“Words/Meanings” from the Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer:
Foer’s article raised many interesting points. It is laid out rather like a dictionary, with a list of words followed by the author’s definitions and feelings around them. Some words were closely related to the topic of eating animals, for example, “Broiler Chickens,” and some more ambiguous, for example, “Desperation.”
One of the most interesting words and meanings for me was “Suffering.” Foer discusses possible meanings behind this word and whether it is possible for someone to argue that animals don’t suffer. Suffering is a difficult term to define and to measure. The question becomes even more complicated when applied to animals as they can not express suffering in the same way as humans can. As Foer points out, suffering can imply physical pain, or mental distress, something in between, or something entirely different. Probably due to this ambiguity, some people have found philosophically sound ways to justify the theory that animals do not suffer.
I agree with Foer’s argument that anyone who claims animals do not suffer is relying on a very dubious argument, especially as animals are similar to humans in many ways, given that humans are, in fact, animals. Foer discusses this earlier in the article: the strange notion that many people seem to have that humans are somehow not animals, and are separate and far superior to any other animal on earth. I concur that this is a strange and egotistical assumption for humans to have landed on, especially as our DNA is so strikingly similar to so many other animals.
Overall, Foer’s article not only enlightened me about several animal farming practices, but encouraged me to think more deeply about philosophical issues surrounding them.
Zoo Story, Chapters 5 -9:
These The chapter that stood out for me was Chapter 5, “Sex-Power-Status.” The first section describes the mating of two Sumatran tigers at the zoo. Firstly, I was surprised at what a large public event a potential mating was. The beginning of the article reported that the zoo keeper rushed through feeding the various animals, in order to get to the mating of the tigers, and then many members of the public also flocked to see the phenomenon. I felt quite uncomfortable by this; I am unsure why two animals mating should be such a voyeuristic event in any regard, but mostly I couldn’t see why it would be more interesting than watching the animals feed, for example.
Once the keeper, and everyone else, was watching the tigers and eagerly waiting for them to mate, I became even more uncomfortable. One of the largest quotes in the article is: “You’ve got an experienced male and a bitchy woman who doesn’t know what she wants.” This seems misogynistic and highly inappropriate, particularly in the context of today’s rape culture. I appreciate that the article is talking about two tigers, not a male and female human, but I think that using such language around other animals normalizes it within contexts of humans as well. Incidentally, personally I do not think this language is appropriate, whatever the species. “She wants you to be forceful with her,” was another uncomfortable line in the article. Surely, if the tiger does not want to mate, she shouldn’t be forced to and, more central to my point, members of the public, perhaps even children, should not be exposed to this type of language when talking about sex.
Zoochosis: A Short Documentary:
I enjoyed this documentary. The makers seemed to have interviewed a variety of people at the zoo and gathered a number of different opinions and views on an animal’s life at the zoo.
One of the most interesting points raised for me was the issue of Stereotypy. Stereotypy is a repetitive movement or habit, such as pacing the enclosure barrier. As acknowledged in the documentary, many members of the public are put off visiting zoos because they find such behviours uncomfortable to watch. A common view is that the animals pacing up and down must be unhappy and bored because they are in such an unnatural environment, and therefore it is cruel to keep them there.
The Professor speaking on the subject argued that rather than the stereotypy implying that the animal exhibiting the behaviour has poor mental health, as many zoo visitors assume, it in fact could be that the very behaviour is protecting and preserving the animal’s mental health. In other words, it is coping with its environment because it is using this behaviour. However, the professor does then go on to say that they need to identify which element of the zoo environment is causing the animal to need a coping mechanism in the first place.
I agree that it is uncomfortable to watch an animal pacing the enclosure. It also seems pointless to have an animal in captivity which exhibits such behaviour. Surely part of the reason for having the animals in zoos is so that we can learn more about the animal and their behaviour. If they are exhibiting behaviours which they would never exhibit in the wild, then all we are learning about is what the animal physically looks like. Of course, the behaviours may even change the physical appearance of the animals, which in my view deems the practice of keeping them in zoos all the more futile.
