earth, and neutral. Hal isn't necessarily trying to convince you one way or the other. This is not the book of an activist. It's the book of a curious scientist, who, also, happens to be both a meat eater and animal lover.

(less)

13 likes · like · see review

Apr 19, 2011 Megan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: courier, 2011, adult, favorites, nonfiction, psychology, science, threw-me-for-a-loop

At home, I have a bearded dragon, a cat, and a brand new leopard tortoise with a respiratory infection. (pictures at the end)

Before buying both the bearded dragon and the leopard tortoise, I did my research, as of course anyone should do before investing in a pet, particularly an exotic pet. So when Genbu (that's the tortoise) developed a runny nose after coming home, I knew from my research that he was probably a carrier of a type of bacteria leopard tortoises are particularly sensitive to and...more

17 likes · like · see review

Feb 02, 2013 Tezden rated it 5 of 5 stars

I loved this book, and I think Mr. Herzog is so wise. Something about how he presented all this information in a way that encourages the reader to cultivate his or her own opinion (if possible, some of the stuff is so multi-sided that it makes a general opinion impossible), makes this a "lite" great science book. The truth is that this is probably a more anecdotal book than a science book, but it is very intelligently done.

I would like to offer some examples, but it is very difficult to do. Suf...more

like · see review

Dec 28, 2012 Andrea Walker rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: animals, cooking, health, history, philosophy, science

This is a fantastic book that clearly delineates the moral ambiguities of most human-animal interaction. I feel that this is something that everyone should think about, though I imagine most people don't. Of course, I also imagine that most people don't think about the vast majority of things, but only those matters that they come face-to-face with in their daily lives. And given the conditions that most people live in, that's probably fairly accurate and is certainly understandable. But I'm tal...more

like · see review

Apr 07, 2012 Joanie rated it 5 of 5 stars

I loved this nonfiction look at our entrenched, loudly argued, and deeply inconsistent opinions involving human and non-human species. We all draw the line somewhere: Never eat a cow, a dog, a horse, a pig, a lobster, a bug. Kill all snakes, endangered or not. Poison rats. Stroke kittens. Experiment on a mouse but not a chimpanzee. Dote on the bottle-fed offspring of your milk cow until you put him (the bottle-fed offspring) on the dinner table. Protest the inhumanity of cock fighting over a chi...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 16, 2012 Haritha rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

I started reading this book in order to participate in the Read Smart book discussion series organized by NCSU Libraries and Wake County Public Libraries. I was so unimpressed by this book that I almost gave up on it. After a day or two, I was so traumatized by my not finishing a book that I started, that I went back to reading it.

This time, I was pleasantly surprised by how intelligent the book sounded. I think the author did a good job addressing the very confusing and somewhat hypocritical r...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 19, 2011 Scot rated it 3 of 5 stars

A breezy overview of anthrozoology for the layman. Why do we feel differently about some animals than we do others? How and when and why do we anthropomorphize animal behavior? How do gender roles and other cultural markers affect out interactions with animals? What are the ethics of using animals in scientific experiments? Should we give up eating meat?

A lot of anecdotal evidence and personal reflection by Herzog, a psychologist, here. I particularly enjoyed the section that reflects on how and...more

like · see review

Nov 15, 2011 Clark Hays rated it 3 of 5 stars

Cognitive dissonance: gloss over it or untangle the knot?

This is a fun, worthy read of a complex subject. The author doesn't seek to draw any "meaty" conclusions, but rather uses a deft hand and light approach to probe the way humans think of animals from a variety of angles. I found it the most intriguing when referencing studies that seem to shed light on the way our brains perceive sentient beings. I found it the clunkiest when the subject turned to vegetarianism. Characterizing self-identifi...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 18, 2011 Wendy rated it 4 of 5 stars

I picked up this book because I love animals and I couldn't find any fiction books about them that looked interesting that week. Also, I thought the cover was cool and the premise sounded interesting.

I did not expect to have my world-view challenged! I didn't know a lot of the research and things he points out (I literally shouted 'Oh my God, seriously?!' when he points out that research shows dolphin therapy does nothing. I thought it did something, although certainly nothing as extreme as the...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 20, 2011 Linda Lombardi added it · review of another edition

The subtitle of this book should not be "Why it's so hard to think straight about animals," which leads you to expect some kind of answer to the question. "It's so hard to think straight about animals" is more like it.

For me, as someone who's written about animals myself and has a fair amount of familiarity with the research literature, this book was somewhat disappointing. There's not that much in this book that I didn't already know. The most interesting part was about cockfighting, which is b...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 25, 2011 Kiki rated it 3 of 5 stars

Hal Herzog's book is filled with anecdotes, most of them personal, regarding animals that we love, hate and eat. He has exhaustively researched his topic, both intentionally and just through living life.

I was drawn to the book since 20 years ago, I was a staunch defender of animal rights myself. It didn't go as far as throwing blood at people wearing fur, or protesting outside the Capital for animal rights. But I must admit, it was a passionate belief of mine that we must treat animals well, as...more Hal Herzog's book is filled with anecdotes, most of them personal, regarding animals that we love, hate and eat. He has exhaustively researched his topic, both intentionally and just through living life.

I was drawn to the book since 20 years ago, I was a staunch defender of animal rights myself. It didn't go as far as throwing blood at people wearing fur, or protesting outside the Capital for animal rights. But I must admit, it was a passionate belief of mine that we must treat animals well, as how we treat animals (and the young and elderly, basically, those unable to fight for themselves)reflects how we treat human beings in a society. And to some extent, I still believe that. Much like Herzog, however, I never went so far as to become vegan. Why? Because as Herzog points out, in today's society, it is almost impossible. But there is a more moderate view, which is the one Herzog is presenting for the reader in his book.

I had a hard time with this book, though. While the writing was okay (not great, not terrible....), the exhaustive anecdotes and accompanying viewpoints and reflections wore me down. The structure of the book never varied, which is to be expected, but it became wearing upon this reader. I just couldn't embrace the style of Herzog presenting a never ending list of talking to people from every employment field and walk of life about their experiences with animals; whether it was rats or fighting roosters. I have never found myself so wishing for an actual expert opinion in a book like this before--not to say there weren't any, but this book is truly about Herzog (as an American 'Everyman') and his experience researching this book! He totally lost me with the cock fighting. It simply wasn't interesting enough to really hold my interest. Maybe this is a book for a man, or a PETA member, or someone who(still )passionately embraces animal rights (although that is not the view Herzog takes), but he just wasn't able to truly engage me in this story. Although I really wanted to be.

This isn't a bad book. I'm sure it hit the mark with many readers. It just wasn't the book for me.(less)

like · see review

Mar 05, 2011 Cortney rated it 5 of 5 stars

A few hours ago I wrote in my "About Me" that I probably wouldn't be writing any reviews. But I enjoyed this book so much that I had to write one...

Mostly I wanted to assuage any fears that this is a book about shaming you for eating animals, or trying to lay down black and and white rules of how one should interact "correctly" with animals. The purpose of the book is not to convince you of black or white truths when it comes to how we treat animals. The purpose is to explore the large expanses...more A few hours ago I wrote in my "About Me" that I probably wouldn't be writing any reviews. But I enjoyed this book so much that I had to write one...

Mostly I wanted to assuage any fears that this is a book about shaming you for eating animals, or trying to lay down black and and white rules of how one should interact "correctly" with animals. The purpose of the book is not to convince you of black or white truths when it comes to how we treat animals. The purpose is to explore the large expanses of gray. The author is a psychologist who studies relationships between animals and people, and the book is a fascinating compilation of his experiences, thoughts, observations, and studies. The book winds its way through chapters that deal with different moral quandaries that pop up in our relationships with animals- from animal research, to breeding dogs, to how we adore our puppy but eat chicken, and peppered throughout are references to articles and theories and conjecture as to how our mutual past shaped our present interactions with animals.

There are many vignettes where the author walks us through a moral dilemma problem, and then presents us with possible logical conclusions. One of these is when he argues that cockfighting could be seen as more humane than eating chickens- one cock dies in the ring for every 10,000 chickens, and fighting cocks live 15 times longer than a factory farmed chicken, with much better living conditions. Yet most people, when polled, think cockfighting should be made illegal because it is brutal- yet those same people are fine with eating chicken. Again, he doesn't say this in a condemning kind of way, he is totally open to the moral inconsistencies that we have with animals, he's simply pointing them out and exploring them. One of my favorite parts of the book was Chapter 9, where among other things he talks about how everyone has moral inconsistencies, even people who are moral absolutists like animal rights vegans. In fact, he argues that the more absolute one's morals are, the harder it is to be morally consistent. I found myself writing down little notes and quotes, and this is one of my favorites: "Stop smirking. One of the most universal pieces of advice from across cultures and eras is that we are all hypocrites, and in our condemnation of others' hypocrisy we only compound our own." -Jonathan Haidt.

This is hands down one of my favorite books on the moral complexities of humans and our relationship with animals. It stays away from preaching, and instead takes a meandering, thoughtful trip through what is in the end a complex and thorny issue. I appreciate that the author didn't seem to have a bias one way or the other- he goes from talking about how he was unable to drown a mouse in a lab experiment to how he still supports animal research in spite of that. His willingness to say "I'm morally inconsistent" is honestly refreshing to hear, when the tone of the discussion around animals and humans has become increasingly more polarized and judgmental. There are no "you can't truly love your dog if you eat meat" insinuations. I'm a vegan leaning vegetarian myself, who volunteers at a no-kill animal shelter, and I thoroughly enjoyed the even handed, logical way he approached this topic. (less)

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 12, 2011 Jean rated it 4 of 5 stars

Herzog examines all the ins and outs of the human relationship with animals: How we differ from citizens of other countries on how we look at pets, eating flesh, blood sports; how inconsistant our views are on treatment of animals; use of animals in science and much more.
For instance, he poses this odd situation. Why is it cruel to raise a rooster for two years, feeding it the best food and bugs, allowing him to run free range, giving him the best of health care.......but not cruel to eat a chic...more

like · see review

Feb 10, 2011 Emily rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011

I expected to feel chastised by this book about "anthrozoology" and how humans think about animals. Instead, the book highlights how very muddled our thinking is--we're nearly all hypocrites in one way or another. For example, a survey about whether self-reported vegetarians had eaten any kind of flesh in the preceding three days had surprising results--lots had. Many of us see cockfighting as brutal; factory farming is probably worse, but you don't see states lining up to outlaw chicken fingers...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 08, 2011 Allison rated it 3 of 5 stars

Anthrozoology is certainly an interesting field. I've always wondered why some cultures eat cats and dogs and think nothing of it; the same way we eat cows, which is a sacred animal to Buddhists. That's about as far as I've ever pondered, but this book goes far beyond what different cultures find suitable for meals. It also explores pet/human relationships which is extremely interesting to me considering I love my cat more than any living thing on this planet. I always thought I might be a littl...more

like · see review

Jan 10, 2011 Marya rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: adult-nonfiction

Interesting topic, colloquial writing, shoddy research. This book bravely takes on the question of how humans think about animals and why our thoughts are clouded with contradictions. Why do people oppose the torturing and killing of lab mice for scientific pursuits, but not the torturing and killing of mice they view as pests inside their homes? Why do people oppose cockfighting but not factory chicken farming which destroys chickens in arguably more inhumane ways in greater numbers? Why do peo...more Interesting topic, colloquial writing, shoddy research. This book bravely takes on the question of how humans think about animals and why our thoughts are clouded with contradictions. Why do people oppose the torturing and killing of lab mice for scientific pursuits, but not the torturing and killing of mice they view as pests inside their homes? Why do people oppose cockfighting but not factory chicken farming which destroys chickens in arguably more inhumane ways in greater numbers? Why do people who declare themselves vegetarians eat so much meat (I wish he'd included the quote from Scott Pilgrim: "Chicken isn't vegan?")? And what is this animal rights movement really all about?
Herzog writes in a friendly, easy style mostly made up of anecdotes. This makes the issue he's discussing come alive. Unfortunately, it doesn't support his arguments rationally. Actual evidence is limited to a study here or there, oftentimes web surveys where the results are under suspicion due to the methodology. He seems to have read all the super cool nonfiction books I have (Malcolm Gladwell et. al) but seems to have skipped their conclusions. For example, he reads about an experiment where three different labs set up identical experiments with identical conditions with genetically identical (as much as possible) mice. Yet, the results of all three labs were different. Rather than conclude, as others have, that this supports the notion that environmental factors are far more prevalent and influential than we realized, Herzog seems to write off lab-controlled scientific experiments overall. Maybe that's why he can brazenly admit that the he doesn't actually understand the math behind the mathematical model he just used as support for an argument, despite studying this topic for 20 plus years.
At the end of the book, our folksy narrator (the fact that the author is a good ol' boy from the South is as evident in the writing as it is warming on the narrative) leads us through all the murky ethical and philosophical questions to end with saying that it's all a draw. His common sense tells him we should advocate for animal rights, but that we should draw a line somewhere- some animals should "count" and others "shouldn't". He will eat meat, but buy organic. Cockfighting is bad. In short, his own ethical system is one full of contradictions, built upon vague, unstated assumptions, including that argument-ending "common sense". Just like the rest of us. If you want your scientist to be some guy that you can have a beer with, that presents himself as full of flaws, just like you, then this is your book. If you demand more of an academic, that your scientist should understand all facets of his work, that he should create a reasonable framework for interpreting his results, this book will only frustrate you.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Nov 14, 2010 Kater Cheek rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is my perfect kind of book: well written, first hand accounts of research done by the author, and on a subject that literally everyone has some relation to in one way or another.

As the title suggests, this book concerns the field of anthrozoology, human and animal relations. While Herzog touches on works from authors I've already read (Temple Grandin, Malcolm Gladwell) he has enough of his own research that much of this was new to me. I found myself reading passage after passage aloud, intr...more

like · see review

Mar 01, 2011 Alexis rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011

This book was profoundly fascinating and I loved how the author got into the paradoxes of how we treat animals. Each chapter examined a different topic. I really enjoyed the chapter on pets and the pet industry, and the chapters on cockfighting and the meat industry. I was not as interested in some of the philosophical discussions at the end of the book, but that's just me. There are a lot of interesting facts and interviews in this book. At times, it's not an easy read, as the author is talking...more

like · see review

Feb 16, 2011 Patrick Sprunger rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: favorites, general-nonfiction, read-in-2011

It's been nearly ten years since I took a class in ethics/morality. I probably won't ever take another. So it's important to read a book on the subject every once in a while to prevent the old moral compass from breaking down.

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat supports the subject of ethics regarding animals from a scientific angle. The science is very light, however, taking a backseat to philosophy. In it, the author scrolls through the standard curriculum of topics like: Is animal researc...more

like · see review

Jan 04, 2013 Carin rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: animals, science, psychology

My boyfriend and I adopted an adorable abandoned black kitten on Thanksgiving that he found in a shrub (we named him Turkey. Isn't he cute?) Why would we be willing to bring home a strange animal and spend lots of money on him (shots, food, litter, toys, boarding him over Christmas, and in 4 months getting him neutered) because he's cute, but we wouldn't be if, say, it had been a rat that came out of the shrubbery squeaking?

Why don't we have qualms about scientific experimentation on mice and ra...more My boyfriend and I adopted an adorable abandoned black kitten on Thanksgiving that he found in a shrub (we named him Turkey. Isn't he cute?) Why would we be willing to bring home a strange animal and spend lots of money on him (shots, food, litter, toys, boarding him over Christmas, and in 4 months getting him neutered) because he's cute, but we wouldn't be if, say, it had been a rat that came out of the shrubbery squeaking?

Why don't we have qualms about scientific experimentation on mice and rats but freak out if it's rabbits and cats? (In fact, the legislation that regulates how scientists treat animals specifically excludes mice and rats as not animals!) If I am unwilling to eat my cat, why am I okay with eating chickens and pigs? I am opposed to cosmetic companies testing on animals but not scientists - if it will cure a bad disease. Why all the inconsistencies?

Well, that's the way humans are designed. We are omnivores. True, these days that is more a choice (and wow, do we eat a lot more meat than necessary!) And so our brains have to justify us deciding certain animals are food (which does vary from one country/society to another). Other animals (horses, mules) are incredibly healthy and so we don't usually eat them. But what about cats and dogs and other pets? How and more importantly why did we evolve to have pets? (The answer is still unclear but the likeliest answer is that we didn't - they evolved to take advantage of some of our tendencies, like our inherent liking of creatures with big eyes and big foreheads that prevents us from hurting baby humans, and have latched onto us to care and feed for them because essentially they are parasites. I find that incredibly amusing, as my own parasite sits on my lap purring while I type this.)

This book looks at humans' relationship with animals of all sorts and tries to make some sense of it from a psychological perspective. Did you know that elephants mourn their dead and dolphins are so smart they will correct your grammar if you try to communicate with them? I did come away from this book feeling better about cockfights and worse about bird hunters (seriously.) And I wish there was a better way to farm chickens that wasn't so awful. I already have reduced my meat consumption years ago, thanks to Michael Pollan, as it's terrible for the environment, mostly cutting out beef, but now I find out that chicken is bad too in its own way, and of course there are no right answers. But this book helps us all understand those issues better and make more educated decisions.(less)

like · see review

Oct 13, 2011 Todd Martin rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: environment-science, culture-politics

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat examines the often contradictory ways in which people view animals. They are our pets, our food, our draft animals, our prey and predator. They illicit emotions and feelings of love, antipathy, disgust and irresistible cuteness. Herzog looks at these issues by investigating the subject areas of: dogs, cock fighting, carnivorism, animal testing and the animal rights movement.

Herzog does a good job outlining the complicated and seemingly hypocritical manne...more Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat examines the often contradictory ways in which people view animals. They are our pets, our food, our draft animals, our prey and predator. They illicit emotions and feelings of love, antipathy, disgust and irresistible cuteness. Herzog looks at these issues by investigating the subject areas of: dogs, cock fighting, carnivorism, animal testing and the animal rights movement.

Herzog does a good job outlining the complicated and seemingly hypocritical manner that animals are perceived and treated.
- Dogs are seen as members of the family, working animals or food depending on circumstances and culture.
- Millions of chickens spend their entire lives being raised in horrendous conditions before being stuffed in crates, electrocuted then having their throats slit, while cock fighting is perceived as barbaric by the broader society.
- Animal testing is viewed as a highly controversial subject, particularly in cases of beauty product testing that are of dubious value to humanity.

Most people that choose to perform a close examination their own view of animals will inevitably find inconsistencies and contradictions. This is a result of the fact that we’ve evolved to be omnivorous, yet also have a finely honed sense of right and wrong (and the fact that certain animals are delicious). This sets up cognitive dissonance that some find difficult to resolve. Ancient people found resolution by honoring the spirit of the animal that was killed for food through ritual. Today, supermarkets sell meat in plastic wrapped, styrofoam trays that makes it easy for us to ignore the fact that we’re purchasing the dismembered corpse of a once living animal with the capacity to suffer.

The book is easy to read and informative, and Herzog takes a balanced approach to an issue that has the potential to illicit strong emotions. On the downside, I’m not sure that cock fighting is really the best example he could have used to serve his point, but it was the subject of his doctoral dissertation, so it’s one he’s familiar with. Also, I wish he had spent more time on the various ways used to justify human’s treatment of animals as well as humanities relationship with wild animals (a subject entirely ignored). (less)

like · see review

Apr 26, 2011 Nic rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

Maybe 3.5 stars rather than 3 per se, but my 4 is really pretty high. This is borderline; I keep flip-flopping on it. I did like it, though.

Very readable and fun. I liked the book more as I got farther into it - the first few chapters struck me as a tiny bit sensationalist/aggressive (I was a little put off by the theoretical argument that feeding kittens to pythons is more ethical than feeding the pythons rats - like so many things in the book, it's totally logical, but not very comfortable to...more

like · see review

Feb 03, 2011 Beth Pratt rated it 3 of 5 stars

This was a strange book for me. When I started reading it, I thought that anthrozoologist Hal Herzog would ask and answer questions about why humans relate to different types of animals in different ways. By the end of the book, I felt that he was arguing from a premise I simply don't share, and raising questions in a way that implied certain answers. In the second half of the book, he spends a good deal of time talking about the difficulty of being morally consistent in how we look at animals....more

like · see review

Jan 05, 2013 Christian rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: kindle

I found this to be a rather lackluster book, which is a shame because it could have been interesting—the topic itself begs it to be interesting. I don't think the author ever actually took a stand on anything in the duration of the book. So, in the end, you have all these little interesting tidbits but nothing of consequence to show for them.

Also, the book felt like it was hobbled together from multiple presentations instead of becoming its own whole entity, given the odd instances and ways in w...more

like · see review

Jun 13, 2011 Becca Van Tassell rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: animals

I agree with the basic premise of this book. Our attitudes about animals are logically inconsistent, and when people are extremely logically consistent, that leads to absurdity. Hypocrisy is inherent in the relationships between humans and animals, and complications are impossible to escape from.

However, this book only gets 2 stars because I don't think it was terribly well-written. It is anything but cohesive. There are hundreds of "mini-essays," each relating an anecdote, study, or philosophic...more I agree with the basic premise of this book. Our attitudes about animals are logically inconsistent, and when people are extremely logically consistent, that leads to absurdity. Hypocrisy is inherent in the relationships between humans and animals, and complications are impossible to escape from.

However, this book only gets 2 stars because I don't think it was terribly well-written. It is anything but cohesive. There are hundreds of "mini-essays," each relating an anecdote, study, or philosophical idea, wrapped up with a pat conclusion. This results in incredible breadth but very little depth and sometimes patently ignoring what I see as extreme oversimplification and shoddy reasoning. Let me provide a few examples with my objections (some are pretty long, but most are short):

1. This one just seems to have so many logical flaws and unexplained assumptions that although what he is saying may be perfectly true, I just can't get past his terrible reasoning. While exploring the idea about animals living with humans because they unconditionally love us from page 79:

"If pets were so great at providing unconditional love, you would think that everyone would be bonded to the animals in their homes. (Unexplained assumption number one - that because an animal loves you unconditionally, you will necessarily bond with it). They are not. in a 1992 study, 15% of adults said they were not particularly attached to their pets. In informal polls I have taken in my class, roughly a third of my students indicate that someone in their family actively dislikes or even hates the family pet. (Assumption number two - animals provide unconditional love to everyone they meet. In my experience, it is perfectly normal for a pet to be more attached or loving to certain people in a house, usually the ones who also show it affection and take care of it). The demography of pet-keeping also presents a problem ... This view predicts that people living alone would have the most need for unconditional love and thus have the highest levels of pet ownership. (#3: WHY? because people with roommates or family already have their love quota fulfilled? #4: people always do what is statistically beneficial for them, i.e. "i live alone and have a deficiency of love so I should get a pet.")This is not the case. In fact, adults living alone have the lowest rates of pet ownership, (lots of things could contribute to this. This must include people whose lifestyles otherwise prevent pet ownership: every college-aged person in a dorm room, people who work or travel a lot, people who live in apartments by themselves that don't allow pets, which is more likely to happen if you are single, people who are allergic, etc.)while adults raising school-aged kids have the highest. (This in no way refutes the unconditional love hypothesis. Many parents get pets for their kids so that they can have that sort of relationship with a pet that includes unconditional love, as well as responsibility and kindness, and see it as beneficial to their kids all around). Interestingly, while adults with children have the highest rates of pet ownership, as a group, they are less attached to their animals than people who live along with pets. In fact, pet attachment drops a notch with each additional person added to a family. Pets in homes with young children really get the shaft. For example, only about 25% of pets in families with children are groomed every day compared to nearly 80% of pets who reside with adults who do not have kids. (There is no reason to assume that this fact is a direct cause of the nonexistence of unconditional love from a pet. People who do not have children have more time and disposable income to spend on pet grooming. They also are more likely to have a pet that requires grooming, while a family may choose a pet specifically because it is low maintenance in the grooming department. By this logic, because families with 4 children necessarily spend less time and money per child than families with 3 children, the parents with more children love each of their children less, and those children love their parents less. Very silly in my opinion.)

Phew! moving on to the shorter objections.

2. The explanations he provides about the studies he cites often either do not have enough information to make sense, or don't make sense. One such study about whether men or women have more susceptibility to the cuteness of babies and pets was summarized this way:

"Women, however, are more susceptible than men to creates that are cute. British researchers recently reported that two groups of women are particularly sensitive to differences in the cuteness of infants: those of reproductive age and those taken birth control pills that raise their levels of hormones progesterone and estrogen." These seem pretty clearly not be "two" groups of women. Women who are taking birth control pills are the same women that are of reproductive age, unless there is some new fad of seven year old girls and seventy year old women taking the pill just for the fun of it. Although not all women of reproductive age take birth control pills, one group seems to fit pretty clearly into the other, so that his suggestion that hormones such as progesterone and estrogen are the causation for this kind of behavior has some serious logical flaws and kind of just seems like a tricky way to avoid a more detailed explanation.

Mostly, though, the author bugged me by summing up what seemed like a complicated study in a few sentences, followed by the words "the research is clear that ______," when I felt like from what he said, the research was NOT clear, and his conclusion was utterly unsupported.

3. I guess this isn't really a complaint, just something I thought was funny, but he made me feel like a stereotype.

"Three out of four animal rights activists are women, and most of them are politically liberal, well-educated, solidly middle class, and primarily white. Nearly all of them have pets." p. 241

"The typical vegetarian is a liberal, white, well-educated middle- or upper-class female who is less likely than the average person to adhere to traditional values. She usually gives up red meat first, and then expands her list of rejected foods to chicken and fish, and, in the case of vegans, eggs and dairy products." p. 196

Although I ultimately agree with Herzog, this book was really an exercise in being continually annoyed by his rhetorical style. It got all of my debater dander up and within 70 pages I had to keep notes about all of the ridiculous things he said. Since I didn't know anybody physically near me who would find my complaints interesting, I channeled them into the longest review I've ever written. (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 27, 2013 Laura Zurowski rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: good-books-that-are-good-for-you

I have to give Hal Herzog some serious credit for his skills in building a slow, steady, and compelling argument in favor of individuals reflecting upon their attitudes toward animals. There isn't any explicit stance or agenda to be found on these pages, as his goal is to have the reader THINK for themselves about their beliefs and actions when it comes to meat consumption and the use of animals in research, entertainment, and as pets.

Herzog poses questions to many different scenarios involving...more

like · see review

Apr 07, 2012 Marjorie rated it 3 of 5 stars

So far definitely worth reading if only to re
Ind ourselves that our assumptions about food and eating are often incorrect.
Ok, now I have finished it. It's interesting and even-handed and takes on a number of the flash point having to do with animal rights. I agree completely with his conclusion that it is complicated and that we are imperfect human beings who often behave hypocritically and with cognitive dissonance. He raises many important questions and does not pretend to answer any of them....more

like · see review

Nov 05, 2010 Anna rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: audio

This was a fascinating survey of anthrozoology (the study of relations between humans and animals) and the hypocrisies of human beings. For example, many people are opposed to cock-fighting and yet many of us eat factory-farmed chicken. Birds that are used for cock-fighting have much better lives than factory farmed chickens up until the last minutes or hour or so of their lives. Incidentally, Herzog is opposed to both although he meets plenty of people who raise cock-fighters and likes them jus...more This was a fascinating survey of anthrozoology (the study of relations between humans and animals) and the hypocrisies of human beings. For example, many people are opposed to cock-fighting and yet many of us eat factory-farmed chicken. Birds that are used for cock-fighting have much better lives than factory farmed chickens up until the last minutes or hour or so of their lives. Incidentally, Herzog is opposed to both although he meets plenty of people who raise cock-fighters and likes them just fine. Lots of vegetarians eat flesh. Lots of people are enthusiastic about having a pure-bred dog despite the genetically impaired conditions or diseases that many breeds now have. And what about the crazy cat lady who loves cats and yet slowly kills her hoarded cats by neglect? Another interesting question is whether animal abuse by children is a sign that the child will turn into a serial killer (nope).

Herzog also asks a lot of interesting ethical questions about research. How many mice would you sacrifice to prevent Dengue Fever? For a lot of people, a lot. But what about baldness or ED? I'm not sure I'd sacrifice any but maybe female pattern baldness? He also makes a lot of interesting cultural observations. For example, dogs are valued pets in the West but in some cultures they are considered so dirty that people wouldn't even eat them. And, of course, in some countries people do eat them. Why do we love kittens but hate snakes or other kinds of bugs? Ultimately, Herzog concludes that we are all such a bundle of contradictions precisely because we are human.

I listened to the audio version and Mel Foster did a great job of keeping my attention. He's pretty good at translating that friendly, almost gee whiz tone of Herzog. He's lousy at accents though - his British founder of Best Friends isn't so terrible - he does sound British but he said Oxbridge and he doesn't sound like that. Trying to do a Chris Rock impression was a huge error. Jarring but minor irritations. (less)

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (9)

More editions...

Genres

Non Fiction

106 users

Animals

54 users

Science

26 users

Psychology

25 users

Food And Drink > Food

24 users

Philosophy

12 users

Environment > Nature

8 users

Sociology

7 users

Book Club

5 users

Adult

5 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Hal Herzog

Hal Herzog has been investigating the complex psychology of our interactions with other species for more than two decades. He is particularly interested in how people negotiate real-world ethical dilemmas, and he has studied animal activists, cockfighters, animal researchers, and circus animal trainers. An award-winning teacher and researcher, he has written more than 100 articles and book chapter...more

More about Hal Herzog...

Books by Hal Herzog

Los amamos, los odiamos y . . . los comemos: Esa relacion tan especial con los animales

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Some We Love, Som...

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Some We Love, Some We ...

“Psycholinguists argue about whether language reflects our perception of reality or helps create them. I am in the latter camp. Take the names we give the animals we eat. The Patagonian toothfish is a prehistoric-looking creature with teeth like needles and bulging yellowish eyes that lives in deep waters off the coast of South America. It did not catch on with sophisticated foodies until an enterprising Los Angeles importer renamed it the considerably more palatable "Chilean sea bass.” — 4 people liked it

“The inconsistencies that haunt our relationships with animals also result from the quirks of human cognition. We like to think of ourselves as the rational species. But research in cognitive psychology and behavioral economics shows that our thinking and behavior are often completely illogical. In one study, for example, groups of people were independently asked how much they would give to prevent waterfowl from being killed in polluted oil ponds. On average, the subjects said they would pay $80 to save 2,000 birds, $78 to save 20,000 birds, and $88 to save 200,000 birds. Sometimes animals act more logically than people do; a recent study found that when picking a new home, the decisions of ant colonies were more rational than those of human house-hunters.
What is it about human psychology that makes it so difficult for us to think consistently about animals? The paradoxes that plague our interactions with other species are due to the fact that much of our thinking is a mire of instinct, learning, language, culture, intuition, and our reliance on mental shortcuts.” — 3 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals
avg rating	preview: Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals Goodreads rating: 3.79 (1051 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6953508-some-we-love-some-we-hate-some-we-eat?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347432214l/6953508.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6953508-some-we-love-some-we-hate-some-we-eat?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals by Hal Herzog[/url]

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website