Fresno's Paper for Arts, Entertainment, News, and Political Analysis
Earthlings
Just an open ended question about the film "Earthlings" that Cineculture & The Undercurrent showed last night (Friday, May 18). Have any of you seen it? Any thoughts? I didn't come to that actual screening, but I did come for the Q&A (led by Joe, a.k.a. middleclassjoe) I only wish there was more time for the question and answer. The reason that I didn't see the film was becasue I already abstain from animal products, so watching a film that has such disturbing images, when the film wasn't going to convince me of anything new, seemed to be more pornography than education.
I suppose that there are parts of the film that I might disagree with, but the disagreement would not be fundamental. At least I wouldn't think. Have any of you who are vegan seen the film and had fundamental disagreements?
In any case the film can be viewed at the address listed below. It is a high quality version.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967
User login
Navigation
Syndicate
Comments
To be vegan or not
Anyone want to discuss why or why not one should become vegan in light of the information learned from Earthlings? (stole that question from Jessi, I swear I'm not baiting ;))
Perhaps a second forum topic on pet ownership would be helpful?
As a matter of fact I've started a second forum topic for pet ownership discussion.
These really should be in the forums, no?
This conversation took a little bit of an unexpected turn, but what the hell, I'll go with it for a while.
I want to preface my comments by saying that the way we as a species deal with non-human animals, even when we can honestly say we have "their best interests" in mind, is disgustingly anthropocentric. We assume a great deal about what animals want, what their interests are, or even what's best for them.
Our current situation, with the domesticated animals that we consider pets, is so far from optimal (read:completely fucked) that I don't think there are any quick or easy answers. Again, at the root of the problem is man's speciesist attitude that non-human animals belong to us and are here to serve our ends. Despite that here are my feelings: 1. Don't buy from breeders. Period. There are thousand upon thousands of animals that need to be rescued right now. 2. Spay and neuter animals in your care and encourage others to do the same (I can see the tangent coming already). 3. Take care of your companion to the best of your knowledge and ability.
While in a perfect world there would be no need for humans to care for domesticated companion animals the reality is that they are here now. Their ability to maintain their own health and survival has been severely compromised over the last few tens of thousands of years through selective breeding on our part. The way I see it, at the very least we owe them a life with as little suffering as possible while preventing the births of animals that will and to the pool of unwanted animals in the future.
As for the the topic of sweater-ed dogs (ay ay ay!). Aesthetically, I find them completely ridiculous. And personally, I do find them exploitive for reasons I've mentioned already. But, while the underlying problem of speciesism is always ugly to me, I find this particular manifestation trivial in light of the many horrors experienced by farmed animals. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that farmed animals DO indeed suffer more and greater exploitation than domesticated companions or "pets".
I'll put it too you this way, if I saw a person sitting at an outdoor cafe, wearing a leather jacket and shoes, eating a burger, and drinking a milkshake while she sat with their sweater-ed dog. The least (BY FAR) of her moral offenses would be the sweater-ed dog.
Concerns with "Earthlings".
First I want to officially give the Undercurrent Movie Crew and CineCulture a long overdue "Thank You" for suggesting this particular film and for asking me to lead the QA. Hopefully we can do it again some time.
My primary concern with showing a film like Earthlings (or any undercover footage depicting horrible violence toward animals) is that, without proper reflection or critical thought, footage of that nature can tend to fetishize suffering. While I don't mean to say that animal suffering isn't a serious problem that we should do everything in our power to stop, it is merely a symptom of a bigger problem.
Even if it were possible to take the suffering out of animal agriculture we are still ignoring the intrinsic value of these sentient beings, denying them the ability to live for their own ends, and commodifying them. There are no valid reasons to ignore interests of non-human animals in this way. Consuming animal products, because it is unnecessary for survival (or health), and because it necessarily leads to this sort of exploitation, is morally indefensible.
The fact that unspeakable suffering happens in the process only makes it that much worse. (oh, and "free-range", "happy meat" and "organic" do not stop exploitation or suffering)
I also wish that the film was more explicit in endorsing a vegan lifestyle. Although it is virtually impossible to live a life that is 100% free of exploitation, by NOT living a vegan lifestyle you are complicit in the exploitation and suffering of animals, and furthermore you create the demand which fuels future exploitation and suffering.
Do yourself and the animals a favor, opt out.
Joe
Sorry, Joe
Sorry I forgot to bring it to the forum, Joe. I will from now on, and thanx for bringing it over here where it belongs. I appreciate your ideas as well.
Thanks vza.
vza,
A couple of things in response to some of your comments:
1. I hear where you're coming from on the distinction between ownership and companionship. Technically, those of us who have decided to live with animals are in fact their owners. This is dictated by the current laws and the status of animals within that context. Animals are property under the law, much like a TV, an iPod, or any other trinket. While they are afforded minimal protections under the law, one can legally buy and sell animals pretty much at will. Herein lies the problem, because as long as our attitudes toward animals remain such that their property status is not objectionable to us, every form of exploitation will continue to fall on their heads.
Now despite this fact, some of us make a conscious decision to treat our animals as family. We guard what we think to be their best interest with the zeal and sincerity of a parent. I realize that our estimation of what their best interests will always be clouded in anthropocentrism, nevertheless I do not consider myself the owner of my animals (though the law still does). I wholeheartedly disagree with the analogy to slavery.
2. I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that by never taking in another dog, populations will drop drastically. Unless you're advocating an intense neuter/release type of situation you're still going to see increases in stray populations.
Plus I think it's incredibly cruel as a species to basically wreck another species genetically and then leave them high and dry when the chips are down. I feel that we should be responsible for providing a long, healthy and happy life for every domesticated animal we can while preventing future unwanted animals.
VZA, regarding some of your
VZA, regarding some of your comments on the blog post...
I concede that having an animal in the home is a choice. But your comparing them to slaves is also a choice on your part, and I choose to disagree. To me, I don't OWN my pets. I am responsible for them and their welfare, just as I would be responsible to kids I was baby-sitting for a week (I would never say that I own kids). My dogs live in the same house as me, I feed them, and I make sure they get medical attention when they need it. I don't make them do labor, I don't beat them, I won't sell them like a commodity (attributes of slave ownership). I can't help but think your comment is extreme.
No one has a say in their perpetuation. Sure, my dogs didn't ask to be domesticated, but I think you'd find that many people are in situations that they didn't ask to be in. You can't change the situation we have at the moment, you have to deal with it responsibly.
As far as people looking at the animals they had as kids as objects, well, perhaps that's true for some people. It's not true for everyone.
As far as pets attacking "owners" and being dealt with, well, to turn it back to the more vegan-y topics some of us were hoping to discuss, let's talk about the species-ism in that. Really, it works both ways here - people who abuse dogs and cats are also "dealt with" if they are caught (just as people suffer legal consequences if they abuse other people if they are caught). But how about the abuses on cows, chickens, pigs, etc? Should there be a moral, legal difference between dogs and cows?