The Case Against Animal Rights?

(On facebook nowadays, everyone's opinion is thrust at you through status updates, which is basically like twitter, but for those without the urge to update every 10 minutes. You get all sorts of updates- things that you understand, messages that make no sense, and updates from people you rarely see or dislike. This is one of those situations.)

One of my former "kids" from the youth orchestra I managed at NEC is really conservative...and spends a lot of time online. Earlier this year, I made sure to eliminate her from my "feed" but facebook is sketchy and it doesn't always work. I mostly was just tired of seeing her count down (daily) to the end of high school or her rants about Obama or non-Christians. But today's made me chuckle.

"How about we start treating humans better before we even start thinking about animal rights?"

Here's what I think: Well, sweetie, let's treat all beings with respect. Let's be nice to humans, even liberals, and then we can talk. I truly do not believe that humans are not necessarily "above" all other creatures on earth, therefore making it difficult for me to justify hurting those other creatures. Even if you think Buddhist and Hindu concepts of reincarnation are bollocks, one can't deny that humans tend to destroy the earth, whether that includes humans, animals, plants, or other naturally occurring live-forms. If we only focus our efforts on humans, and get rid of the desire to save endangered species, stop poor treatment of factory animals, or stop the fur trade, then we are indulging in selfishness and forgetting about the interconnectedness of all beings on earth. Most of the animals that need "rights" are endangered by us. Humans. So maybe people who advocate for the earth or for animals or for the green movement DO care about humans- they're just more interested in undoing the hundreds of years of damage that we've done through industrialization and lack of ethics. But let's stop having wars, stop gangs, stop bombing people, change our immigration policies, improve the economy, teach people to make do with less, and then we can not just be animal rights activists, but life activists. Because it's all connected. All life is special, whether it be a mosquito, a human, or a gopher.* And it's our job, as the creatures with the biggest tools, to help everyone out, whether fuzzy or human. It's the wilderness explorer way.

*(I saw a gopher today in the grass!!!!)

listening to: the top albums of '09: st vincent, grizzly bear, animal collective, dark was the night.

UP and down. A movie contemplation!

Last night, I saw the new Pixar movie, UP! and I have to say that it was an interesting movie.  I don't know that it makes my Pixar top 5 (which are, in no order, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Toy Story, Wall-E, and Monsters Inc.) but it was a solidly interesting film.  In it, the main character, the grumpy old man Carl is mourning his deceased wife, who always wanted to live a life of adventure.  Yet, Carl feels that she died prematurely, before she was able to realize her dream of going to "Paradise Falls" in South America.  He feels that he needs to find Paradise Falls so that he can realize their shared dream, and complete her work.  Carl's quite unsavory for the first half of the movie, and snaps at Russell (the token pseudo boy scout) who miraculously ends up on his porch once he's lifted off with his balloons.  Aside from all the adventuring and 3-d graphics, there are some bigger issues that underpinned this film.

1) Carl is so caught up mourning Ellie (his wife) that he can't live in the moment, and he can't really communicate with other people effectively.  He is unable to accept her absence, and almost blames everyone else in the world for her death.  That's pretty heavy stuff for a children's film, and I honestly think it's very relevant.

2) Carl has regrets for Ellie's life, and constantly feels that they didn't live their life together to the fullest potential.  At a point in the film, he opens her childhood journal, where she had outlined the adventure to Paradise Falls, and "the stuff I'm going to do there."  He assumes that she never got to fill in the "stuff" part, since she never went there, but then discovers that she filled it with pictures of their life together.  She led her life with no regrets, and that her biggest adventure was really with Carl.  It didn't really matter that they didn't go to Paradise Falls- it was more that she had loads of smaller adventures with Carl.  When he realizes this, he's able to move on, and stop mourning her as much.  She writes in the book "Thanks for the adventure...Now go and find a new one!" 

3) When Carl and Russell finally get to Paradise Falls, they come upon a rare bird (that looks like a dinosaur) that an old explorer on the island is trying to capture.  Even though Carl idolized this explorer as a child, he realizes that this man will do anything to capture this bird, and isn't able to realize the importance of the bird's life or family.  Much like Wall-e, Pixar is able to subtly suggest an environmentalist agenda, i.e. being kind and helpful to all animals.  While Carl initially regrets that idea, Russell (the boy) is on a mission to help all animals, which reminds us to be caring and respectful to the wilderness and the animals there and here, in our own backyards.  

Overall, the film still has some odd plot holes.  (Like how come the dogs can talk?  How did Carl get all those balloons?  Why didn't he bring more on the journey?  How did they get to South America?  How come the adventurer guy is like 25 years older than Carl, and then they look the same age when they meet?)  But the messages of the film are still quite nice, as they usually are with Pixar films.

Currently listening to: the new Andrew Bird album.  Finally.