Persuasive Techniques in an Argument for Biofabrication

 

Introduction

 

The treatment of animals in our society today has always been an issue that I have tried to not to think about. I am not a vegetarian, and I did not want to feel guilty about my own eating habits. I have always known that the current treatment of the animals used in our societal products is a problem, but I have never taken the time to consider what alternatives we have. When I came across a TED Talk on biofabrication of meat and leather, I did not think I would be convinced of its merits. I was, however, proven very wrong. It made me confront that issue that I’ve tried so hard to ignore. I wanted to analyze this video because the speaker, Andras Forgacs, utilizes many different tactics to appeal to his audience, such as verbal and visual appeals. Forgacs attempts to convince his audience of the benefits of biofabricated meat and leather by employing logos, posing rhetorical questions, and manipulating the visual elements of the speech.

 

TED Talks often cater to a wide variety of people. The acronym TED stands for technology, entertainment, and design. So, the target audience for the videos are generally people with an interest in science. This video in particular is aimed to influence people who either already have concerns about animal treatment or are skeptical of the need for any such concern. The target audience can be surmised from simply looking at the video’s title, “Leather and Meat Without Killing Animals”. This general statement draws in many viewers who are already concerned with animal treatment because it could potentially solve a lot of problems. The title would also appeal to those who had not really given the issue much thought, like myself. The statement sounds like the perfect situation: having meat and leather without the inhumanity associated with the current practices. The content also applies to a very broad audience. While Forgacs does use some scientific terminology to describe the processes of biofabrication, he somehow manages to keep it very relatable and simple.

 

Logos

 

Throughout his argument, Forgacs relies heavily on the rhetorical device of logos in order to convince his audience of the value of synthetically producing meat and leather. For instance, Forgacs tells the audience that in 2012, the world population of 7 billion kept, in total, a herd of over 60 billion animals for consumption and manufacture of animal products. He went on to say that by 2050, it is estimated that the herd will be nearly 100 billion animals, while the human population will only grow to 10 billion (Forgacs). Forgacs utilizes statistics early on in his speech in order to really capture the audience’s attention with shocking facts. This appeal makes it clear that the growing proportion of animals needed to maintain our standards of living will eventually become unsustainable. Critic John McDermott believes that Forgacs’ technology has the “potential to help solve several of the world’s most pressing economic and environmental challenges; deforestation, world hunger, fossil fuel dependency, animal cruelty, and climate change” (McDermott). Forgacs attempts to illustrate a belief similar to McDermott’s through his use of hard facts. By proving that our current state of consumption is untenable, Forgacs asserts his view as not only a viable alternative, but also a necessary one.

 

In addition, Forgacs uses logos to stress that these synthetic production techniques are already in use in other parts of society today. For example, in the medical industry biofabrication is utilized to “grow complex human body parts like ears, windpipes, skin, and blood vessels” (Forgacs). The fact that biofabrication is already a part of our society portrays the idea in a much more rational and accessible manner. Additionally, Forgacs calls attention to the fact that we currently manufacture some foods with cell cultures. Some of these foods include yogurt, wine, and beer. By showing that people are already ingesting food that is made with cell cultures, Forgacs creates a link between our current habits and his proposed future eating habits. This is meant to make people realize that it will not be the end of the world if we manufacture animal products. According to critic Michael Richard, “at first, this technology will be used to create replacement organs for people who are sick or hurt, but as the technology matures, there's no reason why it couldn't be used to replace factory farming, something that would be good both for the animals and our planet” (Richard). In fact, biofabrication of meat and leather is not all that different from what we are currently doing. By demonstrating that society is already using similar processes in medicine and even food, Forgacs appeals to the audience’s sense of logic.

 

Rhetorical Questions

 

In order to really engage the audience in his speech, Forgacs poses rhetorical questions and prompts the audience to dissect what he is trying to say. For instance, he asks “What if, instead of starting with a complex and sentient animal, we started with what the tissues are made of?”. Forgacs contrasts the two practices in his rhetorical question to make listeners really think about the difference between conventional animal products and biofabricated products. The skillful juxtaposition of these two ideas suggests that the only difference between the two products is that one is humane and the other is not. Furthermore, this question has an emotional appeal within it. This appeal to pathos makes an emotional connection with the audience to make them ponder the necessity of killing animals. By giving the audience a cue to think about his arguments, Forgacs is able to evoke a deeper connection with the audience.

 

Additionally, Forgacs utilizes rhetorical questioning to give himself an outlet to explain himself more thoroughly. After discussing the biofabricated leather, Forgacs asks “now how do we do it?”. This question mimics what the audience is likely feeling at this point. The way Forgacs describes the outcome of biofabrication techniques makes it sound a little too good to be true. So, at this point the audience is looking for some detail into how the products are actually made. By essentially asking himself a question, Forgacs is given a clear venue to more thoroughly explain the process. This allows Forgacs to connect with the audience by showing an insight into their thoughts. By connecting with the audience, Forgacs is able to have a much bigger impact on their views.

 

Visual Aspects

 

In addition to the verbal assets Forgacs utilizes to persuade the audience, visual aids also play a prominent role. The first type of visual aids present in the speech is pictures. The pictures in general fall into two categories: emotional appeals about the inhumanity of current practices and pictures of the proposed future of meat and leather production. For example, one photo that particularly pulls on the heart strings is a picture of a cow hanging upside down in a slaughterhouse. This is a harsh reality that most people never have to see, and it makes the audience feel guilty. By forcing the audience to look at the inhumane practices we are currently using, Forgacs opens the door to put forth a very humane alternative. The photo of the cow is juxtaposed with an image of a sterile laboratory type setting. When placed right after the photo of the slaughterhouse, the biofabrication setting seems like the obvious choice. Forgacs’ use of juxtaposition of the images creates a very convincing argument for the advancement of biofabrication technology.

 

In addition to pictures, Forgacs conjures a powerful visual aid in person during the presentation. In order to prove the quality of the products his lab is producing, Forgacs brings a sample of biofabricated leather to show everyone. This powerful in person appeal forces the audience to see exactly what he is trying to explain right during the speech instead of simply considering it and possibly looking it up later. Because it will likely be a long time until biofabricated products hit the market, many people in the audience will likely forget Forgacs’ presentation. By showing an actual sample of the end result, however, people have a more tangible image of what our future could look like. Actually seeing the leather product makes the idea more memorable. According to a critic, this is not the first time Forgacs’ company has used an appeal like this to convince his audience. Forgacs’ father, his business partner, “cooked, salted, and ate a sliver of cultured pork onstage at a TEDMED conference, a taste of what Modern Meadow could develop” (Greenwald). This type of visual display is a very effective tool of persuasion. Many people would doubt the notion that a biofabricated pork chop would be even remotely palatable. So, to see someone on stage eat the pork without gagging would be quite influential. Overall, both the pictures and the live demonstrations leave a lasting impact on consumers, which will likely make them more receptive to the idea when it springs up in the future.

 

Conclusion

 

Because Forgacs’ speech was delivered in June 2013, the issues are incredibly relevant to life today. No solution is going to be perfect, but Forgacs’ ideal future for production of animal products like meat and leather looks promising. Forgacs articulates his arguments thoroughly and concisely. He employs logos, rhetorical questioning, and visual aids in order to persuade his audience to consider the possibility of biofabrication of animal products. Overall, Forgacs provides a very convincing argument that the proposed technology could have substantial environmental and humanitarian benefits.

 

Works Cited

 

Forgacs, Andras. “Leather and Meat Without Killing Animals”. TED. June 2013. Speech.

Greenwald, Ted. “Modern Meadow Makes Leather and Meat Without Killing Animals”. Bloomberg Businessweek. 6 June 2013. Web. 9 October 2013.

McDermott, John. “A Pork Chop to Change the World (Yes, Really)”. Inc. 1 November 2012. Web. 9 October 2013.

Richard, Michael. “Andras Forgacs envisions leather and meat without killing animals”. Treehugger.24 September 2013. Web. 8 October 2013.