Earthlings

Just over a week ago, I saw a brutal and hard-hitting documentary called Earthlings. Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix, it critically explores how, over the course of history, humans have placed their own interests far above those of other living creatures. Consequently, the animals who share the planet with us undergo a tremendous amount of suffering in the name of human progress.

We were warned at the start of the movie that there would be some unpleasant scenes, but that if we managed to stay to the end, we would receive a bag of goodies. Well, "unpleasant scenes" was right, and somewhat of an understatement. Earthlings was filled to the brim with hidden-camera footage of animals being mistreated and tortured. The scene I found most repellent was of a goat that had been skinned alive. The expression on its face was one of pure terror.

The film was surprisingly comprehensive in its examination of the ways in which humans exploit animals. It started with animals being used as pets, then moved on to how we use animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and medical research. However, the brutal examples that were shown in all these areas were not, in my opinion, representative of society as a whole. There was a scene which had hillbilly types swearing at and beating pigs. Another scene showed dog catchers throwing a stray dog into a garbage truck and then watching as it is crushed with the rubbish. Japanese fishermen were shown slicing open dolphins. The most extreme and shocking examples were used in order to get the audience to sit up and pay attention.

A thought-provoking point was raised at one point: that if we had to kill our own meat, we would all be vegetarians. I can understand this, as I wouldn't want the blood of the free-range chicken that I eat once a week to be on my hands. However, many indigenous tribes around the world have no problem hunting for and killing their own meat. That's how they feed their families. Hunting is in their genes. It's who they are. The moral aspects of killing a living being don't come into it. It's the law of nature - survival of the fittest.

The men in these tribes who have been taught to hunt bring back the meat, and women and children partake in its consumption. In the same way, our society has organisations that specialise in supplying the meat. What I object to then is not the killing for food, but rather the way that these organisations 1) Waste resources, and 2) Cause animal suffering.

In the US, many, many fields are used to keep livestock. More than 800 million acres of US land (more than a third), and approximately 24% of the entire planet, is grazing ground for cattle. Then there's the land and water that is used to produce feed for those cattle. One acre of land can produce enough grain to feed about 25 cows for a day. That same acre could be used to produce enough grain to make 2600 loaves of bread. One hundred acres of land can only produce enough beef to feed 20 people. The same acreage can produce enough wheat to feed 240 people. The world's poor are starving due to this gross misappropriation of resources.

In stark contrast, it seems that the chicken and pork industries don't use enough land. Battery hens are kept in tiny cages for their entire lives, and pigs are crowded together in pens that prevent them from carrying out natural behaviours such as rolling in the slop and nursing their young. It has been said that chickens are the most abused animals on the planet. They are confined to sloping wire cages in dark sheds with little or no natural light. They will never see the sun, scratch the earth, or forage for food. Battery hens are routinely de-beaked; a process where chicks have their beaks cut back with a hot blade, causing instant and chronic pain. Day-old male chicks are killed in a huge grinder because they can't produce eggs and are too scrawny to be bred for meat.

I think if we want chickens to have better lives, free-range will have to become the norm. Of course, far less chickens and eggs would then be available for people to eat, and they would be more expensive. But this would be the only way to end the suffering. It would probably force many people into going without chicken and could potentially create many converts to vegetarianism. At least free-range chickens have a relatively happy life before ending up on the dinner plate.

I don't want to say much about fish, other than the fact that Earthlings tried to put the viewer off eating fish entirely by showing diseased fish. The virus that caused the disease is supposedly more lethal than AIDS. There is also the fact that most of the world's oceans are being fished to their limits.

I eat a lot of fish, and I am convinced that it has many health benefits. This is the one meat I would want to continue eating. I don't think beef is a healthy meat, due to its high levels of saturated fat. The argument about overconsumption of beef being responsible for the widespread occurrences of obesity and diabetes in the developed world was given a brief mention in the film. What needs to happen is that this information is shown unequivocally by the mass media. This would hopefully reduce the public's desire for beef. Less land would then be needed for cattle farming.

However, there are alternatives to beef. Just last week, I read an article in the New Zealand Herald that espoused the benefits of horsemeat. Guess what? Horsemeat is 50% leaner than beef, higher in protein, has 10 times more Omega 3, and gram for gram has more iron than spinach. It is also high in vitamin B12, rich in zinc, and very low in saturated fat. Gordon Ramsay is going to serve it at his restaurant in London. Animal rights activists weren't too happy when they heard the news, and dumped a truckload of horse manure outside the restaurant.

My guess is that people are more opposed to eating horses than cows because we use horses for entertainment. We ride them and race them, and they are seen as graceful creatures of beauty. The Herald article (which I should add, was reprinted from a British newspaper) agreed that pigs are intelligent, but said that horses are no more intelligent than chickens.

The intelligence argument is interesting. It is an example of anthropomorphism. Intelligence is a human characteristic and we can readily identify with animals that display this characteristic. It is human nature to put the most value on creatures with the most human characteristics. We have more sympathy for four-legged mammals than we do for sea-dwelling creatures with scales and fins. And most people would place the life of a fish above the life of a mosquito.

Our tendency to see a human life as superior to an animal life is given a name in the film: speciesism. This form of prejudice is compared with racism and sexism - the side with more power sees the other side as inferior and therefore tries to exploit this power.

Of course, speciesism is just another word for anthropocentrism, which is the view that humans are the most important beings on Earth. This way of looking at the world came from the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are the apex of God's creation and all creation is there for the human to develop and use responsibly.

If it is not in our nature to see all lives as equal, what lives should we value? And what is it about these forms of life that makes them valuable? Some would say that all self-aware creatures should be valued. Some say that we should value animals that can express pain in a way we can relate to - if they scream and writhe, then why should we be masters of their fate? And if animals were killed painlessly, would it then be moral to eat them?

I don't have the answers to these questions, because the decisions people make are based on their values. There's no "one size fits all" way of living life. I don't eat red meat. I don't eat pork. In fact, I don't eat mammals at all. I may not be a vegetarian, but I do consider myself an intelligent eater. I know that vegetarians are said to be healthier than non-vegetarians, but in the end, the choice not to eat meat must be an individual one.