Earthlings Review 2nd draft(with hyperlinks)

‘Earthlings,’ One Step Toward the Planetary Humanity

 

As a member of a famous animal rights movement group in Korea, I myself have been interested in animal rights and animal protection for many years. Whenever I read the articles or postings about the cruelties to animals, I see a great number of people are interested in the issue just like me. Yet, we are hardly at consensus about what are animal rights and how we should protect them. Some of us are as extreme as to avoid meats and any products that are made from animals; some others are purely motivated to participate in animal protection by affection to animals, mostly pets. The director of Earthlings, Shaun Monson, is close to the former group. He alleges that animals, not only humans, have rights to live an unperturbed life, criticizing commercial exploits of animals. This extreme stance of the director contributes to polarized reactions to Earthlings; many vegans and animal activists agree with his position, while others are uncomfortable and critical about it. Whether or not the director’s point can be admitted to the public, the movie aptly conveys its message to viewers and brings out wanted reactions from them.

Some people argue that the issues of the movie are so widely ranged that it fails to suggest any detailed and feasible solution for any matter. However, if we look closer, we can see the common center of the myriads of brief information; the origin of the problem is originated not in a particular field of industry or by a particular group of people, but in a universal attitude of people toward other species. It does matter that we are eating meat of chickens and pigs raised in filthy and overcrowded factories and our clothes contain deadly preserves. It is possible to temporarily alleviate the life conditions of animals in certain industries, enforcing new laws and policies; however, unless people think it is wrong to treat animals as the resources for products, another problem will continue to emerge from any other place. For instance, despite the restraints in many regions of India, people have designed a “death march” which is to transport cows for days to a region where killing cow is legal, till they die from starvation and torture. In fact, to the Hindus, the leather industry in India is a hideous blasphemy. Yet, the industry has grown to be the biggest in the world due to the endless and increasing consumptions of leathers in Western countries. As far as the consumption and need for the leather exists, manufacturers will do anything to fulfill the needs. The last scene of the clothing exemplifies the director’s main point with ironic metaphor; a woman asks “how much does this run” and the clerk responds, “This is… $49,500.” Can human beings measure the cost of death of other living creature in dollars? Yet, most people view animals as natural resources that can be freely exploited by us, the most intelligent creatures. After seeing the wide ranging problems, we are forced to conclude that attempt to commercialize animals is the fundamental reason of the problem.

Some people also assert that the film is emotionally effective but fails to change people’s behavior. First of all, I want to point out that pathos is not at all an inferior method to persuade people to logos. In fact, animal protection is all about emotions, especially compassion. In an interview, Shaun Monson says when we view any group with empathy, it mirrors our humanity. Since long before the ancient civilization evolved, people divided people into two groups; the neighbors linked with compassion and sympathy and outsiders viewed with apathy and hostility. People start to care about others when they feel empathy. Without empathy the world would be full of wars, disputes, and violence. The director goes one step farther to extend this humane sentiment to the all living creatures sharing common emotions and senses. Tolstoy said, "as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.” This quote implies that as far as apathy toward certain groups exists, it reflects our humanity. In a sense, overcoming speciesism is relevant to maintaining harmony in human society. If the director had relied on logic and reason to persuade we should not treat animals as mere objects or lesser creatures, it would have been impossible to move so many people’s minds and reinforce the link among the earthlings.

It is true that even with deep resonance, few people actually change their life style after watching this film. Many people say in response videos, that they felt great guilt while watching the film, yet are still ignorant about speciesism after the movie ended. People tend to justify their meat oriented eating habits, animal experiments and animal products, clinging to the belief that the conditions cannot be too bad as the film shows. The narrator says in the conclusion, that ignorance is the speciesist’s first line of defense. However, it is too early to conclude the film is a failure. The director believes that ignorance can be breached by anyone with time and determination to find out the truth. We must go through ridicule and violent opposition to reach general acceptance. Since, exploits of animals are so deeply rooted a custom in human history, it requires pains and struggles to disclaim this life style. However, as more and more people watch how their products and foods are made, they would inevitably search for a way to solve the problem.

Actually, I once tried to be a vegetarian months ago, after I watched a video of thousands of hogs buried alive when the foot andmouth disease prevailed. During the first week after watching, I avoided eating any food containing meats or eggs due to trauma. Yet, the trauma faded away after a week and now I eat meats and dairy foods, though less frequently and in less amount. Change usually comes when the small stimulants amass to the tipping point. This 90 minute movie is hardly a life shifting experience for many people. Nonetheless, this film fulfills its role to make people take a first step toward thinking about the animal rights, and investigate and discuss about what the “truth” is.