I was intrigued by Nam Le's Reading in the Joynes Reading Room. He read a chapter from the Yaar (I don't know how to spell it), but the story was relevant to our class discussion at the time. The main persona in this story has an older brother who would frequently beat him. In the most simplest of sense, the main character (younger brother) believes that he is at peace when under the fury of his brother's fists. This may be difficult to fathom, but it makes sense as there are things in life that we don't enjoy and, at the same time, can't imagine life without them. Around the time of Nam Le's Reading, we were discussing our multiple selves in my World Literature class. If you have any siblings, then you know that at times they can be rather annoying; I love all of my siblings more than anything in the world, but every now and then I will feel so annoyed that I just want to scream, "Shut Up!" But I don't. I'm too loving, and I can't bear that sad little face that they pull over themselves. Right there in that moment, I'm at peace. I'm at peace in that moment, like this woman who's at peace in the mountains!
Even though I can't scream at them, I still try, and whenever I try to, I can't seem to find the strength in my voice. Sometimes, a whisper of the phrase might escape my lips, but never have I been able to yell it. I believe somewhere deep down within me I want to be like my siblings, and therefore, I can't part with some of the obscenities they do because those memories are some of my fondest and most treasured moments. The main persona in the Yaar suffers from this very same dilemma. He wants to be like his brother, but his big 'bro' is a tough fellow. He's sort of the bully, and he's got a girlfriend, so I imagine the little brother wants to have a girlfriend and be a bully as well, but his brother won't let him. He wants his little brother to be a better man, to follow the path of academics and to earn a respectable name for himself in society, and to keep his little brother from following his path, he beats him. Little does he know that during this fit of utter madness, his little brother has found a sense of peace and belonging. I know this probably happens all over the world. Everyone everywhere finds a sense of peace and belonging within their immediate environment. It's sort of like an equilibrium state where everything is balanced and in perfect harmony. Sometimes this harmony is a little twisted as in the case presented by the Yaar, and sometimes, reality is more beautiful than a fairy tale!
The author of the "Yaar," Nam Le
All in all, it's quite surprising that Le has found a means to summarize the most ultimate struggle in the world into a small chapter of his short story titled Yaar. You might wonder what this ultimate struggle is as there is relatively little mention of it earlier in the passage, but relax my friend. This ultimate struggle represents the need of man to belong and to be at peace. There have been struggles in history that you may refer to as examples, but the specific tales are up to you because this place of harmony is an imagined place within our minds, and everyone is different. Perhaps you are like the main persona in the Yaar or perhaps you are a more amiable person like myself, but you are defined by what you imagine yourself to be, and for that matter where, you imagine yourself to be in your place of harmony.
There really isn't much to say on this comparison of human-slavery and animal-slavery. Humans are simply the masters of reason, and with logic, one can make the connection or dismiss the verity of the similarities between these two topics. As this issue is evaluated today, only a handful compared to the entire population of Earth have made this connection. Human slavery, particularly Black Slavery, has already been deemed as morally wrong, so what makes a fox subject to such cruelty? Jeremy Bentham hopes for the best; "[some] have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate" [(Spiegel, 32) also (Anthology, 313)].
Not Much to Discuss...
There really isn't much to say because the connection is an experience, and it can only occur if the person is willing to make it. Forget about human superiority, rather think about animal inferiority. A much more shocking term. I for one imagine a pride of lions and a herd of buffaloes with buffaloes as inferior. I don't imagine man is superior in this case because I would be afraid of a lion, and wits wouldn't help me at all (when it comes to lions, I'm more of an ostrich type of person). Now, thinking of humans and lions, I can see a jeep full of hunters simply waiting, in a sense, stalking the lion! This is a very vivid imagination. Already I can feel the heat of the Serengeti, but this is the lion's home. The lion exercises dominion over these plains. One doesn't try and kill a lion, or any animal, for fun! Oops! I'm sorry. I forgot we humans hunt for sport.
This is Fun... terrifying fun!!
Remarkable how we can reason killing as fun. For a long while, I believed there to be a good reason for hunting, but I was disappointed. Imagine the lion again, jaws dripping of blood from a fresh kill, and while you're at it, imagine the whole pride with the same blood and gore again. Beasts dominating in nature. Surely, this is animal superiority, but now, imagine yourself there. With no weapon, only tools like your legs, arms and feet. I can only imagine how precious they must be to you right now as while you're reading I'm running away from the very thought of that hungry and brutal pride of lions! Superiority is for the predator alone, but humans are the most dangerous predator on the planet.
This is What Happens
For this reason, it is crucial to understand how we humans exercise our superiority. It's not with brute force like the lions. No! Our taste is much more subtle, much more cruel and extremely economic. Imagine a calf. Naturally, it's on a ranch; that's where cows are in today's economic world. So imagine hundreds of them. A rancher obviously needs to mark his cows so that he can know exactly which ones are his/hers. So imagine his relation with the animal. I would think it must be personal, but the word industry takes the personal out of everything. Let me provide you with a brief description from an ex-ranch hand of a method of control. "We used to throw 'em on the ground and cut their balls off with a pen-knife. Didn't give them any pain killer, are you kidding? And that's not all; at the same time, we'd brand 'em and cut off their horns" (Spiegel, 28). So, imagine the branding of the calf, the de-horning and the nuder-ing. Now, imagine all of these at once. Can you see the suffering? Can you hear the creature's screams? Can you feel the force of its struggle? This is human superiority. Surely, if we're truly superior, we'd find merciful methods to make animals our means to an end, but we are not superior. We, humans, are the masters of animals. Our will dictates their life.
Calf-Branding!
Maybe now it is clear. There really isn't much to discuss. Perhaps you've been able to understand the nature of animal-slavery. Perhaps you would rather remain ignorant so as to prolong the bliss, but if you can't understand the similarity between animal slavery and human slavery, then you stand as a humble being, firm in your beliefs and unwilling to consider different perspective. Oops! I think I mis-used humble. Can you make the connection?
Speciesism, sexism, racism, sadism... etc are few terms in the English language that represent to a certain degree the human nature which is to assume superiority. How and between which groups is there a superiority struggle is irrelevant because the mere fact that these words have been created to simply assign terminology to human behaviour reflects upon a core human-view, to assume power. Perhaps one of the most renowned phrases in the world (or maybe its just me thats a huge fan of this phrase) is Vini Vedi Vici, I came.. I saw.. I conquered. These are Caesar's words, and already I know of what you are thinking, Caesar (the Tyrant) or, if you're a fan of great leaders, Caesar the Great. Do you see the point of mentioning this? It's the two sides of the argument, like two sides of a coin; they are inseparable. To omit one demonstrates ignorance of the other, but to side with either side of the coin represents a certain degree of probablistic success, mainly 50-50. This coin metaphor is a style of argumentation that may be applied to any situation so as to learn different perspectives of the same argument. So back to the speciesism and sadism, racism and sexism, are they two sides of the same coin? Is there more than one coin, or is the whole coin metaphor an inappropriate means of reasoning?
Questions are the path to Answers!
First of all, speceisism can be considered to be its own coin. Speceisim is prevalent in the world today. "Approximately 96 million pigs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 1994," and now, the year's almost 2010 (Anthology, 394B); safe to assume that the US is slaughtering substantially more pigs than in 1994. Clearly, this is evidence of man's superiority/dominion over the pig. At one point, "humans' assumption of superiority [was termed] humanism" (Anthology, 394B). As humans, I believe it's important that our world view isn't objective in nature rather subjective to our human perspectives. This is the foundation of the coin metaphor we are considering, and while analyzing speceisim, the other side of the coin seems to be humanism. Similar terms but with different connotations. Humanism is specific to the human species, but speceisism suggests that any species can be superior to another which sparks the logical argument that the very term gives humans the ability to realize that they aren't the only party involved. And this view of the bigger picture when concerned with speceisism is what brings about two sides of the same coin. One view of speceisism is that humans have all the power whereas the other suggests that humans may have all the power, but they are part of a system bigger than them and must consider the welfare of all parties involved if they wish to exercise dominion over an extended period of time. May this be verbose, but the verity in it is plain to see. One suggests we are king of this plannet, and the other gives us a sense of the duties of a king.
Some things speak for themselves...
But as king, should humans be cruel to their subjects? I remember hearing stories about merciful kings when I was little, so clearly, there are people who feel that power needs to be exercised fairly, "... with great power comes great responsibility" (cited from Ben Parker in Spiderman 1). History also tells tales of kings who were renowned for their cruelty. Dracula was renowned for this, and his cruelty was so great that a myth grew about his deal with the devil which forced him to feed off of human blood. This relation to blood exists because Dracula would slaughter entire villages of people who refused his authority, and as an example, he would leave all of them staked upon dry wood, leaving them to bleed to death! Another example of cruelty is in slavery. The very nature of this enterprise was to subject one person into the posession of another person. These are examples of sadism in human history, but there are some current examples as well. In 2004, the military determined that "the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse" was the result of "a few bad apples" (website). The sadistic nature of humans is evident in history in our relative present and even in youngsters; I have heard too many bully stories. This is interesting as by simply using the term bully I have related humans, animals and sadism. "Over 99 percent of the U.S. chickens spend their lives in crowded confinement" (Anthology, 389); is this not cruelty? These animals can't even spread their wings with the lack of space around them. We are the kings of the chicken; we have total control over its life and death, and we are cruel kings. Clearly, the other side of the sadistic coin is merely the perspective of the party being treated with cruelty. The purpose of one side of this coin is to destroy and the other side is being destroyed.
We need not be this cruel
The two coins we have discussed, sadism and speceisism, apply to both humans and animals alike, but racism and sexism only apply to humans. These are cases when humans are dividing their species based on gender and race. An inescapable discussion with racism is that of slavery. There is so much involved with racism. Animals were considered more valuable than slaves as property (this is an example of speceisism), and masters were generally sadistic towards their slaves, at times beating them simply for amusement. Racism is by itself is an event occuring within a species where one dominates another, but all too often, racism will involve sadistic measures and a speceisist view. On the other hand, sexism is perhaps the most prevalent coin in history and this statement says it all. Think of history as a word comprised of two words, his- and -story. So history is made from his-story. Can you not see the sexist nature of this coin? However, racism and sexism aren't coins on their own; they are in fact the same sign of a coin called discrimination. And as much as a flaw it may be, discrimination is a part of humans, and we can't avoid it. As much as we may dislike it, at one point or another, we have practiced it.
The black chicks are meanies...
It seems as though when you practice any one of the terms we have discussed here. That there is a certain degree of probability involved. What if history had occured slightly differently and white people were, once, slaves of black people? It seems discrimination was a result of the flip of coin. Now that didn't happen, but that's because they all too many white people and black people were a sort of discovery in Africa; white people were technologically advanced, and thus, were more probable to be the superior of the two races. Recall history and realize that this is true. The events that occured are a byproduct of some probability which is determined by a number of factors. Ultimately, everything could be a flip of a coin. Animals could be speceisits towards humans, and if given the opportunity, they could practice sadism against us, but we may never know. The best approach is simple, I'll flip a coin. All coins have only two sides, heads and tails. Wonder how that came about to be. I know that humans don't have tails, but they do have heads. Is this a coincidence? The probability is 50-50, but so far, the odds have been in favor of the head. The future is in our hands, and I've tossed the coin. You call it, heads or tails?
There is one condition of humans that I believe is most important to recognize. This condition is a byproduct of intelligence, and before learning of it, you must first learn a simple logic. This logic is that the word logic itself refers more to our understanding of a certain subject, and in this sense, logic is learned. Reasoning, however, is how humans use the logic to serve their own needs, and this is the one human condition most important to recognize, humans are tyrants. Not just practically or realistically either, no as humans, we can be tyrants with abstract thoughts or intangible ideas. We reason our actions so as to justify them to ourselves. We can understand our effect on the planet in grave detail, yet we seek to first live comfortably in our own accord and then care for the planet. Tyrants of course have three evident markers: lawlessness, hubris and fear.
Tyrant or not... We are the King of the planet!
There is nothing wrong with seeking our own accord to live by, but problems arise when people with different perspectives on how to live confront each other. Meat eaters are in conflict with vegetarians; the smoker is in conflict with the non-smoker; democrats are in conflict with republicans, and there are many more examples of this confrontation, but since we can reason, we also see people arguing over the affect of human development (scientific progress) on Earth (global warming, deforestation, pollution... etc), and we also see humans arguing with other humans over the treatment of animals. By using abstract logic, we are able to identify with the animal and somehow feel its pain, relate its pain with our own at times. This is obvious when we see comparison of slaughterhouses with the holocaust. The cause of all this conflict is that we reason. In a social environment, the dominant species in a region will either allow a foreign species to stroll through their territory one of them will exert dominance over the other. This is how animals conflict with one another, fighting over territory or social dominance. Humans, as species, are bound to do the same as it's only logical. Humans are the dominant species on the surface of the planet; we seek to understand the other species with logic, but how can we? There is a communication barrier, but "to say that animals have their own accounts in accordance with the structure of their own minds, to which we don't have access... is naive" (Coetzee, 91). Humans, as the dominant species, can reason to a certain extent the world perspective of any animal. But if we can all reason the perspective of any animal, why is there conflict? Clearly, we reason differently from one another. We justify our actions with individual reasoning, and by doing so, we break our own justification system; there is no representation of the whole species just individual beings, and as individual beings, we are in conflict with each other. As species, there is no specific order between us. We have laws, but we also have criminals. In this logic, humans are lawless species, but the question remains unanswered, why are humans in conflict with animals?
Obey the Law or else!!!
The answer is subjective to a certain degree. I feel that some humans feel that it's more important for all the species in the biosphere to coexist with one another; these individuals have reasoned that this is a possibility, but they don't represent the masses of human population. Clearly, injustice towards animals is prevalent in human society. Bullfighters, hunters (only the ones who practice it as a sport), poachers... they all are present in our society, and using learned logic, one can reason that because they exist these professions are therefore accepted. Another perspective is that of those who believe in speceisism. Even when confronted with evidence of human cruelty to animals, these people can't recognize our animal treatment as immoral. Nay! These people refuse to accept this. They reason with us saying that humans are the dominant species and treatment of animals isn't a concern. Notice, there is rarely an acknowledgment of the actual treatment of animals because the argument itself is discredited. This exemplifies human hubris. Notice the argument Kafka presents for an Ape in captivity. The ape states, "I learned, gentlemen. Alas, one learns when one has to... ruthlessly. One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). If humans can indeed reason abstract ideas, then the perspective of this ape ought to be shocking! "One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). This statement speaks volumes of our treatment of animals, and still, there are those who discredit this argument. This is clearly the effect of our hubris.
Consider the world... not just yourself!
Then of course, there is fear. The very emotion that we presumably instill within animals that drives our actions, or should I say lack of action. Humans will simply ignore the animal treatment issue altogether as presented on Earthlings. Humans are simply afraid to take responsibility for animal treatment. Humans don't wish to question where their food comes from because they fear that they might be unable to bear the knowledge and continue their dietary methods. This is a fear of change, a fear that if I do something then I will bound myself by some social law to become a vegetarian. It's not a probable outcome, but many people claim an inability to consume meat after learning of the actuality of animal treatment. They don't actually fear the concept of themselves as a vegetarian, but I believe they fear the concept of giving up meat. This seems like a ridiculous claim, but understand that it's the reasoning of the masses of a fearful species, and their logic, while present, is reasoned to be irrational. Their perspective is that they simply want to hold on to the traditions passed down from generations, but they can still do this even if they decide to do something about animal treatment. This is why we as a species can and must overcome this fear of change.
Fear Not! Change can be good!
This is an interesting perspective... perhaps there is logical reasoning for change as well
Try to use your own logic to determine whether or not humans are tyrants of this planet. Clearly, we are lawless (at times), and we most definitely have some hubris; we're even fearful. Logically, I have reasoned human beings, as a species, to be tyrants, so why is it that we have become so? Clearly, some of us missed the signs of our transition from a dominant species to a tyrant species, but what to do now? If we are to cease our existence as tyrants, we must ask this question of the person we seek to become inside. We must use our gift of reasoning to reason with ourselves. What is the fair reaction? What is the right thing to do here? Reasoning is our compass, and we must follow its bearing where we reason that to be!
"There is first of all the problem of the opening, namely, how to get us from where we are, which is, as yet, nowhere, to the far bank. It is a simple bridging problem, a problem of knocking together a bridge. People solve such problems every day. They solve them, and having solved them push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is the very first paragraph of the book, and it's the most intriguing introduction I have ever read. It's so abstract, yet the title of the chapter is Realism. I read on the next couple of chapters and realized that they are not even part of the assignment! I didn't mind; the assignment, however, was an interesting read as well. Personally, I'm a numbers type of guy, and when Coetzee points out that we only die once, I was shocked at the realism of that statement. "We have only one death of our own; we can comprehend the deaths of others only one at a time. In the Abstract we may be able to count to a million, but we cannot count to a million deaths" (Coetzee, 63).
These are only 75 deaths, but I can only see them one at a time
How true that line is? It still shocks me. I think this is because there is difference between seeing (or talking) and doing. People, in general, have always claimed to trust what their eyes can see, what their hands can touch, what their senses can pick up. Another man's (human's) word is simply that, their word. It means nothing, but in today's world of marvels, there is the wonder of technology and there is no more room for doubt. I used to believe that dairy cows were the most happiest cows, and their farmer's would treat them nice, but technology, with its wonder of capturing video, has bursted my bubble. I would like to believe that I react with the same fervor as do the people around me (in this case, people in general), I only abandoned my perception when confronted with proof that proves me wrong. This I think is the major problem.
We are clearly above animals... NOT!
People like to be right. It is in our nature, and there is also the view of the consensus which is considered to be right; this is because people also like to share beliefs. I never really thought of where meat comes from or where leather comes from because people around me never really thought of it. When subject is being discussed, people will, at random, jump into the discussion and offer their opinion, but in the case of animal rights, there is little discussion expect of course in Elizabeth Costello, plenty of discussion there. Humans with our abstract thinking honour many things by setting aside a particular day in the year and marking it on the calendar. Birthday, Peace Day, Hunger Day, MLK Day... etc., but what about a day for the animal (apparently, October 4 is not well known)? It appears that animals are considered to be below humans. Whether this is true or not is relevant only to the concerned because the consensus in the world is that animals are below humans.
Happy October 4!!!
This view of animals brought about the obvious in my mind. Humans are viewed as above animals. It's not that animals are actually below us, but the fact that humans feel the need to be superior. To feel differently is to violate the consensus of the world. Galileo tried that once; he was right, but that didn't matter to the Church. My only problem with the consensus is that some humans are considered beasts, "By treating fellow humans like beasts... they themselves had become beasts" (Coetzee, 65). We are human, yet we are (can be) animals; there is a condescending connotation in this sentence that helps the understanding of a consensus belief. It is only natural for humans as predators to consume animals. If this is true then humans are animals, and they are no longer superior, but if this is true, then we must also carry all the qualities that are associated with animals, yet we cannot fly or run with the ferocity of animals. We can't see in the dark, and our hearing doesn't even compare to animals. Obviously, our animal nature is different. Our nature is to understand, "to get from where we are which as of yet is nowhere to the far bank, this is a simple bridging problem... People solve such problems everyday and having solved them, push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is our nature; we strive to understand everything we can about every 'far bank,' so as to bridge the gap and be able to connect with each and every 'far bank.' It's our nature to employ all of the tools necessary to bridge this gap which are namely logic, religion, science, nature, emotion. We have five senses for understanding the world as we have five actual senses.
We use these five senses of understanding to reason with one another and settle arguments. This happens when the consensus is in challenge. When Galileo challenged the notion that perhaps the sun, not the Earth, is the center of the solar system; the senses of understanding reasoned that who is this one man to question the word of the Church. Eventually he proved to be right. The current argument in consensus is animal rights. Are humans right to consume them? Are they superior? If indeed humans are superior then we preside over animals like the strong preside over the vulnerable. We are their guardians in a sense and then, aren't we responsible for them? The answer is simply no. We are responsible for our own actions; doing nothing is also an action, so every single human is responsible for the means by which animals are slaughtered. To treat others as beasts is to become the beast (as I quoted Coetzee earlier). The logic, nature, emotion and science senses deduce that we must do something either accept the current fate and slaughter methods of animals or change it, but we must do something. The religious sense gives us the position that it is okay for either action. There is a reason for choice, and we must choose which side of this argument to support. One can take the Hindu approach in which "[they] might be reborn as animals" (Anthology, 348), or one can take the Greek approach in which "[one] offers oblations to the gods before consuming fuel, animals, and vegetables" (Anthology, 349). With the religious sense, the human emotion of fear is epitomized. If people don't do things in a certain manner, there will be consequences, and people fear the negative consequences of defying the word of God or of the Gods!
Maybe we are PLASTIC PEOPLE for whom Loving is Dead!
In the argument concerning animals, there will be an eventual victor in the consensus argument, and people everywhere will have to accept the result or start a whole new argument. The battle between both sides has begun, but the winning side is determined not through their understanding of the argument but through the number of people on their side, through the notion of superiority, through the 'right' argument that will swing the masses of people who if not for this 'right' argument would rather do nothing. It may seem that I'm arguing for the side that wishes to create some change, but this is only because currently, that is the only action being taken. After it is determined that change is necessary, the people will argue on how to change the current state of animals for the better. Our nature of understanding will force us to 'push on' further and further until there are no more 'far banks' to connect with, until we have bridged all the gaps, but all I want to do is take the animals onto the ark to which no bridge can connect to because for as long as we seek to understand animals our nature will force us to push on, but to help animals, we must let them be. To do this, you must use your emotional understanding and feel for the animals. We should not fear for our fate or reason a better state of being. We must create because we feel it necessary because it our emotional nature is what leads us to push on, so we must use it to push on in a different direction!
I didn’t really think about Earthlings right after watching it in World Literature. I take accounting right after World Lit., and I had to focus upon the accounting quiz. Sounds unimportant compared to the message in the video, but I usually base my opinion of any new information I learn upon my thoughts later on in the day. I consider everything from the actual information I learn and the manner in which it was presented to my mood and reactions to anything regarding the subject-matter of what I have learned. So when I got home, I did some thinking and realized that during class the video had no effect. That’s partly because the video was integrated with the class, so I viewed it as a novel that we were supposed to read, but at home, I felt as if I had never seen Earthlings.
'Night' by Eli Wiesel was also a book, but it wasn't fictional
I admit that this is a little confusing, especially since Earthlings is such a gory, or rather graphically vulgar, motion picture. Also, I had a quiz right after class, so I had to switch gears in my head, but still Earthlings is so graphically vulgar that it can completely alter a person’s emotional state. And I say graphically vulgar because the video’s message is simply too powerful. When I hear human screams, I get goose bumps; I’m usually panic-stricken for a few seconds and sometimes the mere nature of the scream will force me to cover my ears, but with Earthlings, I would much rather close my eyes. Most people think the same way; as the saying goes, it’s easy to turn a blind eye. For a short while, that’s exactly what I did. I ignored all of the facts that Earthlings presents, and all of the facts became much more real when I opened my fridge and saw a gallon of milk.
I really thought dairy cows were happy
Right then, the graphically vulgar nature of Earthlings kicked in; upon noticing the milk, I could see, in my mind, the image of a chained dairy cow on the so called milk farms. I thought, “Milk isn’t grown; why do they call it a milk farm?” I hope you ask the same question to yourself because then you can realize that the actual cow is worse off than property. I remember a dairy cow episode on Blue’s Clues; I was only 8 and thought that dairy cows are the happiest cows ever! Then, I saw Earthlings and realized happiness is not even possible for a dairy cow. How could it be? Their diet is so particular, iron-deficient. My cousin was once iron deficient, and she seemed so weak for a few weeks that I thought she was dying. An iron-deficient diet does something similar to the cow. Not immediately of course, no; the life of a dairy cow is restricted to about 2-3 feet of mobility in their small cell where they are chained to ensure little or no movement. After four years of this life, the cow will collapses from exhaustion and is then slaughtered. Surely, there is no possibility of happiness for a dairy cow!
This is a much more accurate account of a dairy cow's life
The idea of happy animals brought about a new idea. Is there anything that, if done differently, could make me feel differently about Earthlings, make me feel happy? Action is always good. If animals were treated more humanely and killed by more merciful means, I would feel much better, true, but my happiness is irrelevant; it’s the happiness of the animals that really matters. It was the same idea with the Holocaust. The most important thing to do was to ensure the happiness of those being persecuted; primarily, this meant freedom, food and new clothes. If the same could be done for animals so as to end their holocaust, I will be very pleased, but in the case of the Holocaust, the Jews were mainly liberated by a force that did not exercise absolute dominion over them. The question now is who will liberate the animals? Who will fight for the speechless? I say that it would have to be the person that returns your gaze in the mirror every day. That person is so much more powerful than any single human can ever be; they can move mountains and shine brighter than any star. All that you and I need to do is give them the permission. You and I, we just provide a vision, but it’s that person in the mirror who follows through with our dreams. For in some region of our brains, this person is ideal and omnipresent. They exercise judgment when confronted and guide us like a compass through the morally ‘gray’ areas. All we have to do is let this ideal person within us view Earthlings. This person has been judging right and wrong for us ever since we were born, so why not let them do so one more time?
We all need to help shape OUR plannet
Of course the most obvious argument is what can one do? Is there a need to worry ourselves when one is too small of a number? To these people, I say that one is better than none. When one does the right thing, one slowly turns into many, and then, the many become numerous, but it is all through the power of one. Some people question this; they say it’s too hard or too much to ask of an individual. It’s not that it’s too much or too hard because one can and has changed the world. Take MLK Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi. Surely there circumstances were extreme, and they were fighting a cause that was duly their own, but if they were alive now, would they do something? Surely, this is a subjective answer, but the one thing I do know is that I am alive now, and I can make a difference, just one at a time.
One has a unique perspective, allow yours to be known
Continuing my journey in the elaborate Earth Dick has created, I noticed a very particular idea. I believe that through the representations of androids and of humans Dick is portraying the very idea of a patent or copyright. The development of a new idea grants the creator or owner of that idea some particular rights. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, this idea is represented by the android and the creator will represent the humans. I will address Deckard as the owner because he is the one who has the power of life and death of these androids; he determines their fate, and as the owner of an idea has rights under copyright law, Deckard has rights over androids in Dick’s book.
The Copyright Symbol http://license.icopyright.net/creator/images/3d-copyright.gif
It is important to understand that Deckard doesn’t own the androids themselves. No, that would suggest that the androids are Deckard’s property which draws parallelism to slaves in the Pre-Civil War times, and I don’t want to go there. I’ll just argue Deckard merely has rights over the androids.
An Android http://blog.makezine.com/img413_223.jpg A Representation of Slaves http://www.ashcombe.surrey.sch.uk/curriculum/english/GCSE/Y11/Paper%202%20English/Cluster%201/Limbo/Slaves%20in%20chains.jpg
Before explaining this any further, I must first make clear my perspective of the androids (andys). Being that they are androids, they are extremely intellectual. Their code seems to reflect human logic, and this is a major problem in understanding Dick’s world. Where there is logic, there is always curiosity, a want, or arguably a need, to know. Curiosity is oftentimes random and seemingly a spur of emotion. This means that with all their logic androids are elegant and intellectual machines, but also with their logic, they inhibit curiosity, rather a short jolt of emotion. Androids are creations, mere machines, but for brief intervals of time, androids are human, and they have “an innate desire to remain-” (Dick, 132). The desire itself is irrelevant; the importance is given to the fact that they desire. If they were purely machines, androids would only have needs, but they desire which means they want as well as need, so andys are more than just machine.
C-3PO from Star Wars was definitely more than a machine http://goldwingnetwork.com/c3po/c3po.jpg
So there’s something about the androids that makes them more than just machine; androids must have some rights then. Being that humans created androids, andys are property, but the complexity of their logic has allowed the androids to understand and inhibit emotions. Still, androids are humanoid robots, and that title is what grants Deckard his rights over the androids because that title suggests speciesism. This also suggested through the androids because it’s an understanding that humans create the androids. The world as we know it exists in duality, so if humans can create, they can also destroy; this ability to destroy is how Deckard assumes authority over the androids. Deckard’s rights over the androids are then the rights of a slave hunter over the slave; Deckard’s title in the book is that of a bounty hunter which reminds me of a slave hunter, and again, there is a parallelism with slaves. It seems to be unavoidable, but ignore it.
The reason I don’t want to focus on the issue of slavery is because I learned about the androids and slaves in the same manner; I opened a book and read. It was hard for me not to sympathize with the slaves, and at times, I was filled with compassion as I would suffer “as with the distress or suffering of the [slaves],” and I wished I could just end their suffering (Course Anthology 274 J), and I feel similarly about the androids. Are they really dangerous? I think not, but Deckard would disagree with me even though at times he wonders about the same question. Constantly, I see a need for Deckard to be able to specify danger as a fundamental reality of the androids. He is always wondering about this. Why? It is his sympathetic imagination vs. his reason; he is trying to “[perceive] the peculiar ‘truth’ and nature of the [androids]” (Course Anthology, 274-O). As I continued with this train of thought, I realized that is with my sympathetic imagination that allows me to associate with androids with the same sympathy that I felt for the slaves. The compassion without images is always a little diminished, but compassion is quickly generated when I imagine a dead Luba Luft on an elevator floor! In my view, the androids are the slaves of humans Post-World War Terminus, and I would declare Polokov as the Nat Turner of this fictional San Francisco.
"The Dream" A Video on Futuristic-Slavery... relates very well with the Dick's Book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LULux6OyFIY So examining this connection between androids and slavery, I begin to wonder is there any determinable means by which I can end the suffering of the andys. I fear not as I can only read Dick’s work, but I hope Dick was compassionate enough towards the androids to end their suffering. As ultimately, Dick is the author; he actually has a copyright of the book! He has certain rights over its characters, including the androids and even Deckard himself! He determines their fate, and I hope that androids don’t dream of electric sheep. Rather, androids ought to dream of liberation, primarily from bounty hunters like Deckard.
