My thinking on David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” has greatly remained unchanged since I last read the piece. I have noticed that this essay is vary different to the other pieces we have read. Wallace does not take a certain stance on the issue he describes. He explains how the lobster culture values the industry and how they justify their practices, all without villianizing the lobster eaters. In addition, he describes how lobsters certainly do feel discomfort when being boiled alive, and dives into the ethical repercussions of that fact. He explains every facet of the issue, and leaving the reader to make their own opinion about cooking lobsters, or to be left somewhat confused. Meanwhile, Mitford and Pollan are clearly advocating for a certain side. Mitford seeks to display the shady process of embalming, and Pollan writes about the negative aspects of the fast food industry. Both writers do not explain any positive aspects of the topic they are addressing. I agree with the argument that Mitford and Pollen present in their pieces, but I am still slightly conflicted about Wallace’s’ essay. I think that boiling lobsters alive is an inhumane and barbaric practice. However, I am not as passionate about not partaking in the lobster industry as I am with fast food and embalming. It could be due to Wallace’s inclusion of the positive aspects in the lobster industry, like it’s importance in the local culture and history, or it could be due to the fact that boiling lobsters doesn’t have the same destructive environmental impact as embalming or fast food. Eating lobsters may affect the lobster population slightly, but there are laws to make sure the population isn’t decimated, which preserves the ecosystem. The environmental impact of other problems is much larger, like the fast food industry using copious amounts of land and energy to feed low-quality food to millions of consumers. In comparison to issues presented in other writing pieces, lobster boiling seems like less of a pressing problem.