The dilemma of
raising an issue--how we should approach it
Imagine that one
day you come home for dinner and find out that every single dish was full of a
vegetable named pathos. For some people, that might be exactly what they have
dreamed of. But for the majority they would be heading towards the kitchen to
look for some meat, or in this case, logos. The documentary, “Earthlings” was
similar to this in my case. In five different sections of pets, food, clothing,
entertainment, and scientific research, the film shows repelling scenes of
animal abuse. Some critiques praise the documentary film as a portrayal of
reality that people don’t want to see.
Many reviews of this film accuse such enterprises that participate in animal
abuse and the government that is overlooking the reality. On the other hand,
there are people who accuse the director of “Earthlings” for selectively editing scenes and
omitting any explanation that could defend these “slaughterhouses”. For either side of the debate, however, the
director harmed the value of the documentary by focusing too much on the value
of pathos and neglecting logos in the process.
The people who
accuse this film as being propaganda point out the fact that many of the scenes
would be understood differently if one was aware of the whole situation. The
director however, pieced together the worst shots of the worst places in our
society. For instance, taking street animals into captivity and killing them in
a perhaps, violent way happens in the first place because of the irresponsible
people who abandon their pets. These animals living in the streets become
agents that spread diseases over the city. Furthermore, these animals
themselves suffer from starvation and inhospitable environments. Thus, taking
them into captivity is inevitable to protect the public health and also
protects the animals as well. The violent murder of these animals, however,
does happen in reality because of the lack of financial support for anesthesia.
Whether the public health is worth the suffering of these animals is a
reasonable topic to debate on. The main problem of “Earthlings” is that it leaves
no room for such debates from the beginning.
The last part of
the story which discusses animal experimentation is also based on ignorance of
the purpose and value of animal vivisection. Unlike what the documentary
argues, animal testing does have scientific value in medical testing. History
has proven the effectiveness of vivisection compared to testing on cells
cultivated in labs. Although the actual effects of a certain treatment may
differ from humans and animals, the purpose of vivisection—to minimize danger for human beings—has been fulfilled. Also the film mentions
that such experiments have to be redone on human beings. This apparently shows
that they agree on vivisection itself but denies the use of animals in the
process. Along with the selective editing of shots taken from the few labs that
don’t follow the universal doctrine for animal
vivisection, such problematic ideas presented in the documentary destructs its
own credibility because it relies too heavily on dramatic scenes and music to
emphasize it.
The film begins
with stating that we are all inhibitors of Earth and thus “Earthlings.” Through selective
portrayal of the worst, the film attempts to reject the idea of “speciesism” as a whole.
However, from an evolutionary point of view, it is only natural to strive to
preserve one’s own species. Furthermore, even between
animals themselves speciesism exists. Each and every species strive to preserve
their group. Who are we to say that this distinction that has existed even before
the human race is wrong? Unless the director of this film is simply a
misanthrope, he should also be preventing animals from violently killing each
other.
The analogy
between speciesism and racism or sexism is also somewhat problematic. The
standard for “sentient” beings that the
film is discussing about is contradictory in itself since people could also
argue that plants or other microorganisms should be treated equally. If animals
should be saved from unnatural death, then why not plants? What about bacteria?
In this sense, the title of the film is also problematic for it covers only “Animals” instead of “Earthlings”.
The purpose of the
documentary is also questionable. All it does is making us feel bad. Of course,
at times presenting a problem that the public is unaware of is helpful for the
development of our race. However, the documentary focuses on emotional
influence too heavily that it neglects the importance of logical explanation
and introduction of the other side of the table. This is why the people who
come up with so-called “solutions” after watching this film become
vegetarians. Such individual refusal of participation does not improve the
situation. Rather, it is merely an excuse for individuals to feel happy about
themselves as if their approach will solve the fundamental problem. Thus the
sole effect that this documentary has brought upon our society is financial
loss for corporations that follow the moral and proper methods in producing
products.
The film “Earthlings”, however, does
present an important issue to our society. Even though I have defended
speciesism, I am against extensive killing of animals for commercial purposes.
These animals or “sentient” beings should also be respected. But the
presentation of this idea in “Earthlings” has gone astray and lost its value. The
selective editing to increase pathos, or emotional response, is the main issue.
Another is the ignorance of the necessity for animal vivisection or anesthesia.
The universal doctrine that works to minimize the suffering of these animals
shows that not all of us are corrupted like the ones’ that appear on the film.
Just because there are companies that do not follow the rule one shouldn’t
debunk the whole industry and accuse them for what they never did. With a
balanced presentation using pathos and logos, the director could have presented
a work that is, perhaps less convincing, but much more valuable to us, “Earthlings”.
