Defiant Reflex

I thought todays discussion about Defiant Reflex was very interesting. I agree that we are trying to create or attempt to keep our standard of life while dealing with or ignoring the global crisis. I feel that we need to start substituting items. People need to realize that this is an end of an era. Sometimes I think that people are in denial of what is happening to our earth. They know that nature and the earth is coming to an end, but they don't believe it. I admit some times I read information about the global crisis and it seems impossible to me. We need to get the information out to people and show them how they can change. If we just tell people that we are domed, then they are not going to change their actions.

Arbitrary Lines (it looks better in person)

Okay, Okay, now before you go making an artistic critique, let me just say that this is meant to be more symbolic than aesthetically pleasing, and that this is in no way typical of my usual style. My other stuff is usually much different... just so you know.

I got the idea when I was studying for my biology lab practical. I had been throwing around extravagant -and might I add, pretty awesome- ideas for this project, but I honestly didn't have the time to commit to a 14+ hour work and wanted to do something a little deeper than political cartoons. So as I was reviewing the hominid lineage for my exam, and got to thinking that all of these "in between" steps really muddy the water, so to speak, when it comes to drawing the line between humans and animals. When did this animal actually become human enough to be considered human? Was it when Homo erectus began walking upright? Was it when Neanderthal began to communicate through rough "speech?" Or was it when Australopiticus began to favor a larger brain? Looking at these skulls made me wonder how we can try to draw a definitive line when there are just so many similarities and when the transition from apelike animals to Homo sapiens was a very gradual one. And then, what if we weren't the only surviving species in the genus Homo? If we had contemporaries like Homo habilus and Homo erectus, how would we label them? The arbitrarty lines that humans like to draw are truly that: arbitrary.

The GAIA Hypothesis

On considering the Gaia hypothesis and its implications, I considered the current plight of the world and its connection to the earth being a self-regulating creature. In my opinion, the Gaia hypothesis is not contradicted by the earth's current situation. Animals are self-regulating, but can contract diseases(pollution) and have fevers(global warming). The self-regulation of the earth would be the result of the workings of its components, much as the self-regulation of a human body is due to its cells' workings. However, when foreign substances enter a body, they can cause the body harm. That the earth seems unable to self-regulate completely would liken it to a sickened creature, possibly in the process of dying...

Natural beauty was an interesting topic in the last class. When I think of it I think of nature as pure and being untouched by humans. It is a beautiful sight that is almost hard to imagine anymore because it seems like humans are interfering with all of nature. Kant's thoughts were true and something that I never really thought about. When people are not familiar with a certain part of nature, we tend to think of it as mysterious and something we do not totally understand. We think of it as forbidding. This would include things such as mountains, swamps, or the desert, etc. Objects in nature that we see daily, we think of as gentle and harmonious and beautiful. Human beings always seem to be scared of the unknown even if in reality, it is not a scary thing at all. In this class, I have learned a lot about nature and the environment. It has opened my eyes and made me realize I need to be more conscious about how my actions can affect the environment and animals in either a positive or negative way. I need to do my part to keep animals safe and the environment beauty and healthy.

Reliance on Technology AOL article

A few days ago I read an article on aol.com titled "Huge Solar Storm Could Shut Down U.S." which I feel relates what we have talked about in class. This article discussed how the U.S. and other nations are threatened by the possibility of a massive solar storm. These storms are formed when bursts of plasma explode off the surface of the sun which creates what is called a coronal mass ejection. These coronal mass ejections can cause electromagnetic interferences which would mess up the electric technology on earth. These CMEs could cause failures with transportation, communication, and financial systems. This article goes on to say that we would not be ready for something like this because we rely so heavily on technology. I feel that humans are too dependent on technology. This is an incident in which humans are not respectful of the power of nature and not always aware of its impact on us. We take for granted the beauty of nature while ignoring the potential destruction it can create.

Natural Beauty

As one of the previous bloggers wrote, I too feel that natural beauty is different with people. Therefore you would first have to define what is natural and what is beauty? Is natural defined by the absence of humans; what is ugly to some might be beautiful to others. For example, some people feel that insects are nasty, ugly, and vile but they are part of nature. And aren't humans part of nature as well? So if you think a beehive is a natural beauty then why can't man-made structures be beautiful as well?

Overall, this course has increased my awareness of nature and the effects my behavior has on the environment. Not only have I learned the points of view of major ecologists, but I have acquired the knowledge to at least NOTICE my behavior in regards to animals and the earth. I used to be okay with throwing away paper and not using the backs of pages and throwing the occasional piece of trash on the ground. Now, however, I realize that my selfishness affects species that cannot speak for themselves. I recently found myself criticising a friend of mine for throwing a plastic cup on the ground after dumping the juice out of it. I made her pick it up and throw it in the trash can. At work, I have set up a paper recycling can and I have decided to take the old ink toners from the printers to be reused rather than just throwing them away. This is a big step for me considering I would have done the same thing a few months ago without thinking twice and now here I am throwing out my opinion for someone to catch on to. I'm not bragging about my efforts by any means, I'm just excited that a class based on 3 books we have read had this much of an impact on me. I know that I am no longer above nature and that I need to make the living conditions for other species just as accommodating as my own to the extent possible.

The topic of children and animals recently came up in class again and I find myself thoroughly enjoying the discussion. As I have said before, I have a 2 year old dog who holds one of the top spots in my heart. I like him more than I like some humans (species bond? I think not). I also have 2 nephews, ages 2 and 7 months, who interact with my dog on a regular basis. Crosley is a very well behaved dog to begin with, but he puts up with a lot of tail pulling and ear tugging when it comes to the 2 boys that he wouldn't tolerate if an older adult were to unpleasantly touch him. This goes into the idea that play signals penetrate the species barrier with ease. Seeing Nicolas and Jacob interact with Crosley is a real sight to see. When the boys were both young and had never been acquainted with Crosley, they immediately took to him and Crosley reciprocated the love and went as far as to "nurture" them. He would lay in front of their crib and be excitingly interested in watching them eat (which he now knows exactly who to sit under at the dinner table). Signs like this show the true relationship that exists between animals and children and prove that we all need to return to our childlike state of mind when it comes to interacting with animals.

Natural Beauty

Today we talked about what natural beauty means. I believe that the meaning of natural beauty can be different for different people. Natural beauty, in my opinion, symbolizes purity and awe. When I think about natural beauty, I picture nature how it was before humans touched it in any way. I see the vastness and amazing creation by God. Picturing the first idea of nature makes me think about how small humans are and how amazing and overpowering nature can be. Humans could easily be wiped out by nature, but humans are slowly destroying aspects of nature as well. This makes me think that humans and nature are battling back and forth. Humans continue to live their lives however they want whether it is harmful to nature or not. Nature in return is dying off, but it is also fighting back in a way. One way nature is fighting back is through global warming. The GAIA hypothesis can be seen through this in the way that the earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Humans have been allowed to thrive and multiply as much as they want. Now that the earth is running out of resources to sustain humans, it is changing and will sooner or later not allow humans to remain as they currently are. I believe that we have lost the natural beauty that once was found everywhere. Today, it is hard to even find a glimpse of it without it having an artificial influence. Humans have tried to preserve some parts of nature in wildlife reserves and other things like that, but it is obvious that there is still some human impact.

Frontiers

In class today, we discussed the concept of frontiers and how humans have this innate desire to seek new frontiers. As far as America is concerned, the frontier has moved from "The New World" to the "Western territories." Then it was on to Alaska and other northern reaches of our country. Because we have already conquered each of these, we then searched for a new type of frontier. In 1960, the frontier was the deepest part of Earth's oceans, the Mariana Trench. This lowest point on Earth's surface (6.78 miles down) was reached in 1960 by Navy lieutenant Don Walsh. In 1969, it was of course, the moon with Neil Armstrong. Once again, humans found a new frontier to explore. When the horizontal expansion was complete, we expanded upward (Moon) and downward (Mariana Trench). The point being, we as humans have this innate desire to expand, and find frontiers. Sure these frontiers provide a stage for competition, but they do much more than that. They connect us with the idea of the wild as something we want to test ourselves against. As we "use up" these frontiers, we are manipulating them in ways that make them once again, new and exciting. This is connected with the Red Bull, jumping out of the plane example. "Sure sky-diving is fun, but we've already conquered that... so lets put a new twist on it and do it without parachutes." This is only one example that illustrates our innate desire to find more. Experiencing the "wild" is an addiction that we all own, and its a perfectly natural one.

Flannel Philosophy and Arbor Day

Saturday was Arbor Day or so I assume because I had to convience myself to get out of bed at 8:30 am to go plant trees at Saint Ann's Convent. While there was the incentive of recieving a bright yellow shirt that had "I planted a tree" across it and some free ice cream I was suprised of the number of people that attened to the event. There were families with parents pushing strollers and old women. There were probably about 75 volenteers to help the nuns plant a lot of trees (I am not really sure on the number). The arbor day event allowed me to understand why so many people would practice flannel philosophy. It was fun! It was nice getting up and working with a bunch of strangers to help something greater. Not only were we helping the convent but we were also doing a small part to help the enviorment. The event probably took 2-3 hours of my saturday. Such a small amount of time I thought. I wondered if everyone took 2-3 hours out of their week to do something small than maybe helping the enviroment would not seem like such a monumental task but something that people could learn to enjoy.

Global Warming

The first half of the book discussed the impact that humans are having on global warming. This part of the book made me feel wasteful and terrible about myself. I think a lot of people know the affects of their actions on the earth, but they keep doing what they are doing. For example people know cars and trucks can hurt the environment, but we still drive enormous SUVs. I think people will start to change their actions when it starts to affect them. And by then it might be too late. On another hand I have notice that a lot of places are trying their best to be green, such as recycling and reusing items. Maybe the government should mandate businesses to be green in some sort of way or give them a tax break if they are green.

Loss of Nature

I agree with the idea that we have lost the original meaning to the word "nature". Humans have made such a major impact on the world and therefore have caused a lot of changes to occur. There are very few places in this world that man has not been to or explored. Even though many humans want to preserve nature, we still manage to destroy parks of it. For example, there are many nature trails that were built for people to experience "nature". This seems like a good idea, but is it really "nature" if the animals are used to seeing humans and there is some trash and other signs of humans along the trail? I don't think it is because "nature" to me does not have human influences. Wild animals should not be used to humans and they should not have to live in human trash. The growth of human population has caused a decrease in what is considered "nature". Because of humans, many animals have become endangered or extinct and many ecosystems have become almost nonexistent because humans have destroyed them in order to build houses and businesses. I also don't think that we can save the original "nature" even if we tried. Humans have made such a big impact and have caused the demise of so many things that it is hard to imagine what it was like in America when the pilgrims first inhabited this land.

Commercial Environmentalism

Does the fact that much of the Environmentalist movement has become commercial lower its value? You see all over the place these days 'green' versions of old products like windex. If you were cynical you could say that they are selling inferior products for a higher price, but is their Environmentalism sincere? Perhaps the market shifted as it did with the CFC's. Either way things like Cpt. Planet, and all of the merchandise that went with that, and the recent 'green' products seem to be counter productive. Perhaps they are not counter productive and maybe they are even effective, I rather doubt it though. Even Kohak criticized the American Environmentalist movements for their commercial affluence. Why cant affluence and Envionmentalism live side by side? The American public seem to be torn between commercialism and Envoronmentalism and the market is showing that.

Global Warming

I found the topic of global warming in class very interesting. It is not that I don't believe in global warming, I completely do, but I believe it is more global climate change. Ever since the world began there has been changes in climate. The dinosaurs had a warm climate, then there was an ice age, then the Earth got warm. While humans have accelerated the climate change, it was bound to happen at some point. The scare tactic that scientists take to try to fix it is a good idea though. As humans we tend to think that we own the Earth and can treat it however we want. This is evident by the massive amount of garbage we see on the side of the road driving to school. While we should all do our part to help eliminate the harm we're doing to the Earth, we also need to realize that the climate change was inevitable.

Happy Arbor Day!!!

I know we spend a lot of time on here talking about animals, but let's not forget the trees too! Did you know that Arbor Day is even older than Earth Day? The first Earth Day celebration took place in 1970, but the first Arbor Day was celebrated on April 10th, 1872 in Nebraska. The holiday was the brainchild of Julius Sterling Morton (1832-1902), a Nebraska journalist and politician originally from Michigan. Throughout his career, he worked to improve agricultural techniques and served as Secretary of Agriculture under Grover Cleavland. When he moved to Nebraska, Morton thought that the landscape would benefit from the planting of a few trees, and so set about planting orchards, shade trees and windbreaks. His neighbors thought this was a good idea too, and so the practice started to catch on. When Morton became a member on the board of Nebraska's board of agriculture, he proposed a special day be set aside for the promotion of tree planting and increasing awareness of the importance of trees. On Nebraska's first Arbor day, over a million trees were planted. A second Arbor Day didn't take place until 1884, but was made a legal holiday in the state in 1885, and the date changed to April 22nd to coincide with Morton's birthday.
Needless to say, the rest of the country thought that Morton's idea was pretty groovy and soon Kansas, Tenessee, and Ohio were celebrating arbor days as well. Today, all 50 states celebrate an arbor day, although the dates vary in keeping with the local climate. And now, arbor day is celebrated in other countries as well, including Australia, Japan and Israel. So hug a tree today!

Earth Day

To mark Earth Day 2009, here is an observation from Mary Midgley's introduction to a recent collection of reflections on James Lovelock's GAIA hypothesis.

"Personifying the earth means that it is not just a miscellaneous heap of resources but a self-maintaining system which acts as a whole. It can therefore be injured; it is vulnerable, capable of health or sickness. And, since we are totally dependent on it, we are vulnerable too. Our deep, confident, seventeenth century conviction--expressed in a lot of space literature-- that we are really independent minds, essentially detached from a planet which we can easily exchange for another one, has been a fantasy. Like babies, we are tiny, vulnerable, dependent organisms, owing our lives to a tremendous whole. That is surely what the Greeks meant to acknowledge, and what our own ancestors meant when they spoke of Mother Nature."

Midgley, Mary (2007), Earthy Realism: The Meaning of Gaia (Societas)

Neoteny

I think the fact that humans can possess the quality of neoteny, which is the prolonging of infantile characteristics throughtout maturity, is a good characterisitc to have. This includes an affinity towards animals. Why should adults be seen as emotionally immature just because they have an interest in animals or other things? Usually these type of things are of interest to children. Another interest could be curiosity, which can expand the growth of an individual. Curiosity allows interest in many different things and aspects of life. Play, such as singing, dancing, and things of pleasure, is seen as a sign of intelligence in humans and other advanced species. Humans do it more than other species, and it is something learned as a young child. Neoteny allows humans to break the specie-barrier, which is much easier in humans than other species. Showing kindness towards animals isn't childish, but a sign of care, which I don't think is a sign of emotional immaturity, but a sign of love and compassion. Curiosity is a great characteristic to have because without it, humans wouldn't have as much knowledge as they do or growth, as was said before.

Emotion Vs. Reason

Many of the thinkers that have been discussed in the two books that we have read believe that the distinguishing factor between humanity and animals is the ability to reason. Reason has always been held in great regard by civilized humans; in fact the Stoics went so far as to say that it was the ‘spark of the divine’. However, more modern thinkers, like Peter Singer and Albert Schweitzer, throw out the notion of superiority through reason. Midgley, although in a far less extent, agrees with the Utilitarians that language and reason do not determine ethics.
Midgley, like many other thinkers, proposes that sentience and emotion are important factors in determining ethics. The fact that the animal can feel emotion is important to Utilitarians, and the fact that people feel good when treating animals nicely is important to both Midgley and Kohak. Albert Schweitzer, as Kohak pointed out, appears to some to be sappy and naïve, so also must Midgley with her ideas of the Golden Rule with regard to animal ethics. While Midgley makes very good points, she ultimately appears to be swearing off entirely the arguments of those in the reason camp. She uses the pejorative ‘absolute dismisser’ to describe someone that believes that animals do not matter. She paints the portrait, through straw man arguments and quoting silly philosophers, that if you believe that organized language and reason separate man from animals than you are an absolute dismisser. While she probably does not believe this herself, given her compromising nature, she, nevertheless, paints the radical Utilitarians as slightly naïve and Rationalists as tyrannical.
Although Midgley herself might not be guilty, many of the thinkers she quotes are guilty of another kind of ‘absolute dismissal’. Namely that they dismiss off hand any argument that man is separate from animals on the grounds of reason. While many of the Rationalist philosophers say that animals can’t have ‘rights’ for semantic issues; Midgley believes that you can’t say that animals have rights or interests either. While Midgley herself might not entirely swear off a reason argument, she presents the argument in a very derisive tone.

Animal Rights

For the past week my friend's mom has been in the hospital (this is related, I promise) and she is unable to talk because she has a tube in her mouth. Well the nurses, while I know they're doing their job, tend not to shut the door or close the blinds when they are cleaning her up from things. Which, I think if she could talk, she would ask them to do ... just because most people tend to be private about that stuff. It just made me think back to the comment of just because people cannot talk does not mean they should not be treated ethically. I know this really isn't an ethical issue, just shutting the door, but it does show that most people don't really think about other people's feelings UNLESS they are able to speak them. I think the same goes with animals. If a dog could cry and say ouch that really hurts when a person kicks them, that person probably wouldn't do it again. Language seems to truly be the barrier as to how well we treat one another. I know I tend to brush people off if I don't understand what they're saying in a different language so I'm sure most people brush off other animals because they don't know what their language means. The golden rule needs to be followed in situations involving most living things because it transcends the language barrier that is faced.

Animals and Economy

This is a response to the Animals and Economy post. I also have read about the increase of animals at animal shelters. The lady that was interview was very upset and said, "She was losing a family member. " It is sad that the economy affects animals who have no control over the problem and doesn't understand the problem. When watching the segment you could tell the animals were confused and upset. It shows that animals do have feeling and connections to people. Animals do matter, because they do have feelings, interests and emotions.

The Real Birds Eye View

This guy actually attached a camera to his pet eagle. Its a cool birds eye view. Although, I have no idea what is being said. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APViUODDhT0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent%2Ecom%2Fgreen%2F&feature=player_embedded

Live Animal Markets

This is another link that deals with animal cruelty.  It talks about live animal markets in China where people can come and buy fresh animals for food.  The images are very disturbing.  It shows the animals living together in hordes and one very graphic shot a cat getting dragged out of a cage.  These markets are places where diseases are spread such as bird flu.  I believe that the clip almost makes me question absolute dismissal.  The report obviously cannot dismiss the animals because she literally vomits when seas the cruelty but the sellers are treating the animals as simply for food and economic gain. I believe that their emotional less response shows that they do not truely care about the animals.  I feel like the animals could be sold in a more sanitary and friendly manner but the images illustrate that the animals are simply seen for their food and economic purposes.  I could not get the link the work but it is on current.com and under china's live animal markets. 

Animals and the Economy

I recently saw a short documentary about the rising issues  dealing with the increase abandonment of animals due to economic hardships.  With homes being fore closed more people have to give up their pets because they do have the resources to care for them or the places they are moving will not accept pets.  This has lead to an increase of population for shelters which are having trouble founding the shelters because the economy has also lead to a decrease in donations.  I think the clip illustrates the point that animals and humans do live a mixed community and what effects the human world also effects the animal world.  I also find it almost a contrast with the story of Nathan because the poor man cherished his pet.  It is almost a sad fact that modern humans are quick to give up pets.  Now some of the families do experience grief and it is sad they have to make the choice but the fact that animals can be quickly desposed of shows a human distance for animals.  This a link to the clip if you would like to watch it.  If it doesn't work go to current.com and it is under subprime pets. http://current.com/items/88913553_subprime-pets.htm

Today in class we talked about the mixed community. The part about interest in animals is merely a childish activity that we should eventually grow out of because of maturity really caught my interests. I think this is not true because there are examples in real life today that disprove this. Many people spend their adult lives helping and caring for animals and while doing so form emotional bonds with them and understand how they are feeling most of the time. For example, there are veterinarians, animal rescue groups, trainers, groomers, pet spa workers, etc. These people devote their lives to animals and would therefore be criticized by those who think that interests in animals are childish. I believe that everyone should keep some childish characteristics with them even in adulthood. This will allow us to have a better connection with ourselves as well as with animals. Then, maybe everyone would give animals more meaning and not consider them as much of machines as they do now.

I also thought the reference to the tall fence was a good example of how interests in animals changes over time. The book said at the bottom of the fence has many holes but the top has very few holes. The bottom of the fence represents childhood and the top is adulthood. So as you go up the fence there becomes fewer and fewer holes through which you can cross over the species barrier and have interests in and understand the emotions of animals. Midgley notes that the way to cross through these holes is through play. Critics may say that adults do not play, but this is incorrect because adults have found ways to make play acceptable. For example, adult sports like basketball, golf, cards, marathons, etc. allow adults to play and are not criticized. So I interpret that adults who participate in these adult play activities are the ones that are more able to find the few wholes that exist at the top of the fence.

Play

I thought the discussion of play was very interesting. Children can relate and interact with animals through play. When I thought about it play has played a big role in our own species. Children at a young age learn to interact with other children though play. We develop social skills though play. As we get older play is looked down upon and we are told that we are being immature. Why is play seen as immature and why is it immature for people to play and interact with animals? I feel that it is good to interact with animals. Animals, especially pets, have a way of making a person feel good. Maybe if adults would go play with animals they would not worry so much. Play may seem immature, but I see it as a good stress reliever. What does any one else think about this?

Response to Plague Dogs

This film was an animation about two dogs that started out at a research facility and ended up escaping. The movie followed the two dogs, Ralph and Snitter, through their adventure. I think the goal of this film was to show people the side of the dogs in hope of inspiring more sympathy for animals. Even though the movie was somewhat harsh in presentation, I believe this movie did inspire me to have more sympathy for animals because it showed more of how the animals feel.

The movie starts out showing how Ralph is being tested for endurance by having him in a deep container of water and making him swim for his life. Once Ralph gets so exhausted, he drowns. Then, he is taken out of the tank with a hook and resuscitated just so he can do it again. This seems so cruel, and I feel so bad for the dog. I don’t really see how this is necessary. While watching this, I wanted to cry and the question came to mind that would the “whitecoats” want this done to them.

Then, Snitter was a dog who they performed brain surgery on which made him unable to determine the subjective from the objective. The “whitecoats” were then going to study him to see how it affected him. Snitter was once owned by someone, but his master was killed by a bus which was somewhat Snitter’s fault. Throughout the movie, the effect of the surgery was seen by Snitter’s flashbacks to his old life with his master. These flashbacks interfere with his normal life. I fell sorry for this dog as well because he doesn’t know what is real and what isn’t at all times. I don’t think that people should be able to mess with his brain because this totally changed his way of life. In my opinion, they lessened his quality of life.
While the two dogs are escaping, the images of other animals that were being experimented on were shown. This made me so much sadder for these animals especially since the monkey had to sit in a metal cylinder all alone. That wouldn’t have been a fulfilling life and probably was a very miserable life. I am glad that the dogs were able to escape.

After their escape, they roamed the hills and mountains trying to fin food. They ended up having to kill sheep in order to survive. For this, the people got really mad and wanted to kill the dogs. I think this is mean because all the dogs were trying to do was survive just like any other animal or human would do.
I think Snitter had really bad luck especially when he killed the man that was trying to be nice to him. He thought he was not supposed to have a master after that. The poor dog was just having bad luck and because of it he beats himself up about it.

I thought it was ironic that the fox that was called the Todd was depicted as a sly and cunning animal. This shows how many animals have a certain stereotype attached to them which is why animals are often used as symbols. Some stereotyping is seen in Snitter since he is a smaller dog he is seen as more sophisticated than Ralph.

Overall, I think this movie gave me a better appreciation of animals and their feelings and struggles. A lot of the situations I saw as comparable to human situations. Many of the feelings of the dogs could be the same feelings that humans would feel in the same situation. I think people get a better appreciation of things when they can be related to themselves or if they are useful to humans.

Pollution Personified

Has anyone here seen the movie Fern Gully? I watched it over the break (it was one of my all time favorites when I was little) and couldn't help but make a few observations. First of all, I'm not quite certain that there are rain forests in Australia, and I am positive that kangaroos don't live in them if there are -but that one's not too important. My second observation was of the character of Batty, a bat that escaped from a biology lab and still experiences side effects from some of the experiments performed on him. I caught many more references to his abuse watching it this time than when I was younger and from what he says, it's no wonder he's wary of humans. Finally, I can't thinks of any other film in which pollution itself is personified (maybe a Captain Planet episode, but that doesn't really count). Anthropomorphism as it is applied to animals is common, but personification of pollution isn't something we run across every day. I think this is partly because, unlike animals, it can't be portrayed as good or bad. Pollution has to be bad. I can't think of any legitimate reason it could be presented otherwise. And maybe this is why we shy away from it. If pollution is bad, one is left to infer that the cause of it (ahem, humans) is bad also.
Anyway, it was interesting to watch this movie with a new perspective. I certainly am able to see it in a different way than I did when I was six years old. Watch it sometime.

Plague Dogs

I thought that Plague Dogs was a sad cartoon. The dogs thought that everything would be ok once they escaped the research facility, but they seemed very scared of everything. They didn't trust anyone or anything, and constantly thought that the white coats were after them. It was sad that the dog had nightmares because he thought he killed his master, although the master is still alive according to the book. The nightmares continue when he inadvertently killed the man by stepping on the trigger. They only trust things after they seem to prove loyalty, like the fox. The movie has a sad ending after they try to swim out to sea to the island. Although I don't agree with the mistreatment of animals by any means, I don't think it is a great idea to test on humans who have the possibility of dying. They do say products work differently on animals than they do on humans. I think there should be regulations for companies who test on animals to treat them with respect and don't abuse them or go out of their way to be cruel. Animals deserve respect just as humans do, and I would never want to see an animal be mistreated or abused.

Animals as tools

In class, we watched a film called, The Plague Dogs. This film was about the adventure of two dogs escaping from a Research Institution. It demonstrated what the animals went through while in the Institution, and how it affected them.
Although most of the film was cruel, gory, and sad, I believe that a quote from a veterinarian expressed in Animals and Why They Matter represents the overall theme of the film of The Plague Dogs.
“Animals used in biomedical research should not be considered as mere animals but rather as standardized biological research tools.”
This quote conveys that lab animals are merely tools not a living species. It states the humans use a buffer between their action and torturing animals. The main purpose of saying that lab animals are tools is to emotionally distant ourselves from the animals and what we do to them. Cutting off these emotions proves that animals are living organisms that we feel that we have moral duty to as well as their own emotions and value. If we felt like animals had no emotions or no value to us or the earth that we live in, then we would not even have to state that lab animals are not mere animals, but standardize biological research tools. Alimentally, lab animals are animals, but humans use them as research tools for their benefit and not the common welfare of the animals.
In conclusion, the Plague Dog film demonstrated the cruel, gory and mistreatment of the lab animals at the Research Institution brings up the argument about the right way to treat a lab animal or animals in general. It sets up the theme of use of lab animals as standardize biological tools. Stating the lab animals are tools shows the humans must emotionally detach themselves from the animal and what they perform on the animal. This proves that animals do have meaning to humans and should be treated the right way.

Plague Dogs

I agree with what some other people wrote about not being completely against animal testing. It has led to so many advances in medicine. In one of my classes we had to read about some of the early disease discoveries and how medication was made for these illnesses. Animal testing was heavily relied upon then as well and it was done in some of the cruelest ways. I think that for animal testing need to be done but it needs to be very controlled, just like anything else that could potentially cause harm. However, this leads to the question as to who controls it, which animals are included in these standards and so on. Unfortunately, there will be companies that always mistreat animals when they test on them. Plague Dogs was a good eye opener for people to see what having no control over the situation could lead to.

Through an overwhelming sense of despair and constant reminders of mans cruelty and willingness to inflict pain on animals The Plague Dogs leaves the audience, at it’s least, shaken and thoughtful. As years pass more and more disease and health problems arise making animal experimentation more of a sensitive subject. Is it okay to mistreat animals for human profit? The dogs are depicted as both beasts and affectionate creatures. By keeping their animalistic value and also showing their joys, fear, and frustrations the validity of the movies objective is not lessened. Instead of presenting the viewer with a vision of a world divided between good and evil, a reality populated by persons who themselves mix decency with cruelty. The reality of the movie allows the audience to reflect on animal rights. Because animals cannot talk the movie assumes a role in deciding what they would say if they could. Regardless of the accuracy of their remarks it is clear that the animals have led a life full of suffering and yearn for something better. As a psychology major animal experimentation is an important topic for me. Already at school I have encountered breeding rats for experiments, usings dogs to conduct beahvioral exepriments, and dissection. All of these involved no pain or harm to the animals and all had safe homes to return too. This movie made me think about the actual animal statistics. I did some research on the internet and found that 50% or more of animal exerpimentation in the US and Canada is done for "curiousity driven research." Basically researchers have a better reputation with the more research articles and experimental papers they publish. I am not sure where I stand on animal experimentation. I believe we have in the past been able to accomplish great advancments with animal testing but this doesn't seem to me a very good reason for subjecting animals to experimentation. I think there needs to be more strongly enforced guidleines and requirements for anyone to be allowed to conduct exerpiments on any animal.

Plague Dogs

I agree with Katie that animal experimentation is necessary even though it is cruel to animals. If it wasn't for experimentation on animals we would not the medications that we have today. I can see both sides of the problem. I feel for the animals that are being experimented on, but I also feel for the people who are suffering who need a cure. Most people view their own lives more important than a animal's life. That is why animals are used for experiments and not humans. Our lives are precious, but the animals life isn't? The more I think about the situation the more I get confused. We need experimentation, but what gives us the right to decide what species will be experimented on. Animals are not just experimentation tools, they are beings. However they can not fight back to our species. We can control the future of their lives and they will have no say in what happens to them.

Plague Dogs

I felt the film was an overall good one to watch for our class. It brought to attention the horrible ways in which animals are treated for the furthering of scientific knowledge. It didn’t put as big of a bias on whether or not animal experimentation is right, it just allowed the viewers an insight into what it is like for the animals and gave them the choice to decide for themselves. Of course, Snitter and Rowf are escaping and trying to find a home throughout the film, but that is their view of the situation. The humans in the film are very pro animal experimentation, or at least never protest the motives of the scientists.
As a cartoon, I felt it to be a very dark and shocking plot line. Constant images of horrible conditions for the dogs and death to animals and humans is not what I was expecting prior to viewing the film. I’m unsure of who exactly Rosen was targeting in making Plague Dogs, but I do believe it at least captures moments where the dogs carry on human aspects and relatable movements and speech that convince humans to side with them. This is a very admirable characteristic of both Rosen and his film.
I wish I could say that I was completely against animal experimentation, but I guess I fall into the category of those who find themselves confused. I, by no means, agree with mistreating animals by abuse or neglect, but I find some aspects of experimentation necessary. If only it didn’t mean creating harm and discomfort for the animals, many would come out of the confused category and be able to be complete activists for animal rights. However, as a dog owner, I feel torn. If my dog needed brain surgery, perhaps one similar to that of Snitter’s, I would allow for it in a heartbeat if it would save him. The catch: My dog is only able to have the surgery because of previous experiments and surgeries performed on other dogs that may or may not have been humane and successful. This is what confuses me. This is what I have a problem with. I wish there was a way to do it differently, and maybe that was part of Rosen’s reasoning behind making the film. Maybe he wants people to come up with new ways of animal experimentation which will better the lives of animals in humane ways rather than just give scientists another notch on their belts.

Flannel Ethics in practice on ABC

I couldn't help but to revisit the topic of Flannel ethics brought about in the first half of the semester. I recently watched an episode (as I do every Sunday night) of Extreme Makeover Home Edition on ABC. This season they have been focusing on families who have proven to be heroes for others in their communities, and this episode focused on a family who rescued and cared for wild animals. Although the show's purpose is to build new homes for those in need because the families don't have the means to do so themselves, this episode was really involved in the animals and their stories. The family lived in California and took in wild animals ranging from venemous snakes and reptiles to tigers and cougars. They founded the sanctuary that is based right on their property, but due to the hard economic times, the family hasn't been able to meet the necessary requirements to care for all of the animals' needs. Ty and his crew came in and spoke with the family and listened to all the great things they had to say about their dozens of animals. The father is who caught my attention the most. He spoke about the animals and his mission to save and protect them in a way very similar to someone who deeply believes in flannel ecology. He was out there doing what he could with doing no harm to the animals and enviornment. He was coming up with practical solutions as opposed to just letting the animals be put down after they were of no use to previous owners. Perhaps the most striking irony of the entire episode?...He was wearing a flannel shirt.

Animals as Symbols

Animals stand for a variety of things in our culture today. Animals can be evil, playful, vicious, sentimental, or competitive. As said in class, the devil is often represented by an animal of some sort. Animals can be companions or played with. Most show sympathy towards animals, especially if they are an animal owner. Today, there are many computer games or toys for kids to play with and pretend as if they are real. Animals are symbols for different athletic teams, such as Jaguars, Dolphins, Tigers, Lions, etc. They are usually portrayed as tough or competitive in this respect, and obviously their pictures show their more vicious side. Also, something that has been in the more recent media is dog fights. Training dogs to be violent towards each other and tear each other apart, while people sit and watch. Horse-racing in an important sport, especially in this area. Also, based on the behaviors of different animals, people call each other names by using animals, such as a raty, snake, weasel, dog, bull-headed, etc. with all of them being negative connotations. Soem symbols portray animals in a postive light. The dove as a sign of peace or a dog being man's best friend. Animals should be portrayed in a better light.

Animal Symbolism

As we talked about today, Animals are highly used symbols in many different cultures. I found a website that does a pretty good job at displaying the symbolic meanings of many animals among various different cultures: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/animals2.htm

The site lists the different meanings of animals among Celtic mythology, Native American tradition, and Chinese horoscope cycles. I found this very interesting because the same animal might depict three different symbols, depending on which culture is being considered. For example, the serpents are described by Celtic mythology to symbolize trouble: "Whenever they appear, strife and infertility follow." To the Native Americans, serpents symbolize, "Power, Life force, Sexual potency." Yet according to Chinese tradition, a serpent is "observant, quick to anger, usually possesses great physical beauty and is not necessarily venomous except when protecting the family." This is only one example, but the point being that animals do serve as symbolic metaphors in various cultures and traditions. The fact this symbolism stretches across vast cultural barriers, points to the belief that holding animals as symbols is indeed hardwired into our beings somehow.

Animal Symbolism

Our discussion of animal symbolism and the "squint" it puts on our perception of animals reminded me of an issue I'd heard about a few years ago with regards to endangered species in... um, one of the tropical rainforests. So, there's this really endangered, horrendously ugly primate living in the rainforests. It's nocturnal and doesn't hurt anyone, as it sits in the trees all night eating bugs. The people indigenous to the area have been working with environmental groups to preserve the rainforest, protecting it from deforestation, as well as taking measures to protect the many endangered rainforest species -that is, all species except this one, ugly primate. Why? Because in this culture, the animal (gosh, I wish I could remember what it's called. An ayer-ayer, maybe?) represents evil. So it's ugly to begin with, but it's been associated with the spirits of the night for hundreds of years, and local tribal legends held that if it looked at you you were cursed.
Now, most of the people living here today don't believe in the magical, mumbo-jumbo anymore, but they just can't get past the symbolism and it's thwarting environmental attempts to protect the species. The people of this area just can't approach the fate of this particular species objectively because it holds such an immovable status, a permanent label in their psyche. I don't think this particular species and this particular people are a special case, either. So many of our preconceptions, of our internalized notions about certain animals dictate our attitudes toward them. It's without doubt that one of the reasons pandas have had such a successful comeback is because they're cute. People associate only loving, cuddly, fuzzy good thoughts when they think about pandas. Now, how much progress has the endangered dolloff cave spider made by comparison. Yeah, like none. Don't you think that this might be because the general public associates bad things with spiders? That perhaps spiders are connected with a sort of symbolism -even if unconscious- that demotes their esteem in our eyes? And it's not even particularly ugly, as spiders go, so I doubt it's truly an aesthetics issue, but rather one of an impulsive stereotype derived from our underlying symbolic associations between animals and ideas.