Quiz- Budiansky, Peterson article and Midgley

In the article Still Red in Tooth and Claw, Budiansky argues against Peterson saying that animals do not have morality or a sense of emotion and that only humans have the ability to decipher between what is right and wrong and to act on emotions with a higher purpose. The main example that Budiansky uses is the gorilla who heroically saved the boy. Budiansky is very skeptical of Peterson's thinking that the gorilla acting to rescue the boy was the result of higher thinking. Budiansky retorts that Peterson often deflates human cognition to even the playing field between animals and humans. Budiansky further attacks Peterson's attempts at justifying the gorilla as acting in a morally higher manner by pointing out several studies that have been done proving that there are phenomenal differences between human and non-human minds in the area of conceptual reasoning. Therefore, Budiansky concludes that the gorilla taking the boy to safety was nothing more than a dog playing fetch. No emotional or moral reasoning was placed into this action.
Midgley believes that those who anthropomorphize are not necessarily questioning the existence of animals, but instead is examining the way in which we perceive them in the right way. Migdley points out the skeptical argument against anthropomorphizing saying that our idea of an animal is made up of elements drawn from human life. However, animals aren't humans and therefore that idea is only a "mirror" and tells us nothing about animals. Midgley also points out the fact that we cannot truly know what animals are thinking and they cannot know what we are thinking. So, I think Midgley would be very skeptical of Peterson's argument that the gorilla was undoubtably a case that animals have the ability to think morally and with a higher emotional purpose. I think that she would want us to focus on the question of since we cannot truly know the logic of animals and since they can never truly know ours, is it our place to put on them characteristics of our human ways of thinking so that we can better relate to them or concieve meanings for the things that animals do?

Quiz 13

Stephen Budiansky does not agree with what Peterson is saying or thinking about the relationship between human morality and the social lives of animals. If Midgley had an opinion about it she would probably discuss the principle of parcimony which is the simplest and stingiest solution. Midgley would reject the principle of parcimony because it is simpler not to attribute any human life portrayed to humans. She is not okay with people saying that we have no evidence what so ever that animals take human emotion. I believe that animals do have emotions but nothing like humans do. We are completely different kinds of species, for example, we humans communicate with each other in a completely different way than animals do. We speak a language with words out of our mouths, and they speak to one another with body language. This also goes for how they share their emotions with each other, they use body language and we speak out with words. A perfect example that goes against parcimony would be how the gorilla saved the boy. Although, researchers had clarified why the gorilla had saved the little boy is because she was trained to carry a doll and bring it to her keepers, and then she would get something like a prize for doing the right thing. They had trained the gorilla to do this because they wanted her to develop normal maternal instincts. This here is the prime reason why people put a barrier up between humans and animals.

Quiz 13

I think that Mary Midgley would think that Stephan Budiansky is crazy. He does have an interesting point, but I do not think it would be one that Midgley would like. I think Midgley would explain the parcimony principal which is the simplest solution. Midlgley does not like the parcimony principal and she would have examples to back her up. I think would example would be how the researchers explained why the gorilla saved the boy. Animals are always being integrated into our lives and that example puts a barrier up between humans and animals. It is easy to think that animals are beneath us, but in reality most of us are interacting with animals more than we think Animals have feelings and emotions and they can even have a certain body language that helps them to communicate. Often times the language can even go across species. If an animal is lonley and we put another animal with that animal, usually it will no longer be lonley. I think that animals have feelings and language even though they do not speak english. I had a dog all while I was growing up and to this day I still feel that every dog we had would take the feelings and emotions were in the household that day. If my dad would come home from work in a bad mood, then the dog would sit in a chair with him and be in a bad mood too. All of this makes me wonder if there is more to animals than what we know. I feel that we may not have enough understanding about how animals communicate and they could be a lot smarter than what we see them to be. I believe we interact with animals on more instances than we even realize. I know people who bird watch or set out squil feed. Other people feel bad when a dead racoon is laying on the side of the road. All of these interactions and emotions are tied with human animal relationship.

The Mixed Community

This section in Animals and Why They Matter is one that most of us can definitely relate too. When Midgley talks about how animals are always being integrated into our lives, I can agree. Not only are we being more cautious about the deer that are standing on the side of the road, but we are also extremely involved with animals that are living at our house -- whether our pet dog/cat, or the birds that are eating at our feeders in our backyards. Whether we know it or not, we are constantly interacting with animals because of the "mixed community," and even if some people don't like it, they will have to get used to it.

Feelings are also brought up in this chapter. Since the animals are integrated within humans, as well as other animals, we can hold a stronger bond towards them, even if they aren't our house pets. For instance, if we see a deer on the side of the road, we are going to feel sympathy for that one deer in hopes that it could find the rest of its family, or make it safely to where it needs to go. Also, in my case, the bird feeders I put up are constantly being filled because I feel a closer connection with the birds that come to them, because they are mostly the same birds every day.

Overall, this section was very interesting to me, because it finally talks about how wild animals, as well as domesticated ones, are still involved in every day lives of humans and need to be accounted for as well as respected.

Quiz 13

Stephan Budiansky most likely thinks that Peterson is a nut, despite the fact that he makes a very interesting case. If Midgley were to respond, I think she might start by explaining the parcimony principle. This principle encourages reaserchers to adopt the simpilest solution. This encourages reasearchers to come to the conclusion that there is nothing "in depth" to animal. Midgley does not like this theory. For example, in the case of the gorrilla saving the boy, researchers are the ones who "demistified" the reason the gorilla saved him. They said that she was trained to carry a doll to them and she was acting in accordance to her training in order to get a reward. This is a example of people putting up a barrier between humans and animals. Some people don't want to live in a world where animals and humans intermingle, and where animals have emotions. It is very easy to say that animals are beneath us when they cannot speak for themselves the way we can. However, many animals have developed a language of their that can transfer to other species. For example, a racehorse can get lonley and tempermental. In order to keep the horse happy and calm, many times they put another animal such as a goat or cat in to live with it. Another example is dogs that travel in a pack, have a clear hiearchy of domninancy. There is communication through body language, movement, and vocal sounds. Just because an animal can't speak english doesnt mean that it cannot feel or express its feelings. Perhaps we as humans are the ones who missed out on this language barrier. Animals seem to able to coexhist and communicate in ways that we may not even understand. Perhaps humans are true dumb ones after all.

Quiz 13

If Midgely were to respond to Budiansky's Still Red in Tooth and Claw, she would probably start by explaining that the best human explanation for the action of the gorilla would be to relate to the dog playing fetch. Saying the gorilla went over to the boy because he could see the boy was in distress would be accepting the idea that gorillas have a complex ability to interperate emotions and states of mind just as people do. If this were true than there would go longer be a barrier between species and a "mixed community" that Midgely describes would exist. The issue comes because men do not want a community where animals are none to experience the same emotions that people do. If animals can experience the same pain when pricked with a needle or the same emotional pain when there children are ataken away, then those actions then have a larger emotional efect on us. Its easy to put a dog down when his life means less than our own, but when his life means as much to him as ours do to us then putting the poor guy down turns into a holocaust of innocent animals. The things that we belive seperate us form the animals, may in fact not be as unique to our species as we believe them to be. For example, while animals have never developed a voicebox and the ability to communicate through speech, the have developed a complex sequence of facial expressions we have observed them use to communicate. Really, the only thing that can truly seperate us from animals is our ability to use logic and reason; however, this argument can really hold its ground. There is no evidence for or against this argument, but the way Midgly sees it is that we can not see the logic and reasons of other people and yet we say they experience it. So how does the idea that we can see the logic of animals mean they don't have any? The more logical response is to say, animals have this logic or even the sense of emotion, but just as they cannot understand or see ours, we cannot understand or see theirs.

In the following passage from his recent review of Dale Peterson's The Moral Lives of Animals, Stephen Budiansky takes issue with Peterson's understanding of the relationship between human morality and the social lives of animals:

Despite having begged the question of human exceptionalism at the start—by dismissing the sense that we are different as mere "Darwinian narcissism"—Mr. Peterson does develop a provocative case for the existence of a broadly shared evolutionary imperative that under pins human moral instincts. Among his better-chosen anecdotes are vivid illustrations of the social mechanisms by which primates and other group-dwellers mediate access to mates, food and other resources. Vampire bats, strikingly, remember which members of the group have shared a regurgitated blood meal in the past and know who to return the favor to. It is hard to argue with his propo sition that the powerful emotional saliency moral issues have for us, and their connection to serious matters of social organization and conflict—sex, territory, possessions, reciprocity, kinship—point to a hard-wired evolutionary adaptation of group-dwelling animals.

The problem with leaving it there, however, is that the moral world of humans, to even the most casually reflective observer, reaches far beyond such primal urges. Humans of the 21st century, after all, have exactly the same instinctual emotional urges that humans of the 18th century did. Yet because of language, argument and an ability to weigh abstract notions and hold ourselves accountable to moral ideals, the intervening centuries have seen a transformation in attitudes about slavery, democracy and the rights of women. These hardly amount to "this or that obscure issue."

How do you think that Mary Midgley would respond to Budiansky's complaint that Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality?

Blog #13

The topic in Chapter 10 discussed by Mary Midgley is the idea of a "mixed community."  At the beginning of this chapter, Midgley talks about the domestic animals that we have at home have been conditioned to interact in the manner that they do.  Midgley states, "These animals became tame, not just through the fear of violence, but because they were able to form individual bonds with those who tamed them by coming to understand the social signals addressed to them."  Domestic animals are able to relate to the human beings personally and easier to train.  Migley makes the comparison of a domestic animal to a wildcat.  A wildcat may be impossible to tame because their species does not allow them to respond to social signals.  I see this as a species barrier because humans cannot interact with these creatures in a relationship. I think most of us in our right minds would not try and house a wildcat as a pet, but are more comfortable with dogs and cats because these animals have the capacity to be trained and it interact socially with human beings.

After reading some of the blogs on the topic, I was thinking the same way as Bethany in relation to the mixed community.  I have always wondered why dogs can be trained by most people, but why the wild animals, lions, tigers, and bears can only be trained by a select few.  This is probably the result of only those select few that try to take on training a lion or a bear are breave enough to interact and attempt to relate to these animals in a way that we relate to domestic animals.  This whole chapter just makes me consider Timothy Treadwell. He thought he was capable of interacting with the grizzly bears and he did seem to have a connection with them, but one little mishap caused the bear to turn on him in the drop of a hat.  I think those humans that interact with wild animals in a way that they would with domestic animals need to understand that there is a species barrier with these creatures.

The section on animals in relation to children made me think of why animals do not harm young children when they handle them in improper ways.  Midgley asks the question of how does a kitten know that a baby much longer than itself is a child?  This question has never really appealed to me until now.  I have never really noticed the idea that domestic animals react differently with children.  Even though I have observed this taking place time and time again, I never really thought about the issue.  I remember an instance when one of my baby cousins approached my black lab and I was so scared that the dog would react thinking the baby was a "toy."  I should have never doubted this thought for a second because all the dog did was lick my cousin and show compassion.  The species barrier is broken with domestic animals becuase there is a social and emotional relationship that forms from the beginning. 

blog 13

The "mixed community" from Mary Midgely's Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley describes the relationship between children and animals and a level of tolerance based on the recognition of immaturity. Its similar expectations, the way a person would treat a puppy would be more lenient than one would treat a full grown dog and it seems dogs treat small children the same way. But the idea itself I feel was more intended to illustrate a strong relationship between animals and humans as a way to convey the idea that man and animals are capable of coexisting.

This relationship between child and animal led me the question of what happens as we grow up that pushes us away from this relationship with animals? As we grow up, something happens to us that in our minds creates us as superior to animals. It probably has a large amount to do with a culture that portrays us a s superior, but is that a good excuse to remain solidly set in our ways. You can look at Timohthy Treadwell and say "you know maybe this whole human animal equal relationship just can't happen, it just won't work." Thirteen years is a long time to do what he did without being killed by bears and its obvious proof that what he was doing worked.

I think a realtionship of equality between not just humans and animals can exist, but equality between humans and life. Where it is understood that in the chain of life for one organism to live others have to die. Treadwell lives 13 years with bears completely safe with bears, but mayber the bear goes a day without food, two days, and so on. For the bear it turns into, I must eat this man or die. Just as the Donner party had to eat people to survive when placed in hard times that required extensive measures needed for survival. As humans "develope", we forget that we are animals to and whether we like it or not we are part if the environment and just as suseptible to being eaten as as a deer or a cow.

Blog #13

The "mixed community" I found the most interesting to read. One of the sections Midgley focused on was parent and child behaviors. I loved reading this section. Midgley was saying how kids love animals, and animals love kids. An animal will tolerate a lot more from a child than they would from an adult. For example, a kid could pull on their tale, or jump on them, put their fingers in their mouth and the animal might get annoyed but will more and likely not cause any harm to that child. If an adult did the same thing, then that could be a different story. Across the species barrier a cat recognizes the child as a kitten, even though the child is much bigger than it is, but it treats it as if it was and this is where the bond comes in.

Midgley was saying how children have a natural relationship with animals. In our culture the passion we have torwards animals is much less as an adult than a child. Adults still love, play and take care of their animals, but not as much as a child would. I agree with this completely, when I was young I loved dogs and cats, but now I do not have any nor would I care to ever have one. When I was young I always wanted to have both dogs and cats. Maybe this changed because I am allergic to cats, but still I am a little scared of animals. Back then this was not the case.

Midgley also talked about how animals do have emotions due to exploitation which requires sympathy. To exploit an animal we have to recognize it's pain. We humans put our interests above any other animals, so this is hard for us to see sometimes. We really know that they are not completely different from us. I believe that they do have some kind of feelings, but still it is nothing like ours. For example, when an animals owner is upset that animal can sense it and will act differently, but I do not believe that animals can grieve over things like us humans. We have much deeper feelings than they do.

Blog #13

I found the most interesting part of Midgley's discussion of the "mixed community" to be when she talked about the relationship between animals and children. Midgley states that animals seem to have the capability to sense when they are dealing with the young of other species and behave accordingly (in most cases). For example, a cat is more patient with human children than with adult humans. I found this to be very interesting not only because it was something I had never thought about, but also because it is such an amazing idea. Once I read what Midgley had to say about it, I realized that I have witnessed this type of thing before, and that she is absolutely correct in her assessment. I find it really interesting that animals can recognize infants even when they look different than themselves - especially in the case of cats and human children (as Midgley cited) because human children are larger than most domesticated cats. The fact that animals have the ability to sense out when another animal is young is amazing, and is endearing. I believe it was Midgley who stated earlier in the book that the way animals interact with their young is one of the things that provides the strongest case among most humans for animal rights - because we see that and can relate to it.

I also liked how Midlgey used her discussion of animals and children to talk about the childlike features that most human adults have which are lacking in most other animals - like how almost all adult humans still play in some form. Midlgey states that some adult chimpanzees can be seen playing together on occasion, but for the most part, once a chimpanzee is grown, they do not behave like a young chimpanzee any longer. In some cases, this is true with humans as well. Once we are grown, we are encouraged to act maturely. However, adults still joke around, laugh, and play with frequency. Midlgey cites this (as well as a few other things) as possibly being an evolutionary difference that separates us from other animals.

Midgley also talks about how children have a certain affinity for animals - that they are drawn to them. I do not think this can be denied, nor do I think that she is wrong when she says that many times this attraction is written off as "childish." I found it interesting that she quoted the bible about putting away "childish things," because I had never considered having a love for animals as being childish. However, after having read what she had to say, I can see how a lot of the world would think an adult who had a real love and affection for all animals would be abnormal. In my opinion, most adults do not spend much time thinking about animals, so the ones that do are sometimes seen as being strange or childish - which is a shame. Maybe someday we will live in a world where caring about animals is the norm, not the exception.

Blog #13 The Mixed Community

I'm glad Midgley chose to talk about the mixed community and the relationships that are formed between humans and animals. I like how she first put into context that not only in today's society are animals involved in human communities but animals were also part of human communities back in the agriculture culture when farm animals had day to day contact with humans. The idea of the species barrier is broken in these kinds of situations because animals react with humans and they too are emotional and deserve respect just like humans do. The species barrier is permeable because animals relate to humans and form bonds between each other. The bonds between animals and humans are strong especially with house pets which tends to allow for animals to experience close ties with humans. Since house pets allow for the human to have a close relationship with them there tends to be no species barrier. Also there is no species barrier because of how young children can interact and play with young pets as well. The pets realize that the human is of the same species size which allows for a closer relationship between the young child and the young pet. This is why young children tend to have a closer bond with animals rather than adults.

Midgley also points out how domestic animals have been conditioned to interact with human beings. This is also another reason why the species barriers is broken. The animals become domesticated because they are able to be tamed by humans who care and look out for the animals. The animals learn to obey humans and they do this because they see that the humans are social beings and they too become social beings as well. Humans realize that not all animals can be tamed and we take that into consideration. It is really weird to think that animals like elephants and tigers especially can be tamed. I went to the circus this past weekend and I have come to the conclusion that it takes a lot of skill and human interaction between the animals and the tamer because the way the animals act towards humans is just fascinating. It is weird to think as little kids we don't realize what animals may do if they turn on you. I think that young children just assume all animals are nice and want to be close too which is why the species barrier is especially broken with the young species.

Another aspect of this chapter that interest me was the idea of sympathy and how we humans relation to sympathy towards animals. Even if animals aren't house pets we still experience a bond between animals and may still feel emotional when animals are tortured or killed. Animals don't have to be domesticated to receive sympathy from the human race. We are sympathetic to the idea that we realize animals have emotional lives but we still put our interest above the animals interest because that is norm in this society. We use knowledge and the way we react towards animals of a different species to shape our behavior. The treatment toward animals as Midgley states, "has never been impersonal'. this means that our bonds towards animals have a meaning and purpose and this meaning shows how humans care for animals. Animals are capable of having a point of view and having a point of view belongs to the idea with people rather then the idea of things. Overall this chapter was easy to relate to for anybody since I am sure we all have or had at least one pet that we establish firm bonds with.

The Mixed Community

In this chapter, Midgley discusses how animals are involved in every community. I find this interesting because it is not often that humans consider animals a prominent part in "their society". It seems like most humans are so caught up in themselves that they don't think about animals. The only time that we consider animals part of the community would be if we had a pet. My family has a dog and I have to admit that we treat her as if she is more than part of the community - we treat her like a part of our immediate family.

Midgley goes on to state, "The treatment of domestic animals has never been impersonal" (113). This is an important statement because it relates to what I stated above, and shows how people tend to treat their pets as members of the community/family. In section 5, Midgley talks about parent-child behavior and how animals seem to tolerate more things from children than from adults. This shows that animals relate human children to their young. Does this show that animals can reason? It seems like multiple other philosophers we have studied so far argue that animals have no ability to reason or judge or feel, yet I think the fact that can distinguish children from adults is a sign that animals are not simply dumb machines.

The chapter also went on how to discuss how children seek variety which is a reason why they are so fascinated with animals. It says how adults tend to "grow out" of this fascination with animals and the bond with them diminishes over time. Therefore, it seems as if humans could benefit form realizing that we live in a shared community with animals and that maybe all people should look at animals from a child's perspective. Perhaps this would change the way humans treat animals - domestic or not. I think it would change the outlook that some humans have towards animals and allow them to see that humans aren't the only creatures living on the Earth.

Mixed Community

In this chapter Midgley focuses on the “the mixed community”, or the relationships between animals and human beings . She looks at the animals that are domesticated and says that most of these animals are social. These animals that are domestic are the animals that live in individuals homes. Midgley talks about how animals can understand humans actions and their behaviors.

I find it very interesting how domesticated animals do show that they understand human actions and that they listen to commands that humans give them. Domesticated animals I feel like can tell whether a person is happy or sad by the way that they act around their pet. The dog that I use to have would always come up to me and want to play with me when I was upset, it seemed as if she was trying to cheer me up. I also find it very interesting like Brittany Berry said how young children can pull on a domesticated animal and do things to them that doesn't seem to bother the animal. However if an adult would do one of those actions to the animal it would probably respond in a protective way.

Lastly Midgley discussed that exploitation requires sympathy. The exploitation of animals I believe just as Chelsea Hoffmann says requires the ability of humans to be able to relate to animals. Humans treat animals very similar to the way we treat other human beings. Most individuals give their domesticated animals names, and when the animal dies we show sympathy and are upset by the death of our pets. Therefore I agree with Midgley and how she says that the relationship between humans and domesticated animals has never been impersonal. This reading has been the most easiest to understand and to be able to relate to.

blog # 13

I thought this chapter of Midgley's book was very interesting to read. She starts off by explaining animal involvement in human communities as a mixed community. Animals have always been associated with humans, interacting with them in special ways. Some animals, such as dogs or cats, have been considered "pets" and are well taken care of and loved as companions or family members, while other animals such as cows or oxen, have been used strictly for work or food. Humans have always taken into consideration the emotional level of animals, and the fact that they feel and understand. Midgley points out that our understanding of this is shown through our treatment of animals, and our understanding of their emotions that allows us to control them through pain, fear, or desire. This is shown in everyday life as people manipulate the emotions of animals to achieve a human goal such as on the farm, in the zoo, or in the circus. This continues to prove that they are more than machines. I agree with this completely and it made a good point to challenge those who have a view point of Descartes.

The ability to domesticate and tame some animals, rather than others, is based on the ability of the animals to engage socially and form social bonds. This was very interesting to me because I always wondered why certain animals, such as dogs, could become lifelong friends, while animals such as tigers could be tamed for a little but always seem to turn on its "owner" at some point. This understanding also portrays the individuality of animals, the uniqueness of their point of view. This point of view explains the difference between animals and machines because machines could never have the point of view as animals. Humans are incapable as treating animals exactly the same as objects because we are aware of their feelings and their response regardless of our point of view.

This part of Midgley's book showed the connection that animals and humans have, even animals that are not pets. Most people do not desire for any animals to be tortured because we recognize the similarity and the animals ability to feel, as we do. We are able to recognize them as beings and their desire to live. We can form bonds with animals that are much more intimate than ones with our cars, we are able to feel sadness and a sense of loss when our pet dies that is more significant than when our car stops working. There is a difference that breaks the species barrier and allows a connection between humans and animals.

Blog 13

I can say that I really enjoyed this chapter of Midgley's book and that it was very easy for me to relate to because I have a dog of my own. To say that animals do not have feelings is a ridiculous idea. It is good to hear Midgley defend the species barriers with respect that not only human beings have morals and feelings. All animals have feelings and with relation to class today, I can agree the animals do feel pain, having a horse being whipped was a great example.

When speaking about the "mixed community," we humans do live with animals in our community. As I mentioned above I do have a dog, and I don't know what I'd do with her, sometimes it seems like a dog can be your best friend because they always give you that unconditional love, and can seek out our feelings. I know when I'm upset, my dog can sense that because she will just keep on licking me until all the tears are gone, and she can also tell when I'm in pain. Animals are not dumb at all, and are actually very smart.

I really enjoyed this part of Midgley's book because I really felt like I could relate to it, and I really respect that she defends the species barrier. I agree with the fact that we also but our interest above theirs, and I think that I need to work on this more. For example my dog loves to play ball, but it gets boring for me sometimes so I don't throw ball as much as I should with her because that is something my dog really enjoys. We don't believe that animals objects, and we do believe that animals have emotional lives and feelings.

Blog 13

This part of Midgley's book dealt with how animals fit into the human culture. She talks about how the species barrier can be broke, and how animals can become a part of our lives. She mentions some very good points and makes it clear that what animals sometimes do show they break the barrier. I also relate to this because I feel that the dogs that I have became a part of my life in more than just a pet way. I swear that my dog knew my mood and acted accordingly.

Midgley makes statments about how animals can understand our actions. We name animals and we talk to them, but most people would not name a rock or a plate that they eat off of. The connection that animals have with humans is totally different from other objects we have in this world. Fish do not really interact with humans;however, the girls I babysit for still name their fish and talked to the fish. When an animal dies we show emotional connection by being sad or crying. Another thing that I have wittnessed is the way my little Goddaughter treats her dog. She pulls his tail, squeezes his nose, and does all sorts of things that the dog would usually get aggravated with, but the dog just lets it happen. However, If an adult was to do that the dog would probably snap.

It really amazes me how much we take animals for granted and think they are so dumb. Animals are not dumb creatures; in fact, they are very smart. I believe that they definitley do break the species barrier and have become a special part of human culture. I think that some people may not realize how far they might reach our for an animal, but most people would not just completely dismiss that animals are a significant part of our culture.

Blog 13 - Animals in Our Culture

Chapter 10 of Midgley’s book dealt with how animals fit into human culture. During these chapters Midgley raises several points that show that the species barrier does not prevent animals from becoming part of our lives. The points she brings up are very self-evident once she mentions them, and I have had experiences that mirror what she describes perfectly. I am not an animal activist and have never given it much thought, but even I can see that Midgley has made a convincing argument.

Midgley makes the case that the species barrier is not a legitimate argument to say that animals aren’t part of the human community, and brings up many points to show that animals are indeed part of our community and that they understand our actions. Some people want to treat animals purely as machines or things, but Midley brings up the point that people name their domesticated animals. People do not name tools, rocks, etc. My cousins and I have given names to cows on our grandpa’s farm. Next she mentions the importance of pets in our culture. To me it is completely obvious that most pets (dogs and cats) become a true member of the family. I know the sorrow and feeling of loss is real when a pet dies. Many people shed tears over the loss of a dog or cat that has been with them for many years. They don’t cry because they will be lonely, they are hurt at the loss of a family member they loved. Midgley also mentions how a pet is patient towards human young. I have witnessed my little cousins trying to pet their cat and instead end up smacking it hard on the head repeatedly. The cat just squints it’s eyes but takes the abuse from the toddler. If an adult was hitting the cat in such a way, I’m sure the animal would have ran away or bit them. This shows that animals are more aware than we think of their surroundings and they are indeed sentient beings.

These examples that Midgley brings forth really struck a chord with my past experiences. They have made me re-think animals positions in our culture. I think it is irrational to believe that animals are beyond our sympathy or respect, because of the species barrier, because the species barrier is breached by every family who owns and loves a pet or anyone who feels sympathy for animals. I imagine many more people fall into this category than the category of complete dismissal of animals.

Blog 12- The "Mixed Community"

In this chapter Midgley highlights the “The Mixed community”, or the relationships between animals and humans. She looks at the animals that have been domesticated and says that most of those are ones that are social. She especially points out the cat community, saying that cats were not originally tame animals. In fact, they were quite fierce. Over time however, they responded to the Egyptians and became reasonably docile.

An interesting point that Midgley makes in this chapter is that humans aren’t unaware of animal suffering. In fact, that is the root of how we choose to treat animals. If we know that something motivates them over something else, then that tactic is used in order to reach our own personal end. The exploitation of animals really does require sympathy and an ability of humans to be able to relate to them. In many ways, the way we treat animals is very similar to the ways we treat other humans. We discover what frightens or motivates them, and we figure out what it will take for the animals to respond. Also, we call dogs and horses, specifically, by name and expect them to understand what is said to them. We as humans need to figure out the feelings and workings of animals if they are to be exploited by us. Therefore, Midgley comes to the conclusion that treatment of domestic animals has never been impersonal, which is a statement I found to be interesting and true!

Lastly, I thought it was unique how she compared our treatment of animals to the treatment of slaves, in that if we work our animals or our slaves hard, it’s not because we don’t realize that they mind it or notice it, but that we are putting our interest first. In other words, we are using them as a means to our own end. Midgley also flips this idea on its head and says that humans don’t treat other humans that way. We wouldn’t eat or kill our grandma or brother just because they are annoying us. There is a deliberate interference of morality when dealing with other humans that isn’t fully present when dealing with animals.

Overall, I found this chapter of Midgley’s the easiest to comprehend and relate to.

Blog #13

Midgely's section, The Mixed Community, was a very interesting and easy-to-read excerpt; one of my favorites so far. In this reading, Midgely used examples to show the holes within the natural principle of the "species barrier." Proving that the species barrier is not an excuse for absolute dismissal of animals and their feelings, but is "...rather like one of those tall wire fences whose impressiveness is confined to their upper reaches...The young of Homo sapiens, like those of other species present, scurry through it all the time" (Midgley, 118).
Midgely starts her argument by showing that all human communities do not exist just by themselves, but usually incorporate various species within their homes, communities, and countries. This ability of humans to domesticate animals relies on the fact that both the human and their animal (s) are social beings-by interacting with animals on a personal level humans are able to achieve this. As Midgely then states, this must mean that humans are able to understand some of the various social cues of animals to domesticate and exploit them - pointing to the fact that that must mean that animals are sentient beings.
Lastly, Midgely looks at children, adults, and their relationships with animals. Midgley shows how children of all species tend to explore other species' young. Midgley attributes this to the child's "...capacity for widely extended sympathy, for social horizons not limited to one's familiar group" (Midgley, 120). She then points out an idea held by many of the civilized world today -that this playfulness, compassion, and exploration must be shelved and put away as one gets older and becomes more "adult." Midgley laments this idea, stating, '"Increasing callousness is, on the whole, rather a bad sign...Children and 'primitives' need not always be wrong"' (Midgley, 122). Instead, she calls for an increasing awareness of the "child within" and the need to remember many of the central ideas of that time to help adults retain the imagination and compassion that once made life so beautiful (including a love and compassion for animals).

Blog #12

From what we watched of the film "Grizzly Man" I found it very interesting. Timothy Treadwell was very interested in the lives of bears and the habitat that they lived in. I thought that Timothy was very couragous but also somewhat absent mindedness when it came to how close he got to these wild creatures. He loved the bears and that is what he lived for and you could tell through the film how truly happy he was doing what he was doing.

Timothy became really close to the wild bears in Alaska and many people think that he may have thought he was actually a wild bear himself. Peoples' reaction to this felt that he was morally worng and that he was not treating the bears with the respect that they deserve but I don't think that he was doing this intentionally and I feel that he thought he was helping them.

Many people discouraged Timothy's living with wild bears and interfering with their habitat. The natives felt like he was disrespecting the animals which I thought they would be more on his side. The native american that they had documented in the film had a great point about how Timothy was interefering with thier habitat and disrespecting them as individuals.

It is very sad to what had happened to Timothy Treadwell and his partner but I feel they could have taken more percautions. Wild animals live in a different society than we do and they do what they need to to survive. This film was very interesting to me and made me think a lot about the equality of how should treat beings with.

Grizzly Man

We watched the first part of the film Grizzly Man, in class. Timothy Treadwell is looking at bears in their natural habitats and to do so, he lives in nature with them. He names the bears and show that they are harmless and loving. One was called Mr. Chocolate, and he names a fox, Spirit the Fox. He has connected with the bears on a very deep level. He goes as far as to say he would die for them. He wanted to raise awareness for bears and try to get people to understand their importance. He brings his girlfriend along for some of his hikes and interactions. The movie explores the pilot's feelings too, the one that flies him to the place the bears are at.

A lot of people don't agree with what he is doing though. They don't think that he needs to treat the bears like house pets. It is not good for the bears and him either. They also don't like how close and attached he gets to the bears. He may think he is a bear now. There are some people that think he's courageous though. They think that he is brave for being out there with the bears. I feel that I am in the middle. I don't think it is good to get to attached to a wild animal and treat them as if they are not harmful. Bears are different from home pets and they need to be treated in that way. But on the other hand it is good in a scientific sense. We may need to know how bears react to one another in their natural habitat. To look at their behaviors and feelings. It could help us to define how they communicate with each other and also may help us figure out if they have any hierarchy in their groups. Therefore, I feel it is both good and bad.

His love and connection to these bears may have been exactly what led to him and his girlfriend's deaths. He forgets to remember that they are indeed wild animals and will protect themselves from harm if they need to. He hits them on the nose and names them. This shows that he is more powerful than them. They may not be threatened by him at first or for the most part, only because they are used to him being there. Therefore the second he makes one move that scares them or makes them feel threatened, they attack, which is exactly what happened. I understand that he didn't intend to harm them or scare them but he did. He may have just wanted to show to the viewers that bears aren't harmful and that they are good. But he got too close to them and they acted against him in order to protect themselves. This same thing happened to Erwin. He gets too up close and personal with the animals and eventually in turned on them both.

These two among a few others actually get out there in nature though. They tell us things about nature that we otherwise may have never known. Therefore they have made a big contribution to society and will not be forgotten for all they have done for us.

Blog 12-Grizzly Man

After watching the first part of the film, Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell is documenting bears in their natural habitats and his interactions with them. Throughout the film, he shows the audience the harmless side of the bears and even names them. One was called Mr. Chocolate, and he names a fox, Spirit the Fox. He expresses his love for the bears throughout the film and says that he would even die for them. He does this in order to raise awareness of bear protection and is accompanied by his girlfriend as well on some expeditions. The film also explores the feelings of those that he knew, such as the helicopter pilot that would take him to the bears habitat.

However, many critics have called him crazy due to how up close and personal he gets with these bears. Others have called him brave and ambitious for the cause he is representing. Many dislike that he treats them as you would a home pet. That he has spent so much time with them that he has forgotten that he is dealing with wild animals. I for one find myself in the middle. On one side, its great that he is capturing these bears in their natural habitat and using basic equipment as opposed to the National Geographic Channel. They make the documentaries as if they were a movie almost and not as real. He is definitely brave to get as close as he did to them in order to get better shots. However, the amount of interaction he had with them is what I feel led to his ultimate demise.

By actually calling out to them, giving them names, and hitting them on the nose, I feel that he tried to get too close to them. Perhaps he was trying to show the public how harmless these animals are but in reality, he didn't realize how much control he had over them. As wild bears, they are not used to human contact and are of course curious to see what Timothy was up to. They weren't as quickly to attack him because they weren't threatened by his presence. I feel that due to Timothy's love for the bears and his want to be as close to them as he can, perhaps even to act like one, he lost sight that he was dealing with wild animals that will attack if need to for their own protection. Therefore, he didn't limit his interactions with them as much as he was supposed to in order to keep them relaxed. Any wrong move and it could have caused these bears to become angry. His love and passion for the bears and nature itself is what caused his judgement to be skewed and is what therefore perhaps led to his and his girlfriend's tragic death.

However, his cause is not so easily forgotten. He is one of the few who try to go out and show what nature really is. Who tries to defend it and raise awareness of what we as humans are destroying at times. That he and his girlfriend rest in peace and that their cause lives on.

Polar bears

A polar bear can feal pain just like human beings and any other animals. Because it is plainly seen if a person looks at a animal for more than five seconds. That to absolute and blaitently egnour this is wrong. Even if a animal can not sign a contract or talk a human langauge. Baby humans cant do any of these things and yet a baby has all the rights of a human. So why is that any different than a animal in their own habitat. I have seen alot of this in my time in the military. The brutality of animals for the amusment for a person.

Grizzly Man

After watching the Grizzly Man, a documentary following Treadwell and his life in the wild living with the grizzly bears, many controversies come up such as, but not limited to: was Treadwell crazy, was what he was doing harmful, helpful, or did it not affect the animals in any way?

For me, although Treadwell was getting us very good footage of these majestic animals in their natural habitat, I think he was interacting with them too much. When he is filming them and reaches out to touch them, or even swimming with them, I think this takes them out of their natural habitat, not location-wise, but interaction-wise. When do bears actually get touched by humans? Rarely ever unless they are captive. Because of his actions with (not just towards) the bears, they are experiencing something different than what would normally happen. This leads to a change in behavior of the bears that would not naturally happen. If Treadwell was just observing them from a far, that would be more acceptable for me because he wasn't altering any behaviors.

Although Treadwell says he was trying to get scientific information on how these bears live, I think he just wanted to prove to some people that he would be able to live with the bears - especially since he 'loved' them and would die for them. If we compare Treadwell to Goodall, we will see many differences in how they interacted, or didn't with the animals, ways of collecting information, whether it was just observing or altering behaviors, along with many other differences. In my opinion, Goodall was doing exactly what Treadwell was attempting to do, she just did it in a more scientific way, therefore making her seem less "crazy."

For me, Goodall was more successful because she did not "become" one of her subjects, where as Treadwell was adapting to the bears behavior and trying to mimic them (bathing, hitting on their nose, etc.). Because of this, I think we can say that he got too comfortable with the bears and was more a brother to them than an observer and the bears may have seen this transformation as well. His death, to the bears, could have been seen as killing Treadwell their brother bear, versus killing Treadwell a person who is observing them and has no relationship to them. If the bears did take this view, then it doesn't surprise me (no matter how cynical that sounds) that he was killed because bears have to fight with other bears for the food, etc.

After watching the movie about the bears, I ask my self, Why do people think that it is ok that think that they can go in and loose them selves in a way with another species with out consequences. Seeing people like the croquidial hunter and this individual in the movie that was killed by the bear and also his girlfreind.
The person that I saw that was a sensless death was the girlfreind. She seemed like a inexperienced person around the bear's and could have been a factor of both of their deaths. If a person losses their scientific self if their are trying to study a different scepies, it looses the perpuse of a objective point of view because other wise it becomes biased. I found it interesting that the people that searched for the bodies in the helicopteries had such different points of view on their jobs.

Blog 12 - Grizzly Man

Grizzly Man is a documentary that follows Timothy Treadwell through his numerous excursions into the Alaskan wilderness to live among grizzly bears. This documentary gives an interesting insight into the radical and passionate actions of Treadwell. Along with this, it provides remarkable footage of the bears in their natural habitats. Most nature documentaries cannot provide the close-up footage of the bears, nor how they reacted to having a human right beside them. The most shocking footage comes from when the bears actually approach Timothy and he touches their snouts or tells them to go away when they are aggressive and they actually turn around.

Throughout the documentary, different people are interviewed about their views about Timothy and what he did and how he died. Their opinions range from sympathy and understanding to cynicism and disregard. I found that my opinion on the matter was very similar to the local Native American. I understand what he was trying to do and I can respect that. He had good intentions at heart and was very passionate about what he did; he died doing what he loved. I just believe that maybe he went about doing it the wrong way. By living among bears in the wild, you are making them comfortable around humans. Next time they see humans, they may approach them and since these humans probably can’t read a bears body language or know how to act, it could very easily end with them being killed. This is why you aren’t supposed to feed wild animals, it creates a sense of familiarity for them with humans. The Native viewed the bears as creatures to be respected, but left to their own way of life. We should not interfere with them and stay out of their way. Timothy was trying to protect the bears, and his radical approach may have been more effective than others, but the consequences could be worse. Supporting wildlife preservation programs can be effective though, and you don’t do the damage of creating familiarity between bears and humans. Treadwell’s intentions were good though, so it is hard to blame him. Beyond his intentions, it is easy to see why people thought he was crazy. It takes a passionate and brave person to risk there lives for bears by living among them. The entire documentary, I was waiting for a bear to rip him apart. It was shocking seeing the bears be so gentle towards him. For these reasons, it is easy to see why some critics call him crazy. This documentary provided amazing footage of a passionate man doing what he loved.

Blog #11

The movie Plague Dogs was very emotional and sad. It was hard for me to watch because in some cases this method of testing on animals is true and happens every day. The stray dogs and animals were contained in cages and had no hope but getting there food for the day while they were being tested and dont not recieve the love and affection that every being deserves. What was really interesting about the movie is how the dogs had dialogue and were able to express their true feelings that they experience.

Animals consist of different rights and emotions than human beings but that does not mean they dont have them. I believe most people take the easy way out by completely dismissing the subject because it is easier.

This movie may have been cruel to watch but it is something that consistantly goes on in our soceity with out a question about it. Animals have morals just as we do and just because we have more power over them does not mean that we should treat them the way they do.

Blog #12

The film Grizzly Man, was very sad with the result.  Timothy Treadwell, also known as grizzly man, was killed as a result as this film, which made watching it rather distrubing.  Treadwell was a grizzly bear lover, but seemed to have been a little too comfortable with these wild animals.  In the beginning of the film, Treadwell is standing in a open field, filming these animals when all of the sudden one approaches him.  Treadwell stated that he was holding his ground and earning the respect of the bear by not running away.  I could not even imagine being in a field with a grizzly bear and being that close.  He even said that these bears could kill him, but still continued to get up close and personal.  Another instance that comes to mind is when Treadwell gets in the water with the bear.  This just goes to show the viewers that he spent so much time learning about these animals that he somewhat defined himself as one; he had to mutate into a wild animal. 

Treadwell even went to the extremes of naming the grizzly bears.  There was one that was named "The Grinch" and another that was named "Mr. Chocolate."  This was his way of identifying these animals and giving them a personal representation.  One of the rescuers idnetified the bear that killed Treadwell by indicating that he looked mean.  This just shows everyone that the grizzly bears had different personalities that were picked up by Treadwell.  I believe in this quality that animals have different personalities.  Every pet that I have owned has had a different personality than the other, which makes each of them very unique. 

Timothy Treadwell was a very brave individual who never wanted to see a grizzly bear be harmed.  One of the rescuers in the film stated that "Tim never wanted to see a bear be killed, even if they killed him.  He said that Timothy would rather his body not be found because that would mean that the bear would  be killed as a result.  I think this is silly.  I respect his love for animals, but only to a certain extent.  It was mentioned in the film that he felt like death was the only way that he could get his message across.

Grizzly man

Ok so honestly I am not sure wheter to laugh or cry at this documentary. By laughing I would feel like a sick twisted person, but at the same time if I cry then I feel like a pathetic loser. This whole situation is just full of sick twisted irony. Let me explain what I mean. One of the first scences with Timothy Treadwell shows him standing in front of bears grazing in the grass. He tells us about how these are dangerous animals and that at any minute they can kill, decapitate, and bite you. Yet in the same scence he calls them family and friends. And later in his life, he is killed by the exact thing he is working towards saving.
I am not sure how this Treadwell thing has made me feel. On one end, I admire greatly what he was able to do. It takes guts to be able to go live in the wild, and work for what you truely beleive in. He truely wanted to save the bears and educate the public on their plight.
On the other hand, I feel like he was really stupid in what he did. Bears are dangerous. Treadwell said it himself. I don't beleive that it was very smart to get as attached to them as he did. By giving them names and interacting with to the extent that he did, I beleive that he got emotionally attached and to comfortable in being around them. By being to comfortable around them I think he began to trust in them to much and let down his guard. I beleive this may be why he died. He forgot that they weren't the same as he and in that he showed a vunerablity.
From his death, I don't think he deserved to die like that but again, in some sick twisted ironic way, I almost think that is how he would want to go. After all he did say he would lay his life down for the bears. I just dont think that was how he intended it to go.

Blog #12

The film Grizzly Man was very interesting to watch. I could not believe how at home Timothy Treadwell felt when he was out in the wilderness with these bears. Any human would think that Timothy was acting crazy during the film, but really he was just treating the bears how they treat each other. Treadwell had so much knowledge about Grizzly Bears he started to even act like them. For example, he would hit the nose of a bear just like a bear would do to another bear. It really showed how much he cared and respected these animals.

Treadwell refers the bear as an individual, and that each bear has its own personality. This really shows when he had pointed out one of the bears being very calm and then another fisty. The pilot also feels this way when he went to go look for Timothy and his girlfriend he had seen a bear, and his first thought was this bear looks mean. Sure enough that was the bear that had killed Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend.

Timothy had said in this film that he would die for a bear, and that no matter what the circumstances were he would never kill a one. This shows true love for these animals. Not too many people would do what Timothy did, but when you have the love for something like he did torwards bears you would do anything for them. He did this for 13 years, and would go around to different places to teach about them. This is called true dedication. I know that I could never interact with animals like he did, especially grizzly bears, but I have much respect for what he did.

Blog # 12

I thought the film Grizzly Man was very interesting to watch and learn about. I really like how it shows the side of human interaction with an animal that may seem like a warm cuddly animal, but in reality is completely different and cannot be treated like a human. Timothy Treadwell did a really dangerous thing in my mind; however, he really cared for the bears and that is what he was trying to show. It is very unfortanute that the bears are the cause of his death, but in a way I think it is none other than his own fault. Anyone with normal common sense would not get that up close and personal to grizzy bears. They are the most dangerous animals known to earth.

I am not sure what was going through Treadwell's mind when he thought this would be a good idea. Even by him acting in a grizzly bear sort of way, they are still different creatures. Bears can do anything at anytime and us as humans can not predict their next move. I cannot believe that he would want to put himself in that sort of danger, unless he was hoping to die in order to make a statement. I think that if he knew that the bears that killed him were going to be killed he might have been a little more careful, because I am almost positive he would not have wanted that to happen.

I have really never watched any movies like this or heard of anyone doing such thing. I think Treadwell was in a totally crazy mind set, and that his friends and family were crazy for not stopping him. It is one thing to study bears and to video them, but to get up close and personal is very dangerous. Grizzly bears need there space just as humans need there space so when Treadwell moved in he was invading their habitat. One thing I do like is that Treadwell caused absolultey no harm to the grizzly bears which was a really good thing. However, that does not bring his life nor his girlfriends life back. I think the entire idea was crazy!

Grizzly Man

What I found interesting about Grizzly Man was not so much his actions within the forest, becasue having seen them filmed they seemed reasonable and the animals seemed receptive. What I found most surprising was the responses of some of the people interviewed to talk about him, they seemed genuinely unsupportive and really very critical of his actions. It seemed to me the animals welcomed him for the most part, I didn't think he necessarily tried to become a bear like many of those interviewed did, but he more so imitated a bear culture just as you would imitate a foriegn country you were visiting to fit in. Its like in chapter 7 of Animals and Why They Matter, Midgely talks about this misconception people have that animals like tiger, lions, bears or whatever just murder for the fun of it. People are no different, we kill to survive. Timothy Treadwell said it himself, he knew that if it came down to a life or death situation for the bears that they certainly would not hesitate to kill him. Judging by the way he talked he did not seem to frightened, but really more understanding that this was the nature of the beast. I don't think that he would have wanted the bear that killed him to die for what it did. He spent his life in a mutual relationship between himself and I think for him to be eaten by bears was maybe the only way his films could have recieved the attention they did. I think he would consider himself a martyr for the bears rather than a victim of them.

Grizzly Man-Blog #12

I thought this film was interesting because it shows the relationships humans have with animals, especially the relationship with Timothy Treadwell and grizzly bears. I never really thought of humans having close relationships with wild and dangerous animals until watching the movie. Even though his life was ended by a grizzly bear, he enjoyed what he did for the 13 summers. The movie the audience a better view on the grizzly bears habitat and the way they live. I don't think that the film would have turned out the way it did without Treadwill's up close and personal taping of the bears. His videography shows how he loved nature and the animals that are a part of it. He cared for animals especially grizzly bears and it really surprised me how close he would get to the grizzly bears, knowing they are the most dangerous animals living on this earth.

I feel like Treadwell brought his death upon himself because of the way he acted towards the grizzly bears. I would like to think that he knew grizzly bears are wild animals and you never know what they might do next. It is a shame to know that the bear that killed him and his girlfriend had to be killed because I think if Treadwell had a say, he wouldn't want the bear to be killed because of the love and respect he showed towards grizzly bears. Even though Treadwell's death is a tragedy I feel like he should have known better and maybe not have gotten so close to them in the first place. I honestly think Treadwell was not in the right state of mind when he decided to venture to Alaska and live with the grizzly bears, because who in the right mind would do that knowing bears can and will do anything in a split second.

Overall, the main point of the movie was to show how people need to respect nature and the animals that surround nature. I think the movie takes it to an extreme to show a human's close relationship with grizzly bears, because since they are grizzly bears they are considered wild animals and their needs will be met on their own. I think Treadwill went a little too far when he practically moved into the grizzly bears home and environment. Since they are wild animals I think that their habitat should be left alone and not interrupted especially by humans. Even though he did nothing to harm the grizzly bears, they don't know how to react to a human 10x smaller than them who came into their territory.

The Grizzly Man

The film consists of Treadwell's own footage of his interactions with grizzly bears. And a variety of interviews with people who knew or were involved with Treadwell. The film talked about how Treadwell spent 13 summers in Katmai National Park in Alaska. The film showed that over time, Treadwell believed the bears trusted him and that they allow him to approach them. In the film it showed how he would sometimes touch them. I think that Treadwell was a little bit crazy, by getting so close to the bears in the first place, and for another actually touching them.

I found the different opinions from the interviews about Treadwell to be interesting. The Native American Museum worker mentioned that Treadwell insulted the bears by trying to be one and by getting so close to them in their territory. The pilot which was on of Treadwells friends said that Treadwell, was a great man, but he was foolish to try to live so close to grizzly bears. He did say that he knew Treadwell would have wished he wouldn't have found him and that he would have been content with dying from a bear attack.

I found the Grizzly Man film to be very interesting. I never knew that a man once lived in the wild as Treadwell did with grizzly bears. I did find it interesting how Treadwell was able to talk to the bears and actually touch them without being bitten by one of the bears. I find it very unfortunate for Treadwell and his girlfriend to have died from a bear attack. But to be honest I feel like many people knew that it would probably happen one day when they ran into a wrong untamed bear.

Blog #12

I thought this film was very interesting to watch, but also very hard to watch. I have never heard of some one doing something like this before, living with wild animals, and I think it is crazy. To me, it is common sense that there are certain boundaries between humans and wild animals that must be respected. A grizzly bear is definitely not something that comes to mind when I think of animals I'd want to be around. I have always thought of them as violent and strong, easily able to kill a human without hesitation. It was amazing how long Timothy Treadwell was able to live with these bears and aside from the danger, his motives were something worthy of admiration. He was willing to sacrifice his life and saftey for something that he thought had a greater purpose.

It showed another side of nature that humans do not often get to experience, especially when it comes to bears. He tried to show people the "gentle" side of bears and that they are able to be trusted. However, I think this crossed the line many times that set him up for the event that ended of his life. He was around them with no fear or protection, almost as if he underestimated their power and wild nature. He also seemed overly confident about how they felt about him, assuming undoubtedly that they respected and enjoyed his company as much as he did them; I don't understand what made him think that he knew them so well. It was as if he viewed the bears like humans dressed up as bears, as stated in the movie. He did not treat them as animals, but as companions.

Overall, it was amazing how he handled the bears and learned about their life and natural habitat. He always treated them with kindess and showed his love for them. This is the exact opposite of how many people treat animals today, especially ones that are a threat to us. He was able to fully appreciate their existence and treat them as an equal. I think this documentary was something very imporant for others to see, but I wish more caution had been expressed. The lack of fear he exhibited attributed to the tragic death of him and his girlfriend. Their death is very sad to me especially because it was caused from what he loved so much and desire to protect. It was an ironic turn of events, but it teaches a valuable lesson to all who have been able to hear his story. It was a clear sign that even someone who lived with bears for so long and was very familiar to them, respecting them and learning their way of life, was not able to survive; wild animals are wild animals, driven by instinct and not moral decision.

Blog #12

The film we watched about Timothy Treadwell was interesting, but at the same time, a little disturbing. The first and main reason I felt it was disturbing was because it was like watching the moments before someone's death, when you know it's coming. The fact that he was a real person (and that this wasn't just a staged film) gave in an almost creepy tone in my mind. Also, the fact that he is now dead makes me feel bad (or worse I guess) about saying I think he was mentally unstable. I believe there is something deeply ingrained in us by our culture that says once a person passes away it is wrong to say anything negative about them. That's how it feels, at least.

My problems with what Timothy Treadwell was doing are not easily put into words. I do believe that bears, as living creatures, deserve to be treated with respect, and to me, respecting them means leaving them alone and letting them live out their lives like normal. Timothy Treadwell clearly had good intentions and wanted what he believed to be best for the bears, but I do not agree with how he went about it. Some of his actions in the film were mildly disturbing as well, beginning with the fact that he was naming these wild animals and treating them as though they were puppies he just adopted from a pet shop - which clearly was not the case. He named the bears and even acted as though they were close personal friends. I was annoyed with him when he was filming the fox playing with his hat (which, I will admit, was pretty adorable) and then he got angry when the fox took off with the hat. He was calling after it and demanding that the fox bring the hat back. One has to ask, did he really believe that this fox - a wild animal - was going to understand what he wanted and bring the hat back? Did he not expect something like that to happen? It was just incredibly bizarre. Even domesticated dogs and cats who are used to having humans talk to them and tell them what to do would not necessarily return the hat.

The way Timothy Treadwell talked and acted reminded me of someone who was either 1) on drugs or 2) developmentally delayed mentally and/or emotionally. Like I mentioned before, It feels strange to say this at all, let alone about someone who has since passed away, but I am trying to be honest in this blog. I think the fact that he loved the bears and wanted to do everything he could to protect them and give them the best life possible was admirable. He seemed to think of them as his family and friends, which I'm sure is how a lot of us view our pets. I know when it comes to my cat, I feel similar to how Treadwell seems to have felt - I treat her sometimes the way I would a friend. I even talk to her as though she were a friend on occasion. However, I found it incredibly strange that Treadwell seemed to believe that these bears were just like him. I recognize the differences between humans and aminals, and realize that we don't have to be the same in order to love and respect all the animals in the world. I think it's a shame that Treadwell lost his life because he so misjudged the bears he was working with.

Blog 11- Timothy Treadwell

This documentary about Timothy Treadwell’s expeditions with grizzly bears was quite interesting. This man spent 13 summers living with grizzly bears. He dedicated his life to spreading the word about the beauty of grizzly bears and that they should be offered protection and given respect. He embodied what it meant to be completely at peace with nature and took an extreme approach to defending grizzly bears’ existence. His story offers a unique perspective on the beauty of nature, but also one on the reality of its dangers.

I found this film interesting because it shows actual clips of what Treadwell had filmed while out living with the bears. Treadwell was without a doubt a caring individual who took a great interest in nature and animals.  He even nicknamed the bears- “Mr. Chocolate, The Grinch, etc”. But was that interest taken to an unsafe and unintelligent level? I would say yes. I see Timothy Treadwell as a man with good intentions who just lost sight of the reality of how potentially dangerous nature can be. Nature is not out to harm humans, but I think that a level of distance should be kept from those animals that are wild. I think that Tim’s mistake was believing that the bears would not attack if he stood his ground and didn’t provoke them. No matter how good Treadwell’s intentions were, the fact of the situation was that he was fraternizing with wild bears and finally, one bear lashed out and killed not only him, but also his girlfriend.

I thought the different viewpoints shown in this documentary helped me keep my focus on the reality of the situation and the different opinions that different cultures have. The Native American Museum attendant said that Treadwell insulted the bears by trying to be one. The pilot of the plane said that Treadwell, while he was a great man, was foolish to try to live so closely to wild grizzly bears. He said that the real tragedy was that he got his innocent girlfriend killed.

This documentary brought to light the varying viewpoints and extreme stances taken on nature. Treadwell’s was that nature and wild animals are not something to be feared, but instead closely associated with. We are meant to preserve nature and develop close relationships with its inhabitants. My personal opinion is that yes, nature should be preserved and protected, but wild animals are wild animals and precautions need to be taken to ensure your and the animals' safety.

#12

This film was very interesting to me, and originally I did not know what to expect. All I could think about was how a man spent 13 summers with grizzly bears. To me that is insane. When I hear of a grizzly bear, I don't think of it as a friendly animal, it's more of an animal that I would be afraid of. So for Tim Treadwell to somehow tame them the way he did was very impressive. I would be very concerned about the bear turning on me. We ourselves are not animals, and although we may believe that we know what they are thinking, sometimes we really don't have an idea.

Tim could not really socialize with the animals even though he talked to them, some parts of the video I thought were silly. Granted we name our animals at home, like our dogs and cats, but to become so attached to grizzly bears and name them I think it's crazy. Names that he gave the bear and foxes such as "Mr. Chocolate, Spirit, and Ghost," I thought I was odd that he actually had names for them. He seems very hard to read because I'm not quite sure what his intention of actually living with the bears was.

Overall, I thought this video/documentary was good and interesting, but I do not know how Tim and his girlfriend lived there for 13 summers. I hate to say it but eventually you would think that they would come across the wrong bear that could not be tamed, and I would actually expect them to get eaten by a bear. It is not common that someone just goes and lives with bears. I believe that Tim overstepped his boundaries and should have left the bears and their habitat alone.

Blog 12

Timothy Tidwell's story and his many expeditions among the bears was more interesting then I had originally imagined. His cause/care for the bears and wildlife that surrounded him was quite admirable, but his total lack of fear of the bears seemed quite silly to the average viewer. But, in a sense, one can see why Tidwell may have adopted this attitude. He spent 13 summers with the bears and learned the tendencies of each of the creatures. He followed them around around day to day and observed their behaviors. Even when he was not with them, he went around the world speaking about them and defending their rights. It seems to one that after all that work for a specific group, one would have to feel connected to them on a deeper level, the way Tidwell seemed to be with the bears of Alaska.
I thought it was very interesting when the other ecologists, biologists, natives, pilots, ect. gave their views on Tidwell's actions. I would have to agree with them that Tidwell, in his love for the bears and sense of connection that he felt toward them, forgot the species barrier and the fact that bears are a different creature then human beings. One commentator even described Tidwell as wanting to leave his humanness behind and bind with the bears in a type of primordial experience. One can see this in the way that Tidwell is explained to have growled at others like a bear when feeling threatened. This desire to bind with the bears may have led Tidwell to act like he was dealing with humans in bear costumes (as another commentator described it), not a different and more vicious species.
All in all, the portion of the movie/ documentary that the class viewed was very interesting. Hertzog, the filmmaker, did a wonderful of job of capturing Tidwell's personality and love for the bears as well as his altered attitude toward them that led to his death. Hertzog's introduction of other commentators and their views on Tidwell were equally insightful and expressive of other opinions and views, no matter how callous or truthful. I feel that I learned quite a bit from the movie and was better able to visualize some of the emotions and views towards animals that Midgley documents in her writings.

Grizzly Man

Throughout the documentary, I had a mix of emotions in relation to what Tim Treadwell was doing in Alaska. At times, I thought that he was definitely overstepping his boundaries. The grizzly bears were even referred to as the most dangerous animals walking on Earth, knowing this, why would a human being be so dumb and live in their habitat? The documentary depicted Tim as trying to be one with the bears and show people that the bears trusted him and would not harm him because he understood them. This seems silly considering he could not communicate with the bears so how would he know if they trusted him? I believe animals can sense human body language; perhaps Tim was lucky and approached them in such a way that did not make the bears guard their territory or cubs.

There were some parts of the film where Tim seemed a little crazy and made me think that it's no wonder the bear "turned on him" all of a sudden. There were other parts, however, where I thought that maybe it was ok for him to be there living with the bears. Granted it was the bears' territory, but he was not doing anything to harm them. It never once showed that he did not care about the bears. It was amazing to see how close he would get to the bears without any fear or discomfort. To me, it just seems like a human being can never fully understand an animal - what it is thinking, or what its next move will be. How can humans become so trusting of such a beastly animal like the grizzly bear?

I thought the documentary was good and I enjoyed seeing an up-close view of the bears and the beautiful land in Alaska. It's too bad the bear that killed Tim and his girlfriend had to be killed; I understand the reasoning behind it but it is kind of ironic that Tim essentially caused it's death - someone who loved bears so much and never wanted them to be harmed for any reason. I think it goes to show just that I stated above - that you can never be too sure about wild animals. No matter how cute, harmless, or friendly they may seem, you never know what they might do.

MOVIE BLOG

I think that this movie is very interesting and shows how humans can relate to animals to a certain degree. Tim is a very interesting man who you could possibly interpret as a psycho like the helicopter pilot did. Tim shows no fear in bears and stands with them rather than against. What his camera captures is very special and shows the elements of nature. One important lesson he teaches us is that in order to survive with the bears, you must show no fear and stand your ground.

Coincidentally, we find out later in the film that Tim is killed and eaten by a bear that seemed to be more aggressive than the others. Nobody knows why the bear attacked Tim. It could have thought to itself that Tim would taste good, or that it has had enough with Tim. Tim could have become blind by his own work and forgot that he is actually dealing with wild grizzly bears.

One of the natives in Alaska thought very negatively about what Tim was doing with the bears. He believed that bears and humans existed in their own worlds. Therefore a human should not interfere with the bears. He also believes that what Tim did was disrespectful towards the bears. What Tim was doing was a sign of embarrassment to himself.

In my opinion what Tim was doing was completely fine because he was at his own risk and no one else's. What he did takes a lot of courage. He was interacting with nature and the animals. Tim's movie really shows great footage of grizzly bears and of him being part of them.

Dead Dolphins: giant oil spill or "chilly weather?"

Marine scientists are debating whether the over 80 bottlenose dolphins found dead along the U.S. Gulf Coast since January have been due to affects from last year's massive oil spill or a winter cold snap. Regardless, upwards near 100 dead dolphins in the Gulf is indicative of something wrong.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared "an unusual mortality event" last week when the number of dead dolphins washing up in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida had reached nearly 60, What's more disconcerting is that about half of these were newly born or stillborn calves. The death toll along 200 miles of shoreline has climbed to at least 82 since then, many times the normal mortality rate for dolphins along the Gulf Coast this time of year. Although none so far showed outward signs of oil contamination, suspicions immediately turned to the various toxic petrochemicals that fouled Gulf waters after a BP drilling platform exploded last April, rupturing a wellhead on the sea floor. An estimated 5 million barrels (206 million gallons) of crude oil spewed into the Gulf over more than three months (but then, people are still arguing over that) and scientists in the Gulf already were in the midst of investigating last year's discovery of nearly 90 dead dolphins, when officials became alarmed at this surge in dead baby dolphins.

The latest spike in deaths, and a high concentration of premature infants among them, has led some experts to speculate that oil ingested or inhaled by dolphins at the time of the spill has taken a toll on the marine mammals, possibly leading to dolphin miscarriages and this die-off has come at the start of the first dolphin calving season in the Gulf since the BP blowout.

But then, scientists at the independent Dolphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama suggested on Thursday that "unusually chilly water temperatures in the Gulf may be a key factor." Right. It just got a bit chilly and over 80 dolphins miscarried in January. Yeah, I'm going with the petrochemicals.

ch 4

Humans prides them selve on rationalism, this was espeicaly true when it came to the enlightened peirod. The turm Justice is so highly regared in human society but yet their is no right to justice for animals. This was because in human society animals do not have the right to own property and so forth.

Ch.3

The question that animals have emotions? If a person has had a dog or cat as a companion, then you know that animals have emotions. Just because animals do not show emotions in the same ways as a humans does not mean they do not feel. Do not take the concept of reasons and not take into consideration of emotion is a very big mistake that humans do when it comes to animals .

Blog #11

The movie Plague Dogs was a very sad movie, but I think it put experiments into reality for many of us. I know that we use animals to experiment, but I thought it was mostly just animals like rats or mice. I did not know that dogs were used. I know that there should be know difference and it is not okay to use rats or mice either, but to see them experiment on Rowlf until he drowned was so depressing. I think it puts into perspective how overboard us humans go with the power that we have. We should not be allowed to treat animals like that and use our power in cruel ways.


I really liked how the movie put us into the minds of the dogs and had the animals talking so we could see it from their perspective. It made the entire movie more realistic. I also like the aspect of the movie that the one dog wanted a master. he loved how he was treated and wanted another good master. That goes to show that we as humans know the proper way to treat animals, but that is not everyone. Some people still think it is okay to make animals suffer. In the end it made Rowlf stronger because he was able to withstand staying in the water for a longer period of time, but all the suffering he had to go through to get to that point was very disturing.

In the book it said that both of the dogs ended up being saved in the end and they both recieved masters. I think that is a good ending, but I do not think this is by any means a kids movie. I do not even know if I agree with this movie being shown in public. I think it should only be allowed to be shown for learning purposes and research. It is a very disturbing, depressing movie.

Blog #11

The movie Plague Dogs was very depressing and just horrible. I cannot believe that this movie was even made, but it does show us that animal cruelty really does exist, and how experimenting on them really does fall under animal cruelty. In the beginning of the movie it showed a dog named Rowf in water nearly drowning, and eventually he did. They were experimenting on him to show the effect it has on dogs being rescued. To me this is sad to know that people really do experiments like this to animals. They nearly let them die, and then will save them. This is a crucial thing to do, and now Rowf is fearful of water. This does prove that when bad things happen it does not go away.

Snitter is the other dog that escapes with Rowf from the lab. They are actually free for the first time since they have been in this place. All Snitter is wanting is a master, he used to have one and he loved and missed that. He tries to explain to Rowf how great it is, and that is what they need to find. During their journey, they are running from the people who will take them back to the lab, and their life will be over again. They ran into the ocean, and these men were shooting at them, but they missed everytime. They just kept swimming and swimming, and Rowf was scared at first but realized that he needed to do this or he would be back where he escaped from. Snitter was getting weaker and weaker but Rowf kept pushing him to keep swimming, and telling him that they are almost there.

I believe that Rowf was used to surviving the water after the experiment he went through from the beginning of the movie. He would not give up. It does not show it in the movie, but it says it in the book that both dogs did survive, and they both got a master. They were free again, definitley a better ending than a beginning. This movie made me have more love and respect for animals. They to do have feelings, and it shows it in this movie. I do not agree with the experiments that are being done on animals, it needs to stop.

Blog #11

The movie Plague Dogs was depressing, in a sense, in relation to the idea that the occurances that were seen in the movie really do happen each and everyday.  Animal experimentation is a reality and will continue to be performed until someone brings a stop to this issue.  The movie started out with Rowf, a big black dog, in a tank filled with water, which was of course an experiment.  Although this was not seen in the movie, the experiment was done to note the psychological effect of being rescued.  The experimenter saw that after each trial, Rowf was able to last longer due to thought of being rescued. 

Snitter, another dog in the animal experimentation facility, made the journey with Rowf in the movie.  At the beginning of the movie when the dogs jumped in the incenerator, was the time when I truly realized my soft spot for animals.  Rowf and Snitter were so close to getting ignited and they had no idea what was about to happen to them. The moment when the dogs escaped from the facility, I was so excited, especially after they were so close to death.  They had a chance to live free and not be used for tourture anymore.  Rowf and Snitter were just looking for a "master", someone to take care of them and love them.  This made me think that this is the case with most animals.

The movie ended more happily than I thought it would.  When the dogs started towards the ocean, I thought it was bad news.  The dogs kept swimming and swimming, and Snitter looked as if he was ready to give up, but Rowf kept saying just a little longer.  I believe this related to the experimenat that was taking place in the beginning of the movie.  The dogs were able to fight through drowning at the idea of reaching dry land.  Thankfully, the movie did  not end with the dogs drowning because that would have been devastating.  The movie Plague Dogs made me realize how important animals are to me, especially dogs, and the emotional attachment that accompanies them.