Saturday 9 June 2012


See here for the film Earthlings:

This is a disturbing and upsetting film that chronicles man’s relationship with our fellow animals (because it’s often forgotten that man is an animal too; we’re Homo Sapiens, a primate, that is a member of the ape family). I suspect that the scenes shown in the film are the most extreme cases, possible secret footage used as court evidence to get those farms and abattoirs closed down, but there’s no doubt that for the most part we do treat our fellow creatures with contempt and cruelty (I had to leave the room when it came to the whaling section). We see them as sources of gain through exploitation and are indifferent to their needs and the sanctity of their lives. Why? Because we can. We treat vulnerable creatures like that for the same reason we treat vulnerable humans like that: because we can; it’s that simple. As I’ve said many times before, we are being psychologically conditioned to be social Darwinists, (See: to see society as an amoral "dog-eat-dog", “might is right” morass. I’m glad Earthlings makes this point; it demonstrates that we cannot address human rights without addressing animal rights. The two issues are intertwined and inseparable. The Illuminati see humans as merely one more species of farm animal; if we emulate their attitude do we deserve better?

There’s a very dubious, as well as convenient, theory that says it doesn’t matter how we treat animals because they lack consciousness, they are not “self-aware”. The theory claims that humans alone of all creatures possess this peculiar and tenuous side effect of brain function. They site experiments like the “face spot test” in which animals have a black spot painted on their face and are shown their own reflection in a mirror; if they notice the spot this proves they recognize their own reflection and so are aware of their own identity. Animals which fail this test are apparently “unconscious”, unaware of themselves; although the proponents of this notion have never fully explained the details of this state of being. There are major flaws in this theory: Firstly humans are not the only species which pass this test; elephants, chimpanzees, dolphins and other cetaceans also do. Secondly, anybody who observes animal behavior will soon realize that it doesn’t differ that much from human behavior. Most animals, from dogs to ducks to donkeys, seem to be able to learn by experience and experiment; so possess intellect and memory. They seem to experience emotions: love, anger, happiness, sadness etc. They are social and communicate with each other; some even have simple political systems. The “un-self-aware” theorists will say things like: “They do seem to exhibit behavior that mimics human emotion…”; and the teetering tower of convenience grows even more precarious! This is also an unfalsifiable position; if behavior that mimics the experience of emotion can be used as part of the theory that no real emotion is present, then how can we ever know if any being, including humans, ever experience emotion. A woman weeping at her husband’s graveside might only be “exhibiting behavior that mimics emotion.” The dangers of this falsehood are obvious: Slave owners used to claim that black people have no soul! Anybody who has owned a pet, especially a dog, will scoff at this concept. Animals may be unable to comprehend many of the things that humans do, but they love, hate, are joyous, disappointed, inquisitive, bored, frightened, have friends, family and all the other things we humans do. They also suffer like we do; one doesn’t need a vast amount of brain power for that. We don’t know for sure what it feels like to be a particular species of animal unless we actually are one. Therefore we do know what it feels like to be one animal species: a human; this is why we know that the woman at the graveside is feeling real sadness. Why are we so certain that we know what the experience of being is like for other species?

You might now be expecting me to announce that I’ve become a vegetarian, but I’m not. I’m not a vegetarian and I do eat meat. I don’t think vegetarianism is a necessary step to eliminate animal cruelty. Even in this day and age it’s possible to obtain meat, eggs and dairy produce from farms in which the livestock is kept in a comfortable and natural habitat; they are fed an organic natural diet, given access to vetenary treatment and generally cared for by their farmers. Organic free-range meat is a little more expensive than regular brands, but it’s worth it I think, especially if you only eat a small amount, as I do. Alternatively you could eat game meat; that is meat from wild animals that have been caught in their natural habitat. Or why not hunt or trap animals yourself; this is not an activity for the squeamish, but after watching Earthlings you might find it more palatable. It’s ironic that animal rights activists often abhor hunting, even if it’s just hunting a species not in danger of extinction for food, but will go straight from their protests home to a nice pork chop from a pig kept its entire short life in an indoor pen and fed antibiotics and offal from other farmyard beasts. There are a lot of videos online claiming that man is naturally a vegetarian, that we’ve evolved to be a herbivore, see: and: The basis of this theory is that man has none of the physical features of predators like sharp teeth and claws, and an ability to run fast etc. However this doesn’t take into account that primates are unique because they’ve evolved high intelligence and grasping organs, like human hands, which show we naturally use tools to survive. Because we can make hunting weapons and traps we don’t need teeth and claws; in fact such anatomy would get in the way. I read a series of very detailed articles in Dot Connector magazine (see Links column on the main site) which explain that man is naturally an omnivore, a species which eats both meat and plants. We’re actually at our best when we consume 10 to 15% of our diet as meat. So don’t feel any qualms about eating meat from an animal that has been caught in the wild or has lived a happy life on a free-range farm. If this is in our nature why should we? After all if you were swimming in the sea and a hungry shark passed by, it would lose no sleep over gobbling you up.


The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

The idea that animals aren't "self aware" is just bull. You only need look at their behaviour to see their true nature. Asserting this belief is just an excuse to reaffirm man's prefered position of dominance.
But you're right about balance, rather than going to the other extreme.
Great post as always Ben.
All the best.
Carl (The 'Guide)

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Carl. To save the Earth we must care for all its organisms. Ben