Adam Victor Brandizzi

Originally published on Grist.

Where are the philosophers arguing that eating meat is moral?

When I started researching this piece, I’d already read a lot of arguments against meat, but I hadn’t seen a serious philosophical defense of carnivores. So I started asking around. I asked academics, meat industry representatives, and farmers: Who was the philosophical counterweight to Peter Singer?

In 1975, Singer wrote Animal Liberation, which launched the modern animal rights movement with its argument that causing animal suffering is immoral. There are plenty of other arguments against eating animals besides Singer’s, going back to the ancient Greeks and Hindus. There are even arguments that Christianity contains a mandate for vegetarianism. Matthew Scully’s Dominion argues against animal suffering; Scully rejects Singer’s utilitarian assertion that humans and animals are equal but says that, since God gave people "dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," so we have a responsibility to care for them and show them mercy.

The arguments against eating animals are pretty convincing. But surely, I thought, there were also intellectuals making convincing counterarguments. Right? Nope. Not really.

At first glance, the moral defense of meat seems to be lacking

(Shutterstock)

There is the Cartesian idea that animals are unfeeling machines, incapable of suffering — but I just wasn’t buying that. It’s clear that animals have an aversive response to pain, and careful, well-respected scientists are saying that animals are probably capable of feeling and consciousness. Once we admit even the possibility that animals are sentient, the ethical game is on: It doesn’t matter that an animal is just an animal; if you’re against suffering and you agree animals can feel pain, it’s pretty hard to justify eating them. (Of course, the further you get from humans the harder it is to judge — plants may be sentient in a totally alien way! Singer says we can stop caring somewhere between a shrimp and oyster.)

My enquiries didn’t turn up any sophisticated defense of meat. Certainly there are a few people here and there making arguments around the edges, but nothing that looked to me like a serious challenge to Singer. In fact, the lack of philosophical work to justify meat eating is so extreme that people kept referring me not to scholarly publications, but to an essay contest that the New York Times held back in 2012. Ariel Kaminer organized that contest after noticing the same gaping hole in the philosophical literature that I’d stumbled upon. Vegetarians have claimed the ethical high ground with book after book and, Kaminer wrote:

In response, those who love meat have had surprisingly little to say. They say, of course, that, well, they love meat or that meat is deeply ingrained in our habit or culture or cuisine or that it’s nutritious or that it’s just part of the natural order … But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake.

The winner of that contest, Jay Bost, didn’t take it much farther than that, basically arguing that "meat is just part of the natural order" because animals are an integral part of the food web. That’s a start, but I’d want a lot more than a 600-word essay to flesh out the idea and respond to the obvious criticisms — since almost all the animals we eat are far removed from natural food webs, it’s still basically a prescription for veganism. Plus, where do you draw the line on what’s natural?

I found several beginnings of arguments like this — no real philosophical shelter for a meat eater, but a few foundational observations that you might build something upon if you carefully thought through all the implications.

"We’ve gotta give animals a life worth living"

(Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Animal welfare expert Temple Grandin offered one potential plank for building a defense of meat eating. "We’ve gotta give animals a life worth living," she told me. Later in the interview, she reminded me that most farm animals wouldn’t have a life at all if no one ate meat. Combine these points and you could argue that it’s better to have a life worth living than no life at all — even if it ends with slaughter and consumption.

Using the same argument, we might raise children for the purpose of producing organs

When I bounced this argument off the ethicist Paul Thompson, he said, "That may be a defensible position, but a philosopher should also be prepared to apply it to humans."

Right. It’s hard to limit the "a life worth living is better than no life at all" argument to farm animals. Using the same argument, we might raise children for the purpose of producing organs: As long as they were well cared for, ignorant of their fate, and painlessly slaughtered, you could say they had a life worth living. The clone gets a (short) life, a dying girl get a new heart, everyone wins! It’s rationally consistent, but certainly doesn’t feel right to me.

Perhaps some brilliant philosopher will develop these points, but, since I am not one of those, I was left with the conclusion that the vegans were right. Oddly, however, that didn’t make me think twice about laying sliced turkey on my sandwich the next day. I was convinced on a rational level, but not in an embodied, visceral way.

People eat meat even though the rational arguments against it are convincing

(Shutterstock)

"Animal Liberation is one of those rare books that demand that you either defend the way you live or change it," Michael Pollan once wrote. I know what he means — when I first read it, I felt battered and stupefied by the horrors of animal suffering that Singer paraded before me. Nevertheless, despite my inability to muster a defense for my meat eating, I didn’t change my way of life. Pollan didn’t, either: His piece is set up as a stunt — he’s reading Animal Liberation while eating rib eye in a steakhouse. And, though Pollan finds himself agreeing with Singer, he has no problem finishing his steak.

"[L]ife-long adherence to solely plant-based diets is less than 1 percent"

I tend to think of rational argument as a powerful force, certainly more powerful than the trivial pleasure of eating meat. But it turns out that’s backwards: Rational morality tugs at us with the slenderest of threads, while meat pulls with the thick-twined chords of culture, tradition, pleasure, the flow of the crowd, and physical yearning — and it pulls at us three times a day. Thousands, convinced by Singer and the like, become vegetarians for moral reasons. And then most of those thousands start eating meat again. Vaclav Smil notes: "Prevalence of all forms of ‘vegetarianism’ is no higher than 2–4 percent in any Western society and that long-term (at least a decade) or life-long adherence to solely plant-based diets is less than 1 percent." As the psychologist Hal Herzog told Grist’s Katie Herzog in this podcast, "It’s the single biggest failure of the animal rights movement."

How do we deal with this? Some people just shrug and say, "Whatever, animals are different, it’s okay to kill them." I can’t quite bring myself to do that, because I value rational consistency. And yet, I don’t feel immoral when I eat meat — I actually feel pretty good.

Is vegetarianism a virtue?

The virtuous vegetarian. (Shutterstock)

Whenever you have lots of people agreeing in principle to a goal that is impossible for most to achieve in practice, you have something resembling religion. Religions are all about setting standards that most people will never live up to. And Thompson thinks they have something to teach us on this issue.

Thompson’s solution is to treat vegetarianism the way religious traditions treat virtues. Christians strive to love their neighbors, but they don’t say that people who fail to reach Jesus-level self-sacrifice are immoral. Buddhists strive for detachment, but they don’t flagellate themselves when they fail to achieve it.

Allowing people to access that protein should be moral, not just an excusable lapse

Thompson suggests that we should strive to do better by animals, but that doesn’t mean we should condemn ourselves for eating meat. There are lots of cases like this, he told me. "Some people are going to take these issues up in a way that other people would find really difficult," Thompson said. "For instance, we all respect Mother Theresa for taking on amazing burdens, but we don’t say that you are evil for not doing it."

This makes sense to me. Louis CK can make a pretty solid argument that people who have enough money to buy a nice car (or to spend time reading long essays about meat philosophy) should be donating 90 percent of their income to the poor.

And yet most of us don’t give up our luxuries. By Thompson’s reasoning, that doesn’t make us immoral. In fact, he says, it’s just wrong to condemn people who eat meat. When people rise out of extreme poverty, that is, when they start earning $2.60 a day, they almost invariably spend that newfound money on animal protein: milk, meat, or eggs. Now, you might roll your eyes and say that of course the desperate should be excused from the moral obligation — but wait. As Thompson writes in his book, From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone:

[T]his response misses my point. Excuses apply in extenuating circumstances, but the logic of excuses implies that the action itself is still morally wrong. A poor person might be excused for stealing a loaf of bread. Theft might be excused when a poor person’s situation takes a turn for the worse, but in the case at hand, their situation has taken a turn toward the better. Under modestly improved circumstances, the extremely poor add a little meat, milk, or eggs into their diet. My claim is that there is something curious with a moral system that reclassifies legally and traditionally sanctioned conduct of people at the utter margins of society as something that needs to be excused.

Is it morally wrong for a hungry child in India to eat an egg? This isn’t just a thought experiment — it’s a real controversy. It’s not enough to wave it off by saying it’s easy to provide vegan alternatives, because those alternative just don’t exist for many people. Often, the cheapest high-quality protein available to the poor comes from animals. Thompson’s point is that allowing people to access that protein should be moral, not just an excusable lapse.

This means animals' living conditions really matter

David Silverman/Getty Images

Could keeping egg-laying chickens in cages actually be better for them? (David Silverman/Getty Images)

If we accept Thompson’s formulation (and I’m inclined to), it lets us stop wringing our hands over our hypocrisy and strive to improve conditions for animals. That’s what Temple Grandin does. She didn’t have much patience for my philosophical questions. Instead, she is focused on the realistic changes that will give animals better lives. And as I talked to her, she served up surprise after surprise. Many of the elements in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that people find most abhorrent, she said, may be fine from the animal’s perspective. For instance, consider egg-laying hens: What’s better for them — an open barn or stacked cages? Small battery cages, with several hens packed inside each, are bad news, according to Grandin, but enriched cages are a really good alternative.

"There are objective ways to measure a hen’s motivation to get something she wants — like a private nest box," Grandin told me. "How long is she willing to not eat to get it, or how heavy a door will she push to get it? How many times will she push a switch to get it? A private nest box is something she wants, because in the wild she has an instinct to hide in the bushes so that a fox doesn’t get [her eggs]. Give her some pieces of plastic to hang down that she can hide behind. Give her a little piece of astroturf to lay [her eggs] on. Give her a perch, and a piece of plastic to scratch on, and at least enough cage height so she can walk normally. I’m gonna call that apartment living for chickens. Do they need natural elements? Being outside? Science can’t answer that. I mean, there are people in New York that hardly go outside."

"A private nest box is something [an egg-laying hen] wants"

I pressed her: Can’t you use those same objective measurement techniques to see how badly the hens want to go outside and scratch for bugs?

"Well you can," Grandin said, "and the motivation is pretty weak compared to something like the nest box, which is hardwired. Take dust bathing. For a hen dust bathing is nice to do, but it’s kind of like, yes, it’s nice to have a fancy hotel room, but the EconoLodge will do too."

And in fact, the free-range system that I would instinctively choose for chickens may be worse than an enriched cage — because the birds get sick and injured a lot more. And laying hens, unlike meat chickens, are pretty nasty about setting up pecking orders. As Thompson observes in his book, "This is well and good in the flocks of 10 to 20 birds, as might be observed among wild jungle fowl, and it is probably tolerable in a flock of 40 to 60 birds that might have been seen on a typical farmstead in 1900 … But a cage-free/ free-range commercial egg barn will have between 150,000 to 500,000 hens occupying the same space. If you are a hen at the bottom end of the pecking order in an environment like that, you are going to get pecked. A lot."

Even small farms with pastured hens that produce $9-a-dozen eggs often have hundreds of birds, which means the most submissive hens are going to get beat up. I certainly prefer Joel Salatin’s 400-bird Eggmobile on lush grass, because to my human eyes it’s beautiful — and chicken cages look horrible. But I have real doubt as to what’s better from the chicken’s perspective.

There are a lot of counterintuitive things like this when it comes to animal farming (here’s our Q&A in full). So I asked Grandin how we should feel about animal agriculture in the United States as it’s currently practiced: Do these animals really have a life worth living?

It varies greatly, she said, but some CAFOs really are good. "I think cattle done right have a decent life," she said. I couldn’t get her to give a simple thumbs up or down to chicken or pork CAFOs.

Even the Dalai Lama eats meat twice a week

The Dalai Lama. (Keith Tsuji/Getty Images)

Talking to Grandin didn’t make me want to go stock up on corn-fed beef, but it did significantly soften my (negative) feelings about industrial animal production. And talking to Thompson made me realize that I was willing to compromise the needs of animals for the needs of humans if they come into direct conflict. In that way I’m a speciesist — I have an unshakable favoritism for humans. Perhaps it’s irrational, but I really want that little girl in India to get her egg, even if it means hens suffer, even if there’s a good vegan alternative for a slightly higher cost.

I have an unshakable favoritism for humans

Perhaps there’s a philosophical argument to be made in defense of killing animals, but no one has spelled that out in a way that I found convincing. Does this mean that we should join the vegans?

I think the answer is yes, but in a very limited way — in the same way that we all should take vows of poverty and stop thinking impure thoughts. Ending deaths and suffering is a worthy moral goal for those of us who have the wealth to make choices. But saying that it’s wrong and immoral to eat meat is just too absolutist. I mean, even the Dalai Lama, who says vegetarianism is preferable, eats meat twice a week.

The binary, good-or-evil view of meat is pragmatically counterproductive — the black and white strategy hasn’t gotten many people to become vegan. Instead, let’s focus on giving farm animals a life worth living.

Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter here, and follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

Amultidão de adolescentes se descontrolava vendo o ídolo de perto. “Artur, Artur! Olha para cá!”, gritou um garoto, colando seu rosto ao do astro para tirar um selfie. Uma coordenadora pedia em vão para que as centenas de crianças que cercavam desajeitadamente o ídolo o deixassem respirar. Uma menina suplicou nervosa: “Tia, eu só quero apertar a mão do ‘Medalha Fields’.”

Não houve sossego para Artur Avila, naquela segunda-feira de julho. O matemático carioca participava da abertura da premiação da Olimpíada Brasileira de Matemática das Escolas Públicas, a Obmep. Agraciado em 2014 com o prêmio mais prestigioso da disciplina, o “Medalha Fields” era ovacionado como astro de rock pelos 501 estudantes de todo o país que viajaram ao Rio de Janeiro para receber a medalha de ouro da competição.

Enterrada no meio da multidão, uma garota magricela aguardava sua vez de tirar a foto com o matemático. Anne Beatriz Cardoso de Sousa, de 13 anos, não entrou na disputa por Avila com os amigos, mas esperou paciente, observando o tumulto de maneira discreta. Ouviu sem perder uma vírgula o relato do pesquisador carioca, que narrava para os adolescentes sua trajetória até o prêmio Fields.

Ele também tinha 13 anos quando participou pela primeira vez de uma competição daquele tipo – à época, a Obmep, exclusiva para escolas públicas, ainda não existia; Avila disputou a Olimpíada Brasileira de Matemática (OBM), mais antiga, que também aceita alunos de escolas particulares. Ganhou uma medalha de bronze logo na prova de estreia, e três de ouro, nas seguintes. Segundo Avila, foram essas competições que o aproximaram da disciplina e revelaram seu talento. “Eu possivelmente não seria um matemático se não fosse por isso. As questões eram mais criativas do que as do colégio, despertaram meu prazer”, disse.

Logo após participar da primeira olimpíada, Avila foi informado de que deveria ir a um endereço “esquisito” no bairro do Jardim Botânico, quase dentro da Floresta da Tijuca, para a cerimônia de premiação. Chegou a um prédio no meio do mato, uma escola da qual nunca ouvira falar. Estava pela primeira vez no Impa, o Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, um dos principais centros da disciplina em todo o mundo, que organiza a OBM desde o final dos anos 90 e, desde 2005, a Obmep. Saiu de lá com uma lista de exercícios bastante complicados, e tomou gosto pela coisa. Poucos anos mais tarde, passaria a frequentar o Impa diariamente, como aluno do doutorado.

Anne ouvia atentamente o relato de Avila. Muito tímida, mal esboçou um sorriso quando o veterano passou os braços em seus ombros e a cumprimentou por ter alcançado o primeiro lugar no Nordeste e o quinto no Brasil entre os alunos da 6ª e da 7ª séries. Não só era a primeira viagem da piauiense de Capitão de Campos, como também ela nunca andara de avião. No Rio, a adolescente queria saber de duas coisas: registrar no celular fotos com matemáticos e realizar o sonho de conhecer o Impa.

Omunicípio de Capitão de Campos fica no norte do Piauí. Cortado pela BR-343, tem quase 11 mil habitantes e poucas construções com mais de um andar. Por lá não existe clube com piscina, cinema ou parque. “Não tem nada para fazer”, suspirou a jovem.

Anne mora com a avó, que é revendedora de cosméticos, e o avô, dono de um bar. Desde o anúncio da vitória na Obmep, em novembro de 2014, ela vem recebendo uma bolsa de iniciação científica do Impa. São 100 reais de ajuda de custo e também um tablet, pelo qual acompanha aulas dadas por matemáticos do instituto. Cerca de 6 500 estudantes espalhados pelos cinco cantos do país, medalhistas na olimpíada, assistem a essas videoaulas e estudam a distância com os professores do Impa.

Pequena e magrinha, Anne tem os cabelos crespos bem espessos. Como muitas outras garotas de sua idade, enfeita as unhas com adesivos de flores, corações e estrelas. Fala muito pouco e baixinho. No colégio, não é do grupo que reúne vários amigos. Senta-se colada ao professor, para evitar os colegas mais desordeiros. Em casa, fica acordada até depois da meia-noite resolvendo problemas. Frustra-se, às vezes até o choro, quando encontra alguma questão que não consegue solucionar. Diz estudar muito não só para ganhar prêmios, mas porque deseja ser pesquisadora do Impa no futuro.

Enquanto, ao lado dos outros oito medalhistas de ouro do Piauí, aguardava o momento de subir ao palco do Theatro Municipal do Rio de Janeiro e receber a honraria da Obmep, a menina sacou o smartphone do bolso e apontou para si a câmera frontal do aparelho. Queria conferir o visual uma última vez.

Chegara havia pouco mais de um dia à cidade e enfiara-se nas atividades programadas pelo Impa. Show com mágico, sessão de filme, palestras com matemáticos – tudo acontecia no hotel em que os alunos estavam hospedados. Só não pôde aproveitar a piscina: um funcionário do instituto lhe havia dito que faria frio na cidade, e os trajes de banho ficaram no Piauí.

Ajeitando a blusa no corpo, preparou-se para subir ao palco do Municipal. Recebeu a honraria das mãos de Jacob Palis, um dos matemáticos mais importantes do país. Ganhou do pesquisador a medalha de ouro, um sorriso largo e dois tapinhas de incentivo, um em cada ombro. Feliz com o prêmio, a menina acabaria não visitando a sede do Impa, o local no meio do mato que tanto encantara o estreante Artur Avila. Já há algumas edições da Obmep, o instituto deixou de organizar uma visita dos premiados a suas instalações no Jardim Botânico – o fato de serem 501 jovens dificulta a operação.

A noite de Anne terminaria com um lanche no hotel e cama. De manhã, o voo de retorno ao Piauí. Bem cedo.

Choose your battles. For many of us, this expression means very little until you become a parent -- and then it makes perfect sense. Because when it comes to parenting, you have to choose your battles. A lot. Deciding when to be soft and when to be strong is a tricky balancing act. Virginia-based mom Katie, who blogs at Our Two Little Monkeys, explained what “choose your battles” means to her: “My youngest is in the throes of ‘I do it myself,’ and I have to pick and choose where to draw the line. Crossing the street without my hand? Nope! Feeding himself tomato soup? OK, but I'll cringe at the mess the whole time. Safety is non-negotiable, and the rest is just a lesson in patience!”

What else isn’t worth fighting over with your kids? We partnered with Angel Soft and asked some of our favorite parenting bloggers which battles they choose to overlook or ignore:

CLOTHES:

Image: FARINASTER/FLICKR
Parenting shouldn’t feel like an episode of “What Not To Wear,” our bloggers agreed. Kenny, who writes at Electradaddy, said his son used to wear his socks inside out. “I used to try and stop him. Now I’m like, ‘OK. Roll with it, dude! You do your style and I’ll do mine,’” he said. And Rebecca from Mamaguru explained her take on kids’ fashion: “I take Superman to the library or a pirate to the grocery store. My kids sport stripes and plaids that capture the entire rainbow. They strut their fashion ‘don'ts’ with irresistible pride that I don’t have the heart to crush. Besides, I have my hands full controlling their behavior. Why worry about fashion?”

SLEEP:
While sleep itself is of the utmost importance for children, how exactly a child sleeps is not, according to a few of our bloggers. Kat of Transparenting no longer battles with her son over toys in the crib. She said she had an epiphany: “My son is a great sleeper, and having a car or two means that when he wakes up in the morning, he will sometimes start playing quietly by himself.” So be it! And Gordon of Neurotic Dad said, “My 4-year-old sometimes likes to sleep on the floor, and I don’t think that’s worth fighting over. We put a blanket on him, he sleeps through the night, and everybody’s happy.”

FEELINGS:

Image: Alamy
When you ask parents what they -- ultimately -- want for their children, many will say that they just want their kids to be happy. But, the truth is, how our children feel is not something we can (or should) control, according to the bloggers we asked:

Kristin, who writes about family and relationships at her blog Two Cannoli, said her son has been reserved and cautious in new situations since he was a baby. “I realized that he adapted well when he had the chance to assess the situation without being pushed,” Kristin said. “Now that he is almost 6, I allow him time to get used to a new situation and try to prepare him as much as possible, and I let him be scared when he is scared; I tell him I am often scared too, and that seems to comfort him and give him the confidence to branch out,” she added.

David of The Daddy Complex and the author of Calm the F*ck Down: The Only Parenting Technique You’ll Ever Need believes that many parents are too quick to step in if their son or daughter complains about being bored. "When kids fall, they need to pick themselves up,” David explained. “It helps them learn self-reliance and resilience. The same thing goes for when they claim boredom. Let them be bored. Eventually, they'll find a way to entertain themselves that you probably wouldn't have thought of, even if that sometimes means surfing down the stairs on an air mattress," he (half) joked.

ROUTINES:
Nate of Improvising Fatherhood started using classic improv technique at bedtime with his 5-year-old. “The main source of my frustration had simply been me having an agenda and him not complying with that agenda,” he explained. And so, Nate decided it was OK to stray from his routine at bedtime. “I played our conversation like an improv scene, supporting and heightening his ideas. What ensued was a really nice conversation filled with a lot of giggles,” Nate said. “We can’t always drop our agenda to follow the crazy whims of our children. But the more opportunities you can find to let your kids take the lead, the more willing they will be to follow you back.” Charlie and Andy, who are the fathers behind the How To Be A Dad entertainment website share this philosophy. “Being right all the time as an adult is a futile and unworthy goal,” they wrote.

HELPING CHILDREN CHOOSE THEIR BATTLES:

Image: Getty Images/Vetta
Jeris of The SAHMMY believes that parents need to help their own children understand what is and what is not worth putting up a fight. “I wanted to stop butting heads about brushing hair and teeth before school,” Jeris said of her 9-year-old daughter. So, to help quash unnecessary battles with her on school days, she explained, “Not wanting to brush your hair is not a good battle. If you want to resist me, make it about something you are passionate about … something worth fighting for.”

We want to hear from you. How do you pick and choose your battles with your children? What’s important to you? And what’s best left ignored?

When choosing your battles, there is a time to be soft, and a time to be strong. Like parents, Angel Soft products are both soft and strong–learn more at AngelSoft.com.

Quem caminha pela rua Hamlin, no nordeste de Washington, pode confundir a construção de madeira nos fundos de uma espaçosa residência com uma casa de bonecas. Mas há poucos meses o caixote se tornou o lar da geógrafa Lee Pera, de 37 anos.

Pera levou três anos para construir a casa, erguida sobre rodas e que soma 13 metros quadrados, área equivalente à de uma caminhonete de cabine dupla.

Leia mais: Economia dos EUA decepciona: entenda como isso afeta o Brasil

Leia mais: Crise imobiliária obriga cidade da Califórnia a pedir concordata

Ela diz que, em vez de aprisioná-la, morar naquele espaço lhe proporcionou mais tempo livre e uma vida social mais intensa. Antes, Pera morava num apartamento e não tinha acesso a áreas externas.

"Adoro chegar em casa à tarde e sentar na varanda, e também adoro ter um armário menor. É muito bom não ter que pensar em tantas opções", ela afirma à BBC Brasil.

Rodeada por árvores e estacionada no quintal da casa de amigos, a residência de Pera é composta por varanda, sala, cozinha, banheiro e um "loft" com cama de casal.

A geógrafa pertence a um grupo crescente de americanos que, embora escolarizados e com boas perspectivas profissionais, têm optado por viver em casas minúsculas sobre rodas.

Muitos querem evitar passar décadas em trabalhos indesejados em troca de salários que permitam saldar os empréstimos da casa própria.

Outros buscam um estilo de vida mais simples e ecológico, livre do consumismo que marca a vida nos subúrbios americanos.

Outros ainda, como o casal Guillaume Dutilh e Jenna Spesard, querem poder viajar sem sair de casa.

Acompanhados por sua cadela Salies, eles já percorreram 31 mil km (dez vezes o trajeto de Porto Alegre a Manaus) desde que começaram a viajar pela América do Norte, há quase um ano.

O trio, que mantém o blog Tiny House, Giant Journey (casa minúscula, jornada gigante, em tradução livre), está agora no Alasca.

Em comum, eles têm o fato de que quase todos construíram suas casas – ou ao menos parte delas – com as próprias mãos, orientados por livros, blogs e fóruns na internet.

O movimento das casas minúsculas (tiny houses, em inglês) foi retratado no documentário Tiny, exibido no Netflix, e no reality show Tiny House Nation, veiculado na TV americana.

O movimento considera minúsculas casas com até 400 pés quadrados (37 metros quadrados). Não há dados sobre quantos americanos moram nessas residências.

Fetiche e confusão

Autor de um dos mais populares blogs sobre microcasas ( tinyrevolution.us), Andrew Odom diz que hoje há um "fetiche e muita confusão" em torno do tema nos Estados Unidos.

Segundo ele, muitos dos que têm se mudado para casas minúsculas buscam soluções rápidas para problemas pontuais, como dívidas, e ignoram a essência do movimento, que "tem a ver com uma transição espiritual, mental e física".

"A menos que a pessoa dê os passos internos necessários para separar desejo e necessidade e se libertar de uma sociedade materialista, a mudança não será bem sucedida", afirma à BBC Brasil.

Pessoas de vários lugares – inclusive muitos americanos pobres – vivem em espaços apertados há milênios, mas Odom diz que muitos no país só passaram a considerar a opção a partir da crise econômica de 2008.

Leia mais: EUA processam 17 bancos por crise de 2008

Leia mais: EUA vivem temor de nova bolha imobiliária

A crise começou com o colapso do setor imobiliário americano. Famílias endividadas contraíam empréstimos para investir em casas na esperança de ganhar com a constante valorização dos imóveis. Quando a bolha estourou, os preços despencaram, bancos quebraram e muitos perderam os bens.

Para Odom, o episódio mostrou que a estabilidade financeira dos Estados Unidos é incompatível com o sistema imobiliário atual, em que famílias contraem pesadas dívidas para ter onde morar.

Ele diz que, mais baratas, as microcasas poderiam solucionar parte do problema – a dele custou US$ 12 mil (R$ 41 mil), ou 3,6% do preço de uma casa americana média. A partir de US$ 10 mil é possível encomendar uma casa minúscula pronta pela internet.

Para Odom, porém, o maior obstáculo para a expansão do movimento são as restrições legais.

A maioria das cidades americanas proíbe que moradores vivam em casas muito pequenas. Uma forma de driblar a regulação é construi-las sobre rodas. Nesse caso, são consideradas residências móveis (como trailers) e toleradas em certas áreas.

Ainda assim, muitas prefeituras não permitem que pessoas morem integralmente nessas unidades.

Para Carey Carscallen, diretor da Escola de Arquitetura, Arte e Design da Universidade Andrews, em Michigan, outra barreira à disseminação do movimento é o número de residentes que uma microcasa comporta.

Para ele, ela pode abrigar um morador ou, no máximo, dois. A partir daí, a convivência ficaria muito difícil.

Carscallen orientou seus alunos num projeto em que tiveram de construir duas casas minúsculas. Durante o experimento, ele diz ter sido procurado por muitas pessoas que pediam ideias para erguer suas próprias unidades.

Para o professor, microcasas são ideais para jovens profissionais "que acabaram de sair da faculdade e ainda não acumularam muita coisa".

Frustração e desistência

Nem todos conseguem migrar para espaços tão pequenos. Em julho, o site Business Insider citou três casos de pessoas que desistiram de viver em microcasas.

Um casal sucumbiu aos frequentes vazamentos e crescentes custos de manutenção; um morador não conseguiu autorização da prefeitura para viver no local e outro casal se sentiu muito isolado na área em que pôde se instalar.

Andrew Odom concorda que casas minúsculas não são para todos. Hoje ele divide a residência de 23 metros quadrados com a mulher e a filha de três anos, mas reconhece que um dia terá de se mudar para um lugar maior.

O que não significa que morará numa casa típica de subúrbio. Para ele, uma residência com dois quartos e 70 metros quadrados – ainda bem pequena para padrões locais – deverá ser suficiente.

"Vamos avaliar quais são nossas necessidades e nos ajustar", diz.

No início do governo Lula, nos anos de 2003 e 2004, o PSDB comportou-se praticamente como um partido da base de sustentação do governo. Diversos projetos importantes para o futuro do país foram apoiados pelos tucanos. Vale lembrar a minirreforma tributária, a minirreforma previdenciária, a Lei do Bem, a Lei da Inovação, todo o pacote de políticas que estimularam o crédito e a Lei das Parcerias Público-Privadas.

O então ministro da Fazenda, Antonio Palocci, costurava a colaboração com possível ingresso da oposição na base de sustentação governista. Visto de hoje, após tudo o que ocorreu, é difícil imaginar tal situação. A história é feita pelos homens e não está escrita.

Palocci perdeu para José Dirceu e Lula, e o PT escolheu antagonizar partidos da centro-esquerda à centro-direita do espectro político-ideológico: PPS, PSDB e Democratas. Essa escolha obrigou as coligações do governo no Congresso Nacional a serem muito heterogêneas ideologicamente, cobrindo da esquerda à extrema direita.

Em razão da enorme heterogeneidade das coligações na era petista, optou-se por compartilhar menos o governo. A participação do PT nos ministérios e no governo em geral passou a ser muito maior do que seu peso relativo na coligação.

A literatura recente de ciência política mostra que os dois instrumentos que o Executivo tem para gerir o presidencialismo de coalizão –compartilhar governo e moedas de troca (principalmente a liberação de recursos para emendas parlamentares)– são substitutos, e não complementares. Quem emprega muito um deles emprega pouco o outro e vice-versa.

Nosso presidencialismo de coalizão transformou-se no atual presidencialismo de cooptação, tocado quase que exclusivamente no varejão da política. Mensalão e petrolão são consequência direta dessa escolha. Essa foi a primeira derrota de outro governo petista possível.

Havia em 2005 reconhecimento por parte de inúmeros atores políticos, da situação e da oposição, de que nosso contrato social projetava trajetória insustentável do gasto público e, portanto, que o aparecimento de gargalos e constrangimentos no front fiscal era somente questão de tempo.

A conversa prosperou, e um grupo de políticos –liderados pelo então deputado Antonio Delfim Netto e pelos ministros Antonio Palocci e Paulo Bernardo– propôs que a sociedade, por meio do Congresso Nacional, discutisse o tema. O objetivo era colocar uma trava na Constituição para que o gasto público parasse de crescer sistematicamente mais rápido do que o produto da economia.

Esse debate está sumarizado na publicação do Ipea de agosto de 2005, que não veio a público, intitulada "A qualidade da política fiscal de longo prazo". Textos de Delfim, Palocci, Paulo Bernardo, Tasso Jereissati e Fabio Giambiagi reconheciam o problema e estimulavam que se avançasse na direção da construção da trava legal ao crescimento contínuo do gasto público.

Já o texto do senador Mercadante, na mesma publicação, ia na direção contrária, considerando que primeiro vem o crescimento. O ajuste fiscal seria consequência. Logo em seguida, em novembro de 2005, a então ministra de Minas e Energia, Dilma Rousseff, torpedeou o ajuste, qualificando-o como rudimentar.

A proposta ficou para os anais da história dos bastidores da política e caiu no esquecimento. Toda a sociedade paga hoje o preço da segunda derrota de outro PT que era possível.