Project 2: 800 Word Draft
As humans, we often forget that we are animals, just like your pet dog —excluding the idea that they too have a consciousness capable of subjective mental experiences. Western culture influences ignorance of subjective mental experiences; by creating a perceived notion that animals’ relative intelligence to humans defines whether an animal is conscious.
Emotion can change one’s perspective about anything. However, invalidating emotions is immoral as it can make one feel unimportant or mean nothing. There is a tendency among western culture to invalidate animals consciousness. On the other hand, a religion in India known as Jainism defies this concept and emphasizes validating animals’ consciousness. Anderson informs the reader about Jainism and its comparison to western culture, “Jains move through the world in this gentle way because they believe animals are conscious beings that experience, in varying degrees, emotions analogous to human desire, fear, pain, sorrow, and joy. This idea that animals are conscious was long unpopular in the West, but it has lately found favor among scientists who study animal cognition.” (4) Jains demonstrate respect for the world around them because they recognize actions have consequences that can affect others. . Western culture does not recognize the consequences actions have because animals are viewed as unable to use their intelligence to make decisions.. It would be best to treat animals with the same respect as humans, as they are our equals. Wallace describes a real-life example at the Maine lobster festival when the lobsters are in the tank at the festival in apparent suffering, “In any event, at the MLF, standing by the bubbling tanks outside the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, watching the fresh-caught lobsters pile over one another, wave their hobbled claws impotently, huddle in the rear corners, or scrabble frantically back from the glass as you approach, it is difficult not to sense that they are unhappy, or frightened, even if it is some rudimentary version of these feelings… and, again, why does rudimentary even enter into it? Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person helping to inflict it by paying for the food it results in?” (MLA) The festival participants completely ignore the lobsters and focus on their food needs, demonstrating Western culture’s selfish ideologies. Doing this to a human would be considered abuse. This shows the lack of respect humans have for animals and do not recognize the sacrifice these animals go through just to put food on our tables. But the question is we still need to eat, what do we do? How do we do this humanely and recognize the sacrifice they are doing for us. Recognize the suffering. Accept the fact that every action has a consequence that in some cases requires a sacrifice. Treat the animals with dignity.
Communication, such as language in humans, can vary as collective groups or nations; they have the set language they use to converse. However, universal forms of communication exist, such as facial expressions and gestures. Similarly, animals use actions or sounds to engage with the world around them. Specifically, in western culture, there is a tendency to ignore communication from animals. In Wallace’s essay, he discusses humans’ ignorance towards lobsters’ communication. He gives a comparative example of worms in pain versus lobsters in pain, “the lobster’s behavior in the kettle appears to be the expression of preference; and it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering…When we assert based on post-op behavior, that these worms appear not to be suffering, what we’re really saying is that there’s no sign the worms know anything bad has happened or would prefer not to have gotten cut in half.” (251) Wallace conveys that since animals cannot speak the same language or communicate the same way as humans, we will never know the exact meaning. Nevertheless, we can make pretty accurate guesses as to what they want. An example of this is that a baby will show emotion to communicate its needs or preferences. So, when the lobster clearly shows that it does not want to be in a boiling pot of water, there is probably a reason why. Anderson discusses the communication crows use around humans; he describes, “Crows recognize individual human faces. They are known to blare vicious caws at people they dislike, but for favored humans, they sometimes leave gifts ⎯buttons or shiny bits of glass ⎯where the person will be sure to notice, like votive offerings.” (12) This demonstrates a positive view of communication between humans and animals and supports Wallace’s view that showing preference is critical in communication because it communicates our needs and wants. When humans choose to recognize other animals’ forms of communication as reliable, it shows that animals have the intelligence to make accurate decisions. One example from my personal life is my dog, Millie. She can whimper and cry when she is in pain. On the other hand, when I see a spider, I want to kill it. However, I ignore that the spider is in pain because it does not scream, flinch, or fight back. Western Culture is known for having selfish tendencies towards animals; in western culture, the necessary need for food often overrules an animal’s pain. However, unlike most animal products, lobsters are cooked alive to be marketed as ‘fresh.’ So, when you purchase your freshly boiled lobster, it is sacrificed right then and there. It is not like chicken where it is butchered far in advance. People do not connect that the lobster feels pain for an unknown reason. This is the case for most animal products purchased. Evidence to prove this is from Consider the Lobster; Wallace included a moment in the car with a political consultant from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, discussing with the local cab driver about the Maine Lobster Festival. For context, PETA has been striking the Maine Lobster Festival for years about the promotion of lobster cruelty. When discussing the question ‘do lobsters feel pain?’ the cab driver responds with your typical Mainer answer, “Dick – whose son-in-law happens to be a professional lobsterman and one of the Main Eating Tent’s regular suppliers – explains what he and his family feel is the crucial mitigating factor in the whole morality-of-boiling-lobsters-alive issue: ‘There’s a part of the brain in people and animals that let us feel pain, and lobster’s brains don’t have this part.’ Besides the fact that its incorrect in about nine different ways, the main reason Dick’s statement is interesting is that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s pronouncement on lobsters and pain,” (245). The festival chooses to put out false information to manipulate customers. If the festival were ever to say yes, ‘lobsters are in pain when cooked alive’, the industry would crash under its feet. The ideology’ ignorance is bliss’ is common in western culture. It encourages ignorance of their selfish wants. Putting this into perspective, it is easier to ignore an animal’s pain further from humans due to humans’ inner struggle to relate to the animal. As a result, there is a tendency to feel less empathy for them. For instance, if a lobster does not react the same way as may a human would, it is easier to put it in pain. Studies have been put into place to investigate pain sensations in animals further; as mentioned in What the Crow Knows, a study investigated pain sensors in fish. They found that fish do feel pain. They do not have the intelligence to incorporate the pain into the scenario they are put in. It says, “One of the most intense states of consciousness, pain is something beyond the mere detection of damage. Even the simplest bacteria have sensors on their external membranes; when the sensors detect trace amounts of dangerous chemicals, the bacteria respond with a programmed flight reflex. Nevertheless, the bacteria have no central nervous system where these signals are integrated into a three-dimensional experience of the chemical environment.” (13) The study contradicts the Maine Lobster Festivals pronouncement on pain in lobsters. It proves that even fish, who do not outwardly express pain, can feel it. Proving the statement, the festival puts out to be incorrect and that they are doing this as a marketing strategy. By comparing animals to us and viewing them as less intelligent results in not realizing their conscious beings just like us. It has been shown that humans instinctively categorize things to comprehend information better. So, humans might tend to put fewer human-like animals more towards objects if they do not outwardly express pain. This can be selfish because, as humans, we ignore the pain they go through to get what we want.
Project 2: Peer Review
Layne’s Project 2 Peer Review:
Ryan’s Project 2 Peer Review:
Project 2 Essay
Corinne Frazier
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
April 3rd, 2022
Naturally Human
As humans, we often forget animals are just like us, capable of subjective mental experiences. Such as emotion, communication, and pain intertwine to interact with the world around them. In David Foster Wallace’s piece Consider the Lobster, the lobstering industry is criticized from the viewpoint of a traditional festival.At the same time, Ross Anderson’s What the Crow Knows discusses animal consciousness through the eyes of Jainism. Human’s selfish nature influence ignorance of subjective mental experiences; by creating a perceived notion that animals’ relative intelligence to humans defines whether an animal is conscious.
In all beings, perspective is based on personal experience that dictates one’s emotions—further explaining human nature’s tendency to invalidate emotions if their own experiences do not match another’s. Anderson informs the reader about a religion, Jainism, based in India and is known for validating animals’ consciousness, “Jains move through the world in this gentle way because they believe animals are conscious beings that experience, in varying degrees, emotions analogous to human desire, fear, pain, sorrow, and joy. This idea that animals are conscious was long unpopular in the West, but it has lately found favor among scientists who study animal cognition.” (4) Unlike most, Jains demonstrate respect for the world around them because they emphasize that actions have consequences. Naturally, humans struggle to recognize actions that consequently affect animals. If they cannot relate to the animal-based on personal experiences, they will struggle to have emotion. An example best fit is my dog, Millie. Almost every night, she would start barking and running around whimpering to go outside because she smelled something. I cannot relate to this because I do not have the level of smell dogs do. So, I do not understand why she goes crazy and wants to chase after the animal outside. However, I understand when she whimpers at the pain of ice in her paw. For humans, it is easy to dissociate from unrelatable pain.
Humans tend to dissociate from the origins of animal products. Wallace describes a prominent example at the Maine lobster festival; when the lobsters are in the tank suffering, “In any event, at the MLF, standing by the bubbling tanks outside the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, watching the fresh-caught lobsters pile over one another, wave their hobbled claws impotently, huddle in the rear corners, or scrabble frantically back from the glass as you approach, it is difficult not to sense that they are unhappy, or frightened, even if it is some rudimentary version of these feelings… and, again, why does rudimentary even enter into it? Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person helping to inflict it by paying for the food it results in?” (252) The festival participants completely ignore the lobster’s suffering and focus on their hunger pangs. However, how do humans recognize suffering in unrelatable beings’? Honestly, we must accept that every action has a consequence that, in some cases, requires a sacrifice, including facing the negative emotions that come with sacrificing for the greater good. As a human race, we cannot ignore the deliberate decision to put animals in suffering and pain. As it is clear communication, something is wrong.
Communication can vary in collective groups or nations, such as language in humans. However, universal forms of communication exist, such as facial expressions and gestures. Similarly, animals use actions or sounds to engage with the world around them. Specifically, in humans, there is a tendency to ignore animal communication. Wallace discusses humans’ ignorance towards lobsters’ inclination. He gives a comparative example of lobsters in pain versus worms in pain,“the lobster’s behavior in the kettle appears to be the expression of preference; and it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering…When we assert based on post-op behavior that these worms appear not to be suffering, what we’re really saying is that there is no sign the worms know anything bad has happened or would prefer not to have gotten cut in half.” (251) Wallace conveys that we will never know the exact meaning of animal communication. Nevertheless, we can make pretty accurate guesses about the meaning of their expression. An example of this is a baby will show emotion to communicate its needs or preferences, such as crying or giggling. So, when a lobster expresses that it would prefer not to be in a boiling pot of water, there is probably a reason. Specifically, humans ignore communication from animals relatively farther away. To make an animal seem inanimate in our minds. However, communication between humans and animals is not always negative.
Positive communication is shown through Anderson when he discusses the communication crows use around humans; he describes, “Crows recognize individual human faces. They are known to blare harsh caws at people they dislike, but for favored humans, they sometimes leave gifts ⎯buttons or shiny bits of glass ⎯where the person will be sure to notice, like votive offerings.” (12) This demonstrates a positive view of communication between humans and animals and supports Wallace’s view that showing preference is critical in communication. When humans choose to recognize other animals’ forms of communication as reliable, it shows that animals have the intelligence to make accurate decisions. One example from my personal life is my dog, Millie. She can whimper and cry when she is in pain. If I kill a spider, it does not scream, flinch, or fight back even though it is in apparent pain.
Pain is a sensation individual for every being and relative to past painful experiences. It can be compared, but the personal definition of pain varies. In many cases, the human need for food often overrules an animal’s pain. Wallace proves this when he describes a moment in the car with a political consultant from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, discussing with the local cab driver about the Maine Lobster Festival. For context, PETA has been striking the Maine Lobster Festival for years about the promotion of lobster cruelty. When discussing the question ‘do lobsters feel pain?’ the cab driver responds with your typical Mainer answer, “Dick – whose son-in-law happens to be a professional lobsterman and one of the Main Eating Tent’s regular suppliers – explains what he and his family feel is the crucial mitigating factor in the whole morality-of-boiling-lobsters-alive issue: ‘There’s a part of the brain in people and animals that let us feel pain, and lobster’s brains don’t have this part.’ Besides the fact that its incorrect in about nine different ways, the main reason Dick’s statement is interesting is that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s pronouncement on lobsters and pain,” (245). Putting this into perspective, humans dissociate that they cause animal cruelty. It is the only way to cope with the sacrifice they make to feed themselves.
As a result, there is a tendency to feel less empathy for them because humans cannot relate as well to animals such as lobster. For instance, if a lobster does not react the same way as a human, it is easier to put it in pain. Studies have been put into place to investigate pain sensations in animals further; Anderson mentionsa study investigating pain sensors in fish. They found that fish do feel pain. However, they do not have the intelligence to incorporate the pain into the scenario they are put in. It says, “One of the most intense states of consciousness, pain is something beyond the mere detection of damage. Even the simplest bacteria have sensors on their external membranes; when the sensors detect trace amounts of dangerous chemicals, the bacteria respond with a programmed flight reflex. Nevertheless, the bacteria have no central nervous system where these signals are integrated into a three-dimensional experience of the chemical environment.” (13) The study contradicts the Maine Lobster Festivals pronouncement on pain in lobsters. It proves that even fish, who do not outwardly express pain, can feel it—comparing animals to us and viewing them as less intelligent results in not realizing their conscious beings. It has been shown that humans instinctively categorize things to comprehend information better. So, humans might tend to put fewer human-like animals more toward objects if they do not outwardly express pain.
As it came closer to wrapping up my essay, I pondered what it meant to hurt humanely? I concluded that it is about balancing the selfish and unselfish acts in our lives. I realized the importance of honoring animals sacrificed for our survival and not taking their life for granted. As humans, we tend to take necessities for granted for our survival because we forget that every resource we use is one less for another. It is essential to remind ourselves to appreciate the food on our table because whether we like it or not, you choose to take the life of a being for your survival. A being that communicated the emotions they felt when killed was ignored for my survival. I do not think I will ever be able to fully comprehend that as I do not see it happen before my eyes. I do think, however, this applies to more than just food products. I ask myself now, how do I choose when to be selfish and unselfish? I bet you should ask yourself the same.
