Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Back to the 'Consumption of Animals as Food' discussion!

It was perfect timing to watch this film now after last week’s discussions of why people feel uncomfortable talking about the killing animals for human consumption of food. As seen in the film, Grizzly Man, nature is wild. Animals kill other animals for food. Animals kill their own species for food; and as shown by Timothy Treadwell’s film, in one instance when the land was experiencing drought and there was no water for the fish to run the stream, bears killed their own offspring for food. This is a prime example of a ‘survival tactic.’ Yes, I know, humans are far separated from nature. Not only would we not kill another human and eat him/her, we would absolutely not kill our own child and eat him/her. In our society this is seen as inhumane, sadistic and not to mention a felony of first degree murder. Getting back on track, as it is sad to see a naked skull or parts of bodies and limbs of devoured animals, it is reality. Wild animals survive by killing other animals for food as their survival tactic. This is nothing new as we have pointed it out several times in discussions. What I would like to ask the class and what I have been thinking about for a while is does actually seeing it happen make a difference? Yes, we can talk about how tigers rip apart zebras or how bears pull fish out of the stream and eat them whole but once seeing it done, as in the movie, does it make a greater impact? In a way, how is how humans fish any different than bears? We must scale them before consumption which most of the time entails chopping their heads off. We too are pretty brutal with our meat, in all cases.

I understand the majority of us are not going to stop eating meat (myself included) due to the discussions from this class alone. I do think it is important to think about the ways in which we get our meat and the little thought and consideration the general public put into the processes. Maybe if we collectively tried to connect ourselves back to nature it would create a stronger understanding and appreciation of the chicken, cattle, fish… nature in which we consume!


**Just a side note: I wonder what Treadwell ate during his expeditions in Alaska. He never really showed or eluded to anything in terms of his food. Unless really well contained, I guess he wouldn't have been able to have meat products due to bears ripping through his tent to get to it. If he did eat meat, I think it would have been quite odd! After all he mourned the death of animals as they were food for others.

1 comment:

  1. I think it makes a great impact on what meats we're willing to consume after seeing the process of getting the animal onto our plates. Nobody likes to think of the food they're eating as once having a life or a face.
    As for the difference between a bears fishing tactics and ours, I see this clear difference. We, in our society today, don't HAVE to fish to stay alive. We can live healthy, nutrition filled lives without ever eating another animal again. The fact that we still see the need to eat these animals, even though we don't rely on them for survival, as the bear does, shows that we have a very limited respect for nature.
    If we have the ability to feel compassion and understanding for these fish (or pigs, or cows...), and we don't HAVE to eat them to stay alive but we do so anyway... it just seems as though humanity has no respect for any forms of life but its own. I don't really understand how today's society came to be this way.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.