I’m not sure if I should be horrified, defensive, or outraged.
OBSERVATION ONE:
The screenplay is definitely a thought provoker, but it’s also a very obvious piece of propaganda. Had Monson included citations for ALL of his statistics, concrete evidence for his claims, and a response to his critics then I would be more… receptive of his position. Please don’t interpret this to mean that I’m suggesting he’s full of shit, I am just disappointed with his presentation.
It’s a good strategy to employ pathos and ethos in an argument, but it’s not enough. If Monson really wanted to make an effective, life-altering documentary then he would have provided his readers with more substance. He sites eleven pieces of literature, and all of them are affiliates of animal-rights organizations!
[1] Monson only uses animal activists’ literature. His arguments would have been more compelling if he’d thought to bring in other studies, because his readers/viewers have preconceived notions about the legitimacy of his sources. This is the only photo I could find of an event organized by PETA (one of Monson’s sources) that I feel is inappropriate and, by default, discredits the organization.
Moreover, I find his section on animal experimentation very frustrating. As this section is the most controversial of the five, one would think that he’d put a bit more effort in legitimizing his stance by mentioning alternatives to animal testing. [1]
[2] There are a variety of alternatives to animal testing including "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, computer modeling, improved statistical design The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA). Had Monson mentioned the success of these alternatives, his argument that animal testing is wrong would have been more persuasive.
Also, he implies that animal testing in general is “an insult to true science, as well as human intelligence” [2] which is simply outlandish! How can he say that when he only gives examples of outdated forms of testing: “the purpose of this experiment is to stimulate auto crashes… football…boxing… and other head related injuries…”[3]? A mammal’s body is an exceptionally intricate, complicated thing, and some forms of medical research (like AIDS!) cannot be done without animal experimentation.
[3] In this photo a scientist is injecting a mouse with HIV. Animal testing allows researchers to study HIV in greater detail than in humans. Researchers are able to develop hypothesis based on their observations of the animals, and then check/test it in humans.
OBSERVATION TWO:
“… it is not the inability to find out what is going on as much as a desire not to know about facts that may lie heavy on one’s conscience that is responsible for this lack of awareness…” [4]
Humans can hardly extend this conscience to themselves much less animals. I’m not surprised by what I’ve read in Earthlings. Our species has spearheaded destruction at unprecedented levels- global warming, nuclear proliferation, genocide, slavery- all in the name of self preservation. As long as we’re the last one standing we WILL blind ourselves to the injustices around the world, because we have little respect for each other, the earth, and other species. In saying, “we like to think of these as absolutes: that there are distinct lines between humans and animals, and that certain ‘human’ rights are unalienable. But we’re kidding ourselves” [5] McNeil argues this point (albeit with a more central focus). Even if one doesn’t believe animals have souls, one still should value their contribution to human existence; weaker human qualities should have no bearing on our treatment of other species.
[4] The Spanish Parliament’s attempt to extend human rights to apes because of their human qualities seems egotistical to me. Apes don’t deserve special treatment because of their genetic makeup. Each species contributes to life in different ways, and, if you’re going to pass legislation to protect animals so they’re not subjugated to pain, you shouldn’t be so exclusive. As Monson says, “pain is pain” [6].---
Instead of saying “don’t have, eat, or test animals” perhaps one should say “have, eat, and test animals, but be RESPECTFUL about it”.
[1] http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm
[2] 727
[3] 728
[4] 729
[5] 732
[6] 729
PHOTOS:
[1] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[2] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment