Power (Earthlings Essay)

The video <Earthlings> accuses people of being "specists," meaning "species-discriminatory." I perfectly believe specism is fully justifiable, but the video is so specist itself that I don't need to argue against the video; the video does it for me. 

What did the video show us? Brutal, cruel, inhumane images of pigs, cows, chickens raised in terrible, disgusting conditions, only to be killed mercilessly and painfully, just to satisfy humans' "lowest desires." But why do we even think those images are terrible and despicable? Before answering this question, let's assume that the video filmed the genocide of ants, flies, protists, or bacteria. Would it have earned the same emotional effect it has earned by filming pigs being massacred? No. If the video was concerned about our "food animals" as a whole, as species, relating to the circle of life, it need not to. Because we constantly demand those animals, those animals will never become extinct as long as humans are powerful enough. If the video tried to stress the pain the animals were going through, the ant that was drowned by a curious seven-year-old experienced as much as pain. We kill mosquitoes, small bugs that irritate us, without even the slightest hesitation or consideration that this might be wrong. And the video purposefully exclude these examples, because hardly anyone would ever sympathize with bugs. The video used pigs, cows, and chickens, which can scream like we can, which can bleed like we can, which can writhe in pain like we would writhe if we were in pain. The animals were deliberately chosen by the video to arise sympathy because they were related to us humans. Who is the "specist" here?

At least, it is understandable that they didn't include bugs in the film. Bugs are not really that related to humans as the food we eat is. The food we eat. Our three favorite animals is cow, pig, and chicken. The video displayed disturbing images about the slaughterhouses of the three animals. It's not that I would like them to be in pain, but unfortunately we fully have a right to do that, although we have no moral justification whatsoever.

Before I argue that things we do to animals are justified, I would like to discuss some of the images the video used. This video focuses on showing that human beings are terrible and we do terrible things to the planet. Therefore I believe we can conclude that the images shown are probably the ugliest image the video could get hand on. Although I believe those acts could be justified, I was very discomforted with the images and surely do not recommend them. But some of the acts were actually extremely necessary: like slitting the throat to kill the pig. What does it want us to do-euthanasia for every single animal we want to kill? Leaving animal in extreme pain for an inhumanely long time is a problem. Slitting the throat to kill it is not. Maybe we should isolate all the carnivores from their prey and feed them animals that we personally killed painlessly, to ensure that no animal would feel pain. Ridiculous. Slitting throat is not cruel: it is in the range of "natural death," as the claws of a lion on a zebra would have a similar effect. If one wants to argue killing itself is cruel, then he denies the natural world itself.

Now, do we have the right to do what we do to the animals in the slaughterhouse? Yes.

I found a cartoon which has a nice analogy to the situation. In the cartoon, aliens invade Earth, and one of them, Lockhey (left in the picture below), uses humans for his experiments. A human soldier, Esna (right in the picture below), accuses Lockhey of being despicable. Lockhey answers:

1: Let me ask you something. 2: Do you get permission when you use your 'lab rats?'

1: You use those rats in your experiments because you have more power over them, right? And that is not wrong. That is the way it is. 2: No matter what you do with your rats, since you are the most powerful predator in the food chain, they have neither means nor  rights to complain. 3: Meaning......

1: But now since we arrived on this planet, you are no longer the most powerful species. Therefore, you have no right to complain even if we use you as lab rats.

We human beings like to think of ourselves as unique beings, and maybe we are. But so are other species in the world in that aspect. We are just one of the 44 million species on the planet, but we assume "human rights" exclusively to our species, Homo sapiens. As the video states, animals share many of our pain and pleasure, and it is these basic rights the word "human rights" encompass. Therefore, if human rights exist, animal rights should exist. But human rights do not exist, and therefore neither do animal rights. 

What are human rights? Why do they exist as a separate concept? The concept is only a few centuries old,  relatively young compared to the five hundred centuries Homo sapiens existed. Why did they emerge so recently? The world is a simple place. The rights one can have is proportional to his power. After the Neolithic revolution, social stratification occurred and hierarchy was established. Kings, chiefs, and aristocrats had power over people, and "normal" people had very restricted rights. Slaves had even less rights. Then how did people achieve rights? Because "majority" itself is a power. When people learned to use that power, they were able to achieve rights. 

What about animals? Animals lack the intelligence to unite and use the power of majority, and therefore we do not need to grant them any rights. The concept of "right" itself is a phantom: it is merely a projection of power. Therefore powerless beings do not deserve rights. "Human rights" are promises mankind made when the majority used its power; and since animals were never a part of those promises, it is absurd to say that they have any rights. And since "human rights" are promises between humans, an alien has no responsibility to obey them. Therefore, it is never unjust for aliens to conquer us.

Perhaps we should have more government regulations that would prevent unnecessarily excessive pain to animals in slaughterhouses, because we have no interest in giving them pain. But the crux of the matter is that animals don't really have rights, as none of us do: there is only power. The video appeals to emotion by showing us animals in pain without much logic and commits the "specism" it tries to destroy. Therefore I cannot agree with the video, although it was cleverly made. Actually, it is because it is cleverly made that I am not convinced. It was calculated to influence human beings using psychology and not logic.

Therefore I feel no more obligation to eat less meat even after watching <Earthlings>. There are some other reasons eating less meat benefits the environment, but animal rights are not on that list.

Reflective Essay Revision

*Mostly just grammar errors fixed. Sentences are almost the same.*



     Kids are always focused on something. Butterflies, Legos, books, or nature. Whatever. And although you were interested in all of them, Wonhyuk, what you really craved was knowledge. You would read and read and just never let go of a book. At a young age you discovered the superiority of knowledge and the shame of ignorance. You wanted to know everything-but of course no one can know everything.

     You had no idea what you really wanted to be, but you always loved science and mathematics. You would memorize the names of the planets in the solar system for no apparent reason and admire the ingenious theory of Einstein that you barely understood at all. You knew more than your peers, but you never really knew much to know that you did not know much. The more you learned, the more you knew that there was more to learn and study.

     Once, you cried just because you felt your limit of your knowledge. You might not remember, but all of a sudden you cried while watching the television. In the television there was a kid who knew everything about cars, and somehow that made you sad. And when asked why, you answered, “I don’t know what he does.” Why are we so impotent? Why is the universe so large and so mysterious, that we cannot bring to understand even its single aspect? Why must we die so early, only learning that we have actually learned nothing? As Socrates said, “all you know is that you know nothing.”

     The root of the problem is ambivalence. The individuals of Homo sapiens are neither stupid enough to not realize ignorance nor are they capable of fully understanding the nature surrounding them. But this was not something you could fix. Facing an insoluble problem, you had to give up-no one can be omniscient.

     You instead chose to learn the important things. Probably the most important things in the universe. The universe itself-and its laws. It’s not that you would refuse to know what the neighbors ate for dinner, but only that you felt it was unnecessary to ridicule yourself for trying to concern with those trivial matters. Time was running out. Time is still running out. As Yoda said, “much to learn, you still have.”

     Your youth hero, Einstein, looked much more respectful, real, and human. You truly understood the great accomplishments he had made and almost felt compelled to respect such a genius. You almost felt embarrassed for the young you who had babbled about theory of relativity you read in a children’s book without really understanding what it meant. The irritating thing about ignorance is that when you are ignorant, you don’t even know that you have something to know. Realizing you are ignorant is the important part. Actually learning it is a rather easier process.

     You gave up knowing everything. But it was an inevitable choice, because no one can know everything. Now you selectively accumulate knowledge; you’re becoming closer to a so-called expert. You are now immersed in physics and you enjoy learning it. You should remember, however, that it was only out of need that you chose not to learn everything else. You should never really give up. Who knows? Maybe God might give you omniscience in afterlife. You never know.

Martian Chronicles Quote

But you're not thirsty.

This is probably the phrase that made the deepest impression in my memory. The sentence itself, when read without context, is not that striking. But inside the story, the sentence is immensely creepy-which I shall explain later.

I must first say that the depiction of Martians by Bradbury was very different from my expectations. I was expecting something more realistic; what would really be on Mars if there were some form of intelligent organism? Of all the things I have imagined, superpower was not among them. I do believe it is physically possible, or rather, it is not prohibited by the laws of physics to be able to communicate telepathically. But it completely ignores, almost insults the laws of physics to say one can create objects with thinking only. Although there is a great discrepancy between the book and reality, some twists in scientific laws are the joy and beauty of science fiction, and despite being rather unlikely and unexpected, the exotic powers of Martians was entertaining.

Until 2000, all three Martian expositions from Earth had failed. The second and third exposition is extremely creepy-especially the third one. In first and second expositions, Earthlings (people?) were killed, but it was either compulsive or taken not seriously. But in the third exposition, Martians realize who Earthlings are and lure them into a trap, killing them intentionally in cold-blood. (Maybe they have cold blood literally.) 

This is how Martians killed Earthlings: using their extremely dexterous mind-controlling abilities, Martians created a hallucination of a childhood village of Earthling soldiers, actually constructed on Earthlings' memories. Dead family members of soldiers (which are of course also hallucinations) appear, and soldiers believe Mars is a some kind of afterlife. Soldiers go to their families' homes, unarmed, spaceship abandoned, and in belief that they are completely safe. The Captain of the Earthlings think that the village might be a hallucination, and tries to escape. When his dead brother (actually Martian in hallucination-disguise) asks where he is going, the Captain says he is hungry. The brother replies,

But you're not thirsty.

And the Captain never reached the door..... Very creepy.

You never know (Reflective Essay #1)

     Kids are always focused on something. Butterflies, Legos, books, or nature. Whatever. And although you were interested in all of them, Wonhyuk, what you really craved was knowledge. You would read and read and just never lot go of a book. At young age you discovered the superiority of knowledge and the shame of ignorance. You wanted know everything-but of course no one can know everything.

     You had no idea what you really wanted to be, but you always loved science and mathematics. You would memorize the names of the planets in the solar system for no apparent reason and admire the ingenious theory of Einstein that you barely understood at all. You knew more than your peers, but you never really knew much to know that you did not know much. The more you learn, the more you know that there is more to learn and study.

     You cried once. You might not remember, but all of a sudden you cried while watching the television. In the television there was a kid who knew everything about cars, and you cried. And when asked why, you answered, “I don’t know what he does.” Why are we so impotent? Why is the universe so large and so mysterious, that we cannot bring to understand even its single aspect, and we die only learning that we have actually learned nothing? As Socrates said, “all you know is that you know nothing.”

     The root of the problem is ambivalence. Homo sapiens is neither stupid enough to not realize ignorance nor is it capable of fully understanding the nature surrounding them. But this is not something you could fix. Facing an insoluble problem, you had to give up-no one can be omniscient.

     You instead chose to learn the important things. Probably the most important things in the universe. The universe itself-and its laws. It’s not that you would refuse to know what the neighbors ate for dinner, but only that you felt it was unnecessary to ridicule yourself for trying to concern with those trivial matters. Time was running out. Time is still running out. As Yoda said, “much to learn, you still have.”

     Your youth hero, Einstein, looked much more respectful, real, and human. You truly understood the great accomplishments he had made and almost felt compelled to respect such a genius. You almost felt embarrassed for the young you who babbled about theory of relativity you read in a children’s book without really understanding what it meant. The irritating thing about ignorance is that when you are ignorant, you don’t even know that you have something to know. Realizing you are ignorant is the important part. Actually learning it is a rather easier process.

     You gave up knowing everything. But it was an inevitable choice, because no one can know everything. Now you selectively accumulate knowledge; you’re becoming closer to a so-called expert. You are now immersed in physics and you enjoy learning it. You should remember, however, that it was only out of need that you chose not to learn everything else. You should never really give up. Who knows? Maybe God might give you omniscience in afterlife. You never know.