The Wild Stallion

POWER, BEAUTY, AND GRACE.

Only humans would see something wild and free and want to dominate it. Only humans would break the spirit of an animal to claim it as their own. Only humans would enslave a living thing to impress his peers. The irony is that mustangs lose their desirable traits when they are captured; “Only the spirited are beautiful.”[1] This still didn’t stop horse-riders from capturing and “breaking” horses. Perhaps, like Austyn mentions, it is because “they’re free, independent, and excitable.”[2] Whatever the reason, the fact remains: horses are mastered by man.

There is something unquestionably beautiful about a pack of wild horses roaming raw, untamed country. The prairie itself, a habitat that has almost disappeared, has its own unique quality of beauty; the endless, smooth fields of grass are a tribute to the simplicity and power of nature. It seems only natural that horses would inhabit this land. Their grace and power radiates from their form as they gallop and play in the fields. I can’t say that a wild horse isn’t desirable; seeing one would certainly cause me to muse about strategies for capturing it. Still, this doesn’t mean I would try to execute these plans seriously. There are two reasons for this. First, I would be scared out of my mind. Anyone who has stood near a horse will never question who is more powerful. No one doubts that horses are dangerous. Even while petting the painted horses at Bump’s ranch, there were moments when a playful head rearing would nearly knock me off my feet. I almost had an adrenaline rush from feeling their hard muscles—a feeling that seemed humorous once I realized that the horse was thoroughly enjoying the attention. The second reason is that capturing it wouldn’t make it more beautiful. Wild horses are beautiful because they are wild. “The sight of wild horses streaming across the prairies made even the most hardened of professional mustangers regret putting an end to their liberty.”[3] In fact, humans almost have a knack for unintentionally removing beauty from the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo See clip at 11:12 for a unique view of trees.

IS THIS WHAT THE TAMER WANTED?

A prime example of this can be seen in our treatment of our planet. Nature, like mustangs, is beautiful because it is wild. Today, we have lost touch with this “wildness.”[4] Perhaps it is because we feel that we are above it. Maybe it is because we think we own it. Still, every day we take away the things we love most. Raw, untamed land has universal beauty, meaning that every living thing appreciates its existence. Why else would artists, musicians, poets, writers, photographers, and countless other people immerse themselves in it to free their minds? Yet instead of preserving this power (when beauty achieves a certain height, it has a real power. It is felt in the chest, and is what makes gasping seem more appropriate than talking), we extort it. There are movements today to rekindle our appreciation for it, but our actions resemble the last ditch efforts of a gazelle that is engulfed by a lion pride. Although it may not be too late, it is certainly late. The signs are everywhere.

One sign is the fact that wild horses are almost extinct, restricted to the last uninhabited regions of the northern states. Their freedom is gradually being taken away by one of the few animals that has the capacity to appreciate it. We are players in a tragic comedy akin to A Winter’s Tale, and like Leontes we are pushing away the things that we love—no, the things that we need. Perhaps this is why I am moved to explore green architecture, but one can’t help but to have a sense of hopelessness. How much have we already lost? How much more will we lose before we realize what we’re doing? There is still great value in trying to change our ways, but I will be salvaging, not protecting. The worst part is that I am part of the problem. The momentum of humanity is awe inspiring, but unfortunately cannot change directions quickly. The only remaining option resist. Maybe, if we are lucky, the mustangs will return—without sadles.

HORSES ARE MEANT TO BE FREE--WILL WE EVER LET THEM?

[1] X846
[2] Austyn’s Blog
[3] X111
[4] Wild is probably the wrong word to describe it, because nature is by no means chaotic. A better description would be “in harmony.” Nature is not the result of haphazard competition among animals and plants; it is a finely tuned machine that operates at an efficiency that will never be matched by humans.

Coetzee II: the discussion.

Objective: To explore the idea of raising, killing, and eating animals. Topics include: rights, lives, consumption, nature vs. humanity, and vegetarian vs. omnivore.
Goals: To figure out what each of us believes; to understand the opposite point of view; to figure out how to make a difference regarding animal rights.
1. Death by nature vs. death by human: Which is more compassionate? Why do animals kill less than humans? Would animals do what humans do if they could?
a. Austyn: “In previous class discussions people have brought up the point that, in the wild, a predator kills its prey gruesomely- we’re just doing the same thing; it’s natural. I don’t believe, under any circumstances, can one compare these two situations. When a lion takes down a gazelle, it snaps the neck. It doesn’t chew off the horns and tail; it doesn’t make a point of letting it bleed slowly so it’ll taste better.”
b. Tyler: “A lion does not kill its dinner while considering its feelings, nor does it go about the process making sure that its death is as painless as possible. No—it murders the animal in a way that is the most convenient, quickest, and easiest for itself.”
2. Animals as cognitive beings: Are animals as “intelligent” as humans? Can animals comprehend their situation? Does it matter?
a. Austyn: “Whether or not we feel various species’ roles in these commensalistic relationships are substandard, we should still respect them.”
b. Saumya: “Yes, who is to say that animals have less power than humans?”
c. Mary: “How can we so easily objectify hundreds of species without truly understanding their definition of “life”? And for the animals’ world views we think we comprehend, the question to reflect on is “are [we] sure about that?””
d. Samantha: “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVtQPabMvZQ Did you notice how the elephant was completely oblivious of the lions before they pounced on him? He was not preoccupied with protecting himself; he was not in fear for his life. This is because the elephant, like all non-human animals, cannot “comprehend extinction.” (2)”
e. Jenny: ““Every living creature fights for its own, individual life” (Coetzee 99), and I believe that as creatures also fighting for our lives, we should at least try to understand the horrors of such an act.”
f. Jennifer: ““Living... with baboons, I discovered what Elizabeth Costello means when she says that to be an animal is to 'be full of being,' 'full of joy.' Like the rest of us, baboons get grouchy, go hungry, feel fear and pain and loss. But during my times with them, the default state seemed to be a lighthearted appreciation of being a baboon body in baboon-land” [3].”
3. Meat consumption: Is it right to eat meat? Is it morally superior to abstain from meat? Is the main issue with meat PRODUCTION or CONSUMPTION?
a. All people agree that the food industry treats its animals cruelly.
b. Jennifer: ““Treat your neighbors as you would like to be treated.” We seem to forget that animals are also our neighbors, to be treated with kindness – “kindness in its full sense, as an acceptance that we are all of one kind, one nature””
c. Tyler: “Meat still tastes good and I am going to continue to eat it. It’s just that now I tend to think about what I consume. Also, I tend to think about why and how we came to become so dominant over our fellow earthlings.”
d. Austyn: “This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t kill them for food- it simply means that we should be compassionate about it.”
e. Samantha: “Just because a human, an omnivore at the top of the food chain, chooses to consume meat does not make him or her inhumane or an unjust killer, it makes them natural.”
4. The act of killing: Would everyone be vegetarian if they had to kill their own meat? Why do you think the factory workers are so cruel? Do the consumers or the producers drive the meat industry?
a. Tyler (previously): “IN MY OPINION, HUNTING ONLY PROVES THAT ONE HAS A LONGING TO FEEL BADASS OR DOMINANT, WHICH DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DEATH OF AN ANIMAL.”
b. Mary: If I had known that my McDonald’s hamburger came from a cow that was forced against its will to produce milk all day, stuck in a cage exhausted "from seeing only bars" with no freedom, I would have stopped eating them a long time ago.”
c. Jennifer: “I've chosen to abstain from eating meat so far, but I'm not sure yet what my intentions are in doing so. I know that a protest by one 125 lb girl with an already meager appetite for meat isn't going to change the industry.”
5. Making a difference: Does being a vegetarian help, or is it a personal choice (more specifically, does vegetarianism represent compassion or disgust)? What steps can we take? Do you think change is possible (realistically, not theoretically; we will assume that it is technically “possible”)?
a. Jennifer: “My recent vegetarianism is my own refusal to partake in the unjust treatment of animals, not an attempt to change how this world works.”
b. Saumya: “Every time I put my plate up in the cafeteria I see dozens of half filled plates with chicken, beef, pork, and fish on them and now I am disgusted. Not at the sight of left over food but at the thought of the poor animals who were abused and killed and not even to nourish anyone, to rot and be thrown away.” “The creators of the “green” market are geniuses and hopefully I can acquire a fraction of their talent and market a campaign for clean meat.”
c. Mary: “I believe that the actions you do are just as important as the actions you don’t. Feeling sorry for animals and offering them up pity is fruitless if you don’t use those emotions as a stimulant for change.”
d. Ben: “I encourage people to explore the endless possibilities of an elementary game like the associations of animal attributes to humans, and find out what one can learn about themselves, or their own realization about the understandings of species different from our own.”
e. Jenny: “I agree with this statement: if those who wish to have such commodities claim to care for animals at all, it is partly their responsibility to find another way of attaining their goals."

The Secret Lives of V's

COUNTLESS PEOPLE MISTAKINGLY ORDER VEGAN CHICKEN NUGGETS AT MCDONALDS EVERYDAY.

There is one thing that confounds every animal rights activist: the ignorance of the world around them. How can we noble humans bear to sink our teeth into the flesh of our animal counterparts? How is anyone attracted to the stench of marinating steak? These activists scoff and smirk at the deterioration of the omnivore’s colon and the weak morals on which they base their base lives. Haughty Animal Rights People (HARP) aren’t necessarily taller than the rest of the world, but for some reason they always seem to be looking down. They feel they are surrounded by pets—pets by Smuts’ definition: “The very word ‘pet’ connotes a lesser being” (X756). They yearn the day when everyone shares their superior view, but at the same time they seem to bask in their elevated status. Surely if there is any reason to not eat meat, it should be to join this elite group. But wait—there’s a catch. These HARPy’s live in a world of suffering that is shielded from the public eye. Painful bloating and sub-par stools are assumed, but there are two more things that poison their existence: ceremonial dinners and the taste of their meals. Listen, if you can bear, to the pain endured by these saintly homo-sapiens.
Sure there is cruelty in factories. Animals’ entire lives are dictated from birth to death, and their miserable lives are cut short with a short cut to the throat. Still, this is no match to the suffering imposed on a vegan trying to eat right at a public event. Think about it—while there is usually a vegetarian option at these various fundraisers, free dinners, and school events, the vegan’s plight is almost always overlooked. Hosts of such events may have a good cause, but the catering induces so much emotional stress that there ought to be another fundraiser to compensate the vegans that attended. An excellent parallel can be drawn from Hardy’s Jude the Obscure: Jude and Arabella starve their pig just as the hosts starve their vegans, and it most certainly “accounts for [their] crying so. Poor creature[s]!” (53). If there is any justice in this world, the future will accommodate all vegans equally, whether animals are treated right or not.

THIS FOOD LOOKS DISGUSTING-EVEN TO A VEGAN

Have you ever had vegan cuisine? If so, then it is clear that this was not a choice made for taste. Imagine if every meal you had contained three ingredients with a “—substitute” attached. Milk-substitute, egg-substitute, meat-substitute; the list is as long as it is unappetizing. “Human beings don’t die on a vegetarian diet” (Coetzee 103): this statement, though true, is only true in a literal sense. Countless vegans die daily of boredom, blandness, and hunger. “This vegan sausage is so blind I could die.” “This soy milk makes me want to kill myself.” People may observe vegans, but they never truly connect with them. They might say “I see the suffering of that person”, but they never say “I am that vegan, eating that disgusting food,” or “I am that vegan, sitting on the toilet praying that the tp doesn’t run out.” It is almost like the holocaust: just as the prisoners were given meager rations, vegans can almost never find sufficient rations. And their holocaust is far from over.

“Silently, a vision enters, slips through the focused silence of his shoulders, reaches his heart, and dies” (X763). This vision, for vegans, is of meat. They too are animals, and it is in their blood to crave meat. But they are above this. Cows have the right to wander aimlessly on grassy plains, chickens have the right to ceaselessly search for seed, and pigs have the right to eat rotting fruit in rainforests. Let these animals live up to their full potential, let them thrive and prove their worth. We cannot understand a cows point of view because we are not cows; therefore, we do not have the right to assume that eating is probably one of the most complex thoughts they have. It is our duty avoid eating animals, despite their nutritional benefit. If everyone had to butcher their own meat, we would all be vegetarians. This might because it is too time consuming for everyone raise their own personal hamburger cows, but the message remains: eating meat is not natural—even if only for a certain, elite group.

The World We Live In

Anyone who has owned a dog knows that animals can have distinct personalities. My first dog, Ama, was stubborn and competitive. Whenever I threw her a tennis ball, she would always fight to be the first to get it. Then when she brought it back, she would always stay ten feet away from me, no matter how much I chased her or called her. My second dog, Hola, is the opposite; she lives for affection, and will do everything she is told. My dogs were distinctly different, and possessed “human” traits. There is no doubt in my mind that my dogs loved our family.

DOGS DISPLAY LOVE AND COMPASSION--DO ALL ANIMALS?
My first instinct was to say that dog “love” isn’t as deep human love. Their emotions are much simpler and functional; "...[The dog] doesn't even think about what [he] will be doing next summer, or even next week" (X 743). Dogs love because it’s in their instincts; unless dogs work in packs, they will not be able to hunt. This instinctive love, since it is so chemically driven, is not as poetic as the kind that humans share. But then I realized, like Dana pointed out, that humans probably love for the same reason. Cooperation is an excellent adaptation, and enables a species to thrive. Granted, dogs will never be able to comprehend love as humans do, but this does not mean that it isn’t derived from the same origin. So, if love is an adaptation, then wouldn’t it be possible for all animals to love?

CHICKEN LOVE IS A LITTLE HARDER TO RECOGNIZE

For the sake of this argument, I’ll assume that they can. Now, as an omnivore, I am left in a moral dilemma: how can I support the slaughter of creatures that have the capacity to love? Is the taste of meat really worth killing animals? Today as I ate my chicken strips I imagined crazed beakless birds hitting each other with their heads. It was a bit harder to get down.
The way we raise animals for consumption today is cruel. The process is driven by economics and the “quick buck.” The cheapest way to kill an animal is certainly not the most humane, but we rarely encounter businesses that are willing to spend extra money. Why? Because they will lose money, and it doesn’t affect the consumers decision to buy. The crime is not consumption of the animals, it is the way we raise them. It has even been compared to the Holocaust by Coetzee--"Each day [there is] a fresh Holocaust" (Coetzee 80)A DAIRY COW'S EXISTANCE IS A SAD ONE, AND WE ARE TO BLAME.

It may seem cruel to want to eat animals that display human qualities, but it is a part of nature. Protein has been proven to contain amino acids that are critical to our body’s nutritional demands. Even though it is possible to attain the nutrients from other sources, this is merely a dietary choice.

It is impossible to tell the extent that animals love one another. Some obviously don’t—fish, ants, and birds—and others seem to only love when it’s convenient (starvation might change things). However, it is unnecessary for humans to devoid themselves of a natural instinct because they fear they are killing creatures that have complex human emotions.

Cruel Arguments

THESE IMAGES ARE DISTURBING, BUT SO ARE SOME OF

THE ARGUMENTS BEHIND THEM.

Animal Cruelty
Is it cruel to eat meat? Although the actual process of raising, killing, and processing the meat can be, the actual act of eating the meat is natural and instinctive. Proponents of animal rights argue that anyone who purchases meat is directly supporting the abuse of animals, regardless of their intentions. As a meat-eater, I am somewhat surprised by this logic, although I can see the motivation behind it. Still, there are aspects of the animal-rights rhetoric that I find exaggerated or oversimplified. Animals and humans are not equals; even more so, the Holocaust and the slaughter of animals for consumption are not equal crimes. Also, claiming that animals would “choose” alternate lifestyles is a weak and unsupportable argument, for many obvious reasons. There are many aspects argued by animal activists that I find disturbing, but I will focus on these two for now.

“The comparison here to the holocaust is both intentional and obvious: one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another. Though some will argue the suffering of animals cannot possibly compare with that of former Jews or slaves, there is, in fact, a parallel.”[1] Comparing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust of WWII is an insult to the people that suffered under the hands of Adolf Hitler. Although there may be aerial images of both that look similar, this does not mean that they are comparable crimes. From above, a military base resembles a city or town—does this mean they have the same function? A slaughterhouse will never have the same connotation as a death camp. During Hitler’s genocide, millions of people were imprisoned, separated, tortured, and murdered merely because they existed. Although a cow may moo as their calf is taken away, the emotional bond between a family is exponentially greater than that of a cow and calf. The cow instinctively wants to keep its calf near, but the trauma of the experience will last less than a month, and for one simple reason—the cow doesn’t have the capacity to miss its calf. Destroying a family, however, causes crippling and permanent emotional damage. During the holocaust, the victims were targeted because of their background. Slaughterhouses have a completely different priority; the production of meat. If animals were taken to buildings and killed simply because they were animals, then I could see a parallel to the holocaust. I can understand the passion that people have for animals, but these activists must be more careful and respectful with their arguments. The “shock and awe” technique might be one of the few weapons utilized by the animal-rights movement, but it is childish and disrespectful to attempt to associate the tragedy of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews with slaughterhouses.

IT IS IMMATURE TO ASSOCIATE MEAT CONSUMPTION WITH THE HOLOCAUST.

“What animal would choose to spend their entire life in captivity…if they had a choice?” [2]Granted, I would never want to live they way an animal raised for food does. It is a pointless, unfulfilling lifestyle. Still, this argument is irrelevant for several reasons. For example, I would not want to live as a chicken does in the wild. They are under constant fear of being eaten by predators, days consist of eating and defecating, and mates would be attracted to me according to the color of my feathers. Does this mean that a wild chicken's life is undesirable? Also, would a chicken want to live as a human? Any ounce of energy not used for eating or mating is probably considered wasteful to a chicken, so our lives may seem pointless. The priorities of chickens and humans are completely different, so no comparison could be made. It is my belief that chickens would imprison themselves if they were given the choice. If there was a field where chickens lived with abundant food, and there was a trough in the center filled with grain, I think that the chickens would crowd and fight around that trough everyday. They are animals, and their instincts tell them to survive. Chicken pens allow them to reproduce, eat, and gain protection from predators. What chicken would say no to that? In the wild, death rarely occurs from old age--a chicken will most likely die from disease, starvation, or predators. In my opinion, it is much more humane to die by beheading than it is to be eaten alive by an eagle, starvation, or a degenerative disease. Although the argument I have made is equally as contrived as the one I am critiquing, the point remains: no one can claim to know what an animal truly wants. Even through sympathetic imagination, humans will never be able to fully understand a chicken's wants and needs.

THIS ELK FACES A NATURAL DEATH--A CRUEL DEATH, BUT A NATURAL ONE NONETHELESS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq18oecT1A

WILL THIS BUFFALO HAVE A PLEASANT DEATH? NO.

I think that they way we raise animals for food is cruel and unrefined. However, this does not mean that we should all be vegetarian. Animals have always eaten each other; it is a natural process of life. In fact, the protein that our ancestors got from eating meat has been linked to our large brain size. If animal-rights activists want to make real strides for animals, they should accept the fact that there will never be an all-vegetarian world. By lessening their goals, toning down their tactics, and focusing their resources, animal rights activists might be able to improve the living conditions of animals. Until then, their hostile attitude will continue to turn people away from their compassionate intentions.

MAYBE ONE DAY EVERY CHICKEN WILL BE FREE-RANGE, BUT I DOUBT THERE WILL BE A DAY WHERE EVERY CHICKEN IS FREE.

[1] X703

[2] X725