Please respond to these questions....
Why does Baudrillard include this chapter on animals in this book?
How does it relate to this course?
What did you take away from the chapter and the viewing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is for LBST 499- spaces, places and posers. It will serve as an asynchronous discussion for students to reflect on class readings, activities, cultural events, and discussions as it relates to your lives. As you contribute, you may raise questions, consider responses, and generate possibilites for follow-up activities in class. There is no maximum or minimum length.
Blog Archive
About Me
- sjMiller
- I am a funky, fresh, wheelin' dealin kind of PER-son who likes to hip-hop with my hippity hops and learn with the peeps. questions contact: sjmiller@iup.edu
Links to our WIKIS
- Black tie
- Casino Royale
- Catch and Release
- Common Place Coffee House
- Cozumel
- Cozumel 2
- Dave and Busters
- Dreamgirls
- Epic Movie
- Floorwars
- Forbidden Broadway
- Graphic Design
- Greek sing
- Guys and Dolls
- Guys and Dolls 2
- Howl
- Hubbard Street Dance Company
- Luigis
- Lupe Fiasco
- Manko Midterm
- Mardi Gras
- Mattress Factory
- Miller's home page
- Mohawk
- Nicole Adams: House
- Poster Show
- Road Trip
- Sara Marmo midterm
- Sheesha 2
- Sheesha King
- Shogun
- Shogun
- Sj's WIKI play
- Starbucks
- Swinton Midterm
- Tandoor
- The Prestige
Useful strategies to create web spaces
Welcome to "Places, spaces, and posers"
This blog is for LBST 499- spaces, places and posers. It will serve as an asynchronous discussion for students to reflect on class readings, activities, cultural events, and discussions as it relates to your lives. As you contribute, you may raise questions, consider responses, and generate possibilites for follow-up activities in class. There is no maximum or minimum length.
38 comments:
Baudrillard raises some really good arguments in this chapter, and while I don't agree with all of them, it gave me something to thing about and debate.
I believe what Baudrillard was referring to, only in a much more wordy manner, was a term called Speciesism: Are humans a superior species? I can't help but attribute my beliefs to a religious reasoning, in that God had created Man just under that status of Angel, and therefore above animal. And I don't think it can be argued that humans are superior to animals in intellect, as we can problem solve and critically think. Only I truly believe that the animals have something of which we should aspire to, that they in fact are of a higher "being" than man. Their system of life is better established, controlled, and more effective than anything humans could propetuate.
What separates us from animals, in Baudrillard's words is Reason. Many of us believe this (including me). But he writes that "our destiny has never been separated from theirs, and this is the sort of bitter revenge on Human Reason, which has become used to upholding the absolute privilege of the Human over the Bestial." So in other words, because we feel that animals have no reason, it is acceptable to treat them as a commodity. Only Baudrillard is saying this is not true, that our destiny is the same, that their is no distinction between the reason of a man and the reason of beast. Over time "we have made of them a racially inferior world.
Man has reduced animal to an object of complete bestiality, one far separated from even the bestiality of man. Because they cannot speak they cannot objectify, and so they give in--a self-annihilation. And such a thing as small and insignificant in human evolution as language has become the end-all in determination of moral and ethical practices. Baudrillard says that in "a universe of increasing speech, of the constraint to confess and to speak, only they remain mute, and for this reason they seem to retreat far from us." Animal is no longer an co-inhabitant of the planet, no longer a LIFE, but a product, a tool of proliferation.
I think Baudrillard included this chapter because it directs its argument at the very core of mankind, at the center of our discourses. It's a chapter about territories and territory infringement, of the domination of ones space and the psychological destablization caused by a superiority complex.
I know from a religious standpoint many people misinterpret the verse in the Bible that says God gave man dominion over the animals. This is often used as validation for their mistreatment and abuse. I find it ironic that so many Christians use this as an excuse to ignore injustices done to animals and as a reason for their meat-based diet and yet very few of them take into account the scripture that states we (meaning humans) are to be stewards of creation. Let's say Van Gogh was still alive, and he had just completed a painting he called Starry Night, and he gave you this painting and said 'please take care of this painting, I created it therefore I care very deeply for it; I trust you enough to give you complete control over it". Would you leave the painting out in the rain? Or subject it to extreme heat? would you tear a hole in it or paint over it? NO! You would realize its worth and its place and respect its territory.
The same can be applied to animals. They have something Man has lost. Perhaps it is contentment, or purpose. Perhaps animals are smarter than humans. Take into account that they live a sustainable life, that their established system of existence is much more effective and lasting. If the fundamental theory of evolution--only the strong survive--is true, I wonder how Man has made it this far.
I believe that Baudrillard included this chapter as another example of how far removed from reality our society is progressing. Is it possible that he would consider going to the supermarket or Wal-Mart a simulacrum of hunting, farming or making your own clothes? Because of technological advances we have moved far enough from our base points that vegetables seem to come from cans not plants, and meat comes plastic wrapped in the store not hunted for in the woods.
Perhaps most of the things we do today could be viewed as simulacra, because we have advanced to the point that it takes very little physical labor to accomplish our daily activities. This evidently leads to the formation of numerous pop-culture activities as people have more time and energy to seek out others that share the same interests.
I was appalled by the viewing as I’m sure most of the others were, yet I don’t know if this problem could be fixed because of the economics of the situation. If the animals were treated as they should be, the price of meat would rise which would cause incessant complaining. An obvious solution would be to have the animal care regulated. But, every attempt to regulate leads to allegations of freedom infringements. It’s a circular argument, people complain that the animals are treated badly, yet some would resist the regulation that would result in higher prices. My opinion is that if we can absorb higher fuel costs we could put up with higher priced meat in order to alleviate the animals suffering.
I agree with Billmac on why Baudrillard included this issue in the book. I too believe that our society is moving away from the little things in life that we take for granted like hunting for your own food instead of running to the supermarket to buy meat. Aome of us are selfish people who don't think about others only about ourselves. Some don't care how animals are treated as long as they get the meat.
As the years went by, we have become more out spoken about issues. Being a Veg, is acceptable now being a subculture. Also you have options on products, if you’re a Veg that you didn’t have if you were years ago. This chapter taught me how important it is to think about the affects of what I’m doing, in this case eating.
I think BillMac had some really good things to say. I really respect the points he made, they are definetly valid.
Baudrillard makes the reader aware of an issue that until Thursday I never viewed as very sever. While America lives in its "Disney Land" we find ourselves oblivious to the issues that don't effect us personally. I feel that this chapter was in the book to make the reader aware of this issue. Humans feel that they are superior to all because we are at the top of the food chain but looking at the movie planet of the apes it makes one think if the roles were able to change would we treat animals different that how we do? After the viewing of the movie I am kind of disgusted that I eat meat never taking into thought how the meat was processed. I will never quit eating meat, but I will definitely cut down the amount of meat that I consume.
I think Baudrillard included a chapter on animals in this book because it is a book about society today and animals are (sort of) part of society. He talks about how animals were once worshipped and respected and now they are so far below us in significance that we don't even dignify them with any kind of thought. It is ironic though how he compares animals to humans in the fact that we both have a psyche. Animals that are being kept in such inhumane conditions and closed spaces makes some go insane, all for the profitability of an industry. This can be compared to humans, so much industry, corporation, material things are being crammed down our throats that it also can make us insane. I think the industry of meat is a sort of industrial simulacra because we go to a restaurant and order a chicken dinner and looks and tastes pleasing and that's all we know. That is not the truth of the industry, it is really very gruesome. What I got from the book as well as the movie was that fact that we as humans have taken over, we kind of bully the animals because they don't communicate like we do, so we assume they have no thoughts. Bottom line, animals and humans are more alike than we think.
I think Baudrillard’s work is aimed at instilling a sense of mindfulness into a world that has evolved into a passive, submissive place. Whether the topic regards clones, “crashing”, or animals, Baudrillard challenges readers to think twice about their actions, thoughts, and interactions, and how both decisions and behavior can affect culture and politics. Often times when people are attentive about the ways that they conduct themselves, in this case being aware of what food they are putting into their bodies, more positive and beneficial outcomes result. Humans, as a group, have not only become mindless, but selfish, domineering, and overbearing as well. Although people can oppress other people, in this chapter, Baudrillard addresses what it means to do this with/to animals. Vegetarianism and debates over cruelty of animals have gained great momentum in recent years, which I think reveals that there is hope in motivating people to be analytical and proactive. Choosing to eat or not eat meat is a personal, individual decision, however, I think it is important for everyone, regardless of their stance and beliefs to understand and recognize the ways in which their choices affect outside sources and surroundings.
Personally, reading this chapter and watching “Meet Your Meat” were eye opening experiences. I was intrigued by Baudrillard’s discussion and disgusted by the film. However, as much as some of the scenes in “Meet Your Meat” upset and disturbed me, I was glad that we, as a class, were introduced to an aspect of society that many of us were probably previously unaware of. It would take a lot of time and consideration for me to become a full fledged vegetarian, but I still find it important for people to familiarize themselves with what serves as the sources of great debates within society.
I believe baudrillard included this chapter into his book because it shows how society views objects, such as animals, an how those views have changed over generations. The views towards animals today is somewhat a pop culture, because they have changed so often. Baudrillard states that animals were seen as sacred, more divine creatures than men. For a long time the animal order had been the order of reference. Today, Baudrillard notes that they aren't seen as sacred, meaningful beings (as they were in the past) and rather as food,laboratory and breeding tools.
Each generation has progressively seen animals in a different way. Each generation can be looked at as a different space in time, where society adopts the views of others in that space. Society has somewhat accepted that animals are either on this earth as food or for domestication. We have ignored the prior acceptance of animals as sacred and seen them, as .sara notes, as having no reason and only used for commodity.
Unfortunately I can not accurately comment on the viewing from Thursdays class, because I was away at a convention. However, from what I have heard/seen from my peers comments, it pertained to the cruel treatment of animals. I feel society would be more prone to avoid using and eating products if they knew how the product was made. I remember a video I viewed in high school on how a certain brand of dog food was made, which involved dissecting puppies and leaving them to die to see how the food was digested in their stomachs. After that, I never purchased their product again.
I think Baudrillard included this chapter to remind us that although we have progressed past racism and sexism to a certain extent (within our own country anyway)in our lifetime, there are still methods in which we carry out our innate desires to take conquest and control over another group of living creatures, whether it be people or animals. This chapter also points out somewhat that we as people often behave no more than animals or "beasts" ourselves. We are predators who slaughter our prey, and then eat it victoriously afterwards, and continue to share it with our young, whether we are the ones with the butcher knife in our hand or not.
This further ellaborates on what we have been learning all semester in regards to simulacra and simulation because like most examples of them, we are the primary contributors to the ultimate simulation, whatever the activity may be. We are the creators and the victims at the same time. We create the falsities that surround us, and continue, often willingly, to be influenced by them at the same time. On the subject of animal cruelty, we are the manufacturers who approve of such cruelty in order to sell the product, and at the same time we are the victims of cruelty being done unto us.
The video we watched reminded me of the countless pictures and films I have seen on the Hallocaust, and the treatment and destruction of it's victims. But on the other hand, people are benefiting from the death of these animals because we do need to eat to survive, and it is our right as an inidvidual to choose to eat how we see fit. Would it make the issue any more right if a tribe of cows and pigs died from natual causes and we continued to celebrate upon their death for food? A life is still lost regardless.
I think Baudrillard included this in the book because of reality. This is the reality of how some animals are being treated, and not to many people will ever know this or want to know the details behind it.I think its in this books so that we can learn from it. How people and animals are treated, not all of them are created fair and equal.I take a lot away from this chapter, but one thing I take away is about animal rights. Is how they are not treated fair. During the movie clip in class, it showed how unfair life can be for an animal, how they are bread for one thing MEAT. Many people don’t see and understand how animals are treated unfair.
I think that he incuded this chapter because people dont think about this issue alot and it is removed from reality. I know most people dont think about how the cow they are eating was killed. I know that I have never really thought about what they do to the animals they kill for food. I am def. against animal crulity, and as much as it bothered me to watch that movie and see them throw baby pigs against the floor, I still want to eat meat. Meat is good and we are suppose to eat it. I think that if you can be a vegitarian thats awesome I just dont think that i could do it. And i remember sitting in class after that video saying to my roommate we arent having meat for dinner tonight... but we did anyways becasue it is such a common food for us and for us to give it up wouldnt be easy. I was brought up to have a meat with dinner every night, or most nights. I think Baudrillard wanted people to think about what was going on becasue he realized so many people didnt know and thats why he included this chapter
I think that Baudrillard included this chapter for the same reason as billmac, it is another simulacra. As consumers, we are always looking for the easy way out. The perfect example is Super Wal-Mart. It’s open 24 hours and sells groceries, clothing, toys, automotive supplies, etc. It is a one-stop shop for anyone looking to save some time. We now have the luxury of technology where we don’t have to hunt our own food or make our own clothes so places like Wal-Mart are definitely simulacras.
In response to the section on animals once being sacred, since we have moved away from making everything ourselves it is inevitable that we would move away from the old times of worshiping animals and/or viewing them as sacred. I think this has occurred because society is evolving. Everything is now being questioned. Sacred animals are viewed that way mainly because of religion but if you don’t hold a specific religion why worship animals or view them as sacred? If you don’t believe in heaven, hell, afterlife or reincarnation (to name some examples) then why worry about how your meat is being treated? If you don’t believe in the after-death consequences (and you don’t have a heart or compassion) then it probably doesn’t matter how you get your food.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE
During the video I had to look away, which definitely made me think twice about consuming meat products. I heard people talk about how animals were killed for human consumption but I didn’t believe it until I saw the video… BUT the video was made to persuade people to make a vegetarian life choice (it said so at the end), so they are going to show the very worst of things. I will agree that even if 1 animal is being treated this way it is inhumane but there are two sides to every story. I think we need to look at the other side to see why these animals are being treated this badly. DEMAND. The population of the world is growing and in order to produce enough food for everyone there needs to be a huge amount of animals produced constantly, but there isn’t enough space to let them all have the space they need. Okay, to solve this problem people stop eating meat but if everyone turns into a vegetarian where are they going to plant all the fruits, vegetables, beans, etc? With the population growing the way it is (with rainforests being cut down, pollution on rise, and lack of locations for human habitation) there is no solution to the argument. The extreme side of everyone being a vegetarian would lead to more lab produced supplements and synthetic foods. Many people are upset with animals being injected with antibiotics and hormones so I don’t think they would accept mass-produced lab foods either. Mainly because you don’t know what they are made of and what you are putting into your body. So to end this, yes I feel that the animals are treated very unfairly but with the demand we are putting on the meat industry there really isn’t another way. We can all choose to be vegetarians but there isn’t enough fertile land to produce the food that we would all need to survive. The issue basically comes down to each individual, their conscience and how they view the world.
I believe Bauldrillard includes this chapter in the book because it shows us the way society views animals today. The author says it certainly seems that the only remedy is space- “a bit more space, and a lot of the problems observed would disappear.” In any case, “the fate of these animals would become less miserable.” Bauldrillard also states animals have thus preceded us on the path of liberal extermination. The modern treatment of animals in today’s society is insane. They treat the animals inhumanely and torture them in these slaughter houses and I believe Baudrillard included this chapter to inform us on this generation of people and their views.
I agree with Sheena about how each generation has progressively seen animals in a different way. It is in a way like a pop culture, because each generation changes as do their views on different subjects through out society.
What I took from the viewing is how horrible they treat poor defenseless animals at these slaughter houses. After watching it I will never eat meat again. I went to Chickfil’A the other day at the hub and ordered chicken. I was about to eat and seriously could not. I am now a vegetarian. It’s so weird how a film can change your views on something like that. I feel as though society would not eat as much meat as they do, if they knew what really went on in these slaughter houses
I belive that Billmac has made some very valid points as well. I believe as well that baudrillard is refering to this state of our culture as another simulacra. We are so far removed from where our food comes from, that we can imgaine and actually belive that it comes from the place that we want it to come from. When we see a prewrapped package of chicken in the grocery store, we dont think fo the animal that died to feed us. The life it lived, the way it died, the farthest back most of us may think is the butcher that cut it up into bite sized pieced for you. In this simulacra we can generalize all the animals humans consume as "meat" Why give the aminal its given name, if you all you know it as is the plastic wrapped premeasured out portion you see in the stores.
If you ask a child today, where does beef come from... i can guaruntee you they will say "the grocery store" i can even bet you they will name specifically which store it came from. Simulacra at its best.
We dont see where our food comes from, we dont know what happens to the vegatbales we eat before we eat them, we dont see the brutal conditons that the animals must live in before they die. Our socitey just closes thier eyes and swallows it.
Let me create a second space for you, where we are the quote unquote "animals" and the animals are the "superior species" think about the conditions and the death we would have to endure. It Sounds like a horror film. I choose to veg.
I think Baudrillard has included this chapter to open up our eyes a little wider. It is absolutely disgusting how we treat animals. After reading this and seeing that video, I was shocked. I knew this kind of stuff happened but when you see it, it is much different. Baudrillard makes a comment about the "hell of zoos" and states that "there is no more room for them in our culture than there is for the dead." This is so true. If you think about it, people go to zoos to watch animals taken out of their natural surroundings and placed in cages. They stare at them for hours and think nothing of it. To top it off, they actually pay for this! People are breeding animals these days just to kill them. Baudrillard is trying to make us see that the things in our every day life that we see and just pass by are not right. I think he is saying that we need to stop accepting things just because everyone else is.
I agree with several people who have stated that they believe Baudrillard mentioned this topic in the book because it is something that needs to be recognized by society. In the book, he compares us to animals, in the fact that we both have consciousness of what goes on around us. For me personally, it was really hard to hear about animal cruelty and view the video. I know what goes on, but I guess seeing it first hand impacts you much more. I grew up not eating any meats except chicken. After viewing this film, I contemplated giving up chicken, and just becoming a vegetarian. This is a perfect example of what Baudrillard was trying to get across to us. We are aware of this, yet we are selfish, and want food that will taste good for our own satisfaction. We continue buying products that we know animals sacrifice their lives for, yet we are drastically affected when it comes to how these animals are killed. Not only are the animals aware of what is going to happen to them, but they suffer to the point where some of them are still alive when they go into a boiling tank. In addition to this, most of these animals are injected with hormones and chemicals that we eventually ingest. How good are these things for our health? What could these things cause for humans down the road? I think about these things, but then I think about how expensive it would be to get natural meat from a local farmer or eat only organic food. In our world, everything is go go go, and we don’t have time to go to local farmers for food. It’s so sad that we would rather run to the grocery store, and purchase some processed meat for dinner, rather than frying fresh vegetables in a pan or cooking organically. I think our world has become so advanced, that things will never be as they were supposed to be…everything is about saving money and time in the long run.
I also agree with the assumption of the inclusion of this chapter to be a simulacra. Our society has adapted to a lifestyle where time controls everything. The easiest and fastest way has become the best way. Going to the local grocery store is much easier than hunting, killing, skinning, etc. the animal so, of course, we choose to shop instead. When we pick up our meat products at the store we are generally thinking about what meal we are going to prepare with it, not what it took to put it into our hands. We have become so far removed from the entire process that it isnt even considered. I believe that we are ignorant to the idea of such animal cruelty happenings and we assume that our meat is prepared for us in the most humane way possible. Or at least choose to believe something similar to this. The saying, "out of sight, out of mind" comes to me when thinking about this chapter and the viewing in class. Even if we are provided with the information about the animal cruelty that occurs in order to provide us food, most of us will choose to ignore those facts or at least have a hard time visualizing it and therefor, in a sense, believe it to not be true. Once we have been provided with the actual images and actions performed it is no longer out of sight and will not be out of our minds.
I feel that Baudrillard added this chapter in the book because animals can live in simulacras as well. For example, the movie "Madagascar" shows an excellent example. Animals are not meant to be bred into captivity where people can poke and brod them. Animals are meant to be roaming free. Animals that are bred in captivity are in a simulacra because there world is one of make believe. Humans reconstruct habitats that resemble the wild but they are just models of the original. While this does not directly relate to the video we watched I feel that in both instances animals are not being allowed to live the life they were intended in the world they intended.
In regards to the movie:
While the video was disturbing and showed probably the standard for slaughter houses and such I feel that this is not how it is everywhere. There are humane ways to slaughter animals use them for food. My family hunts and then we use that meat and my uncle owns a farm where they humanely slaughter the cows and pigs so I can see things from both perspectives.
I think that Baudrilard includes this chapter more to draw attention to how animals are treated because of how necessary they are to our society and how we function. It has been brought up that this chapter was included to be another simulacra, and I agree with that statement. After reading everyone's thoughts and reading the chapter it really made me think about how our reality of everything is skewed. We do go to the store to get everything we need rather then doing things the old fashion way ourselves. It makes me think that people who lived in earlier times had a better grasp on reality then we do because they had to go out on their own to hunt and gather rather then going into one store where they can get everything they need. Our society now doesn't generally think about things such as how cruelly animals are treated, we just go to the store and buy the meat because it is convenient, and in our culture convenience is key.
I believe Baudrillard included this chapter in the book because it is showing how people and society view other things in the world around us. Prior to viweing the video, I'm sure majority of the class looked at animals, the meat on their plates, as an object, and in a totally different point of view. It takes that severe, disturbing video, to show people that animals are not just an object and they should not be treated like that. Then again, you ask yourself.. well, we eat these animals to stay alive, so what is this even a problem?
I believe that Baudrillard included this chapter, because he has made us aware of how our thoughts and culture has affected our identities. Animals play a big part in shaping ones identity to animal owners and lovers to also be associate with non meat eaters. Vegetarians are a subculture of its own. Humans may be superior to animals in many ways, but that does not give humans the right to act cruely to them as shown in the video. All living things should be treated equally. There are probably very few people that could actually be that cruel to animals, and all though if people still chose to eat meat I don't feel like they are supporting that behavior.
I feel that animals as well as everything has been taken out of its original context. Animals were once in the wild like everything else and hunted. They were taken from nature when humans found a way to make a profit from it. It seem that everything has changed from the original in order to make a profit. Since Humans feel superior to animals they feel they can do as they please with them, whether it is to sell them as pets, food, or to keep them locked up in cages for zoos. Humans have also done this in the past to other humans. Certain humans have felt superior to other groups of human and felt that they could do what ever they want, if they are in power.
Reading the posts to this blog really got me thinking. Many people have very differing attitudes about the treatment of animals and it seems to me that Baudrillard feels the same. The thing about his argument that bothers me the most is that he places human and animal reason on the same scale. I think that is absurd! Any rational person could look at an animal and realize that they don't have the same scale of reasoning that we do. That is not to say that they are not intelligent creatures. But they have no concept of what is right and what is wrong. Most of their decisions are based on instinct and learned behavior. We have the ability to look at a situation and discern what is right and wrong. Animals should be treated with dignity and respect, as should all of God's creatures; but that does not mean that they are on the same scale of reason that human beings are.
I think Baudrillard has included this chapter to show the reality of how we may think or feel about situations. Meaning that we tend to not care or do anything about the treatment in certain situations, this case being animals. I think as humans the majority of us tend to become easily desensitized which makes it hard for us to do anything about a situation. Sadly for the majority of us including myself we wont take any actions or change because we are stuck in our own ways, i love meat and couldnt possible ever see myself being able to not eat it regardless of what i see. Yes i think what happens to those animals are sad but, we tend not to think or do anything about it cuz its not in our face its somewhere out isolated and behind closed door. Same concept can be applied to prisoners. The majority of us really dont care about the treatment and conditions that go on in prison because its not out and constantly in our face. We only tend to closely associate when we find ourselves in the same situation, and because most of us feel like animals, prisoners, etc are different from us we find it easier for ourselves to detach from the situation at hand.
Baudrillard wants to convey that there is something deeper in every aspect we take for granted. Just as we take the "Disneyland" example for granted and do not dig deeper into the simulacra, we do the same with the concept of animals. Animals are supposed to coexist and help other animals such as humans survive. Originally animals were hunted for survival not pleasure. Many of you have already used the convenience example of how easy it is to walk into a Walmart and meet your meat for dinner (wrapped in Styrofoam and plastic of course) . Not until we actually "MET our MEAT" by watching the video in class was it apparent that these animals are not that far off from ourselves. They have feeling, emotion, and nerve just as we do. Baudrillard is trying to get readers to realize that the majority of society neglects reality. I think every chapter is trying to send the message that our world is one big denied lie. Most people agree with the concept of superiotity but is it really true? Couldn't we be hunted one day? What would happen to us? Would we be wrapped in plastic and sold as well? Baudrillard states that animals have a destiny just as you and I but if the tables were turned, what would be our destiny?
All of the comments are convincing and great! They got me thinking deeply...I think there are several reasons Baudrillard brought up this issue in his chapter.
To make us aware of how we look at things in the society-- animals. Personally, I never think of animals and when I eat meat because "meat" has a total different concept from "animals" even though meat is part of/ comes from animals' bodies. "Animals" are creatures, wild survivors in nature (jangles, forests, etc), pets and entertainers at zoos... To bring down the recognition and points of view on animals in the discussions to related them to our diet (human’s necessity), this issue was in the chapter. He, in fact, let us look at animals and other things in society in whole different ways. Look how much and deeply we are led to think by his discussion!
I believe Baudrillard wrote this chapter about animals to make a point that the difference between animals and people is the abilitity to reason. Humans are definately far more superior then animals but does that mean it is okay for us to treat them the way we do? From the movie clip the other day in class it made it seem that it is okay for people to treat animals the way some people do as long as they are being raised for meat. But its not. I understand exactly why some people choose to be a veg. for the animals sake. But for me that movie did not persuade me in anyway to become a veg. I feel that the species on this planet were put here for a reason and only the strong survive. Although we as humans should try to make slaughter houses less inhumane.
I feel that Baudrillard included this chapter as a way of disillusioning the populace to what humans are doing. It seems to me from what others are saying about the chapter and from reading it that this was an attempt, by him, to bring our attention to a simulacra and possibly change it. Humans create an illusion for themselves of being dominant on this planet by the ability to kill and feast on lower thinking creatures. When in reality, the only reason that we can pull it off is that we created weapons that make us more powerful than we truly are. If we were forced to survive based on Nature alone, the human population would stay far more balanced due to the dangers of hunting and gathering in a world where we are only as good as the items and weapons we can make from tools at hand. It is in interesting concept to think of when you consider that we mistreat these animals and think that they are less than we are due solely to mental capacity. It seems to me that most animals live perfectly content lives when left to their own devices in the wild so why can we not offer the same things for the ones that we are keeping for ourselves.
I believe that Baudrillard includes this chapter to show how human beings are spiraling out of control. We use and abuse everything that we can for the sake of convenience. I don't have time to go out and hunt that food because I have to sit behind this terminal all day and crunch numbers. I don't consider that package of animal flesh or where it came from because I don't have time and likely don't want to know. We treat animals as we would any other resource. We butcher them as easily as we cut the grass. I don't mean to sound like Captain Planet here, but we are destroying our environment. It is more of the same attitude that states, "Who cares about how I treat things? I'll be dead and gone before I see any lasting impacts."
I feel that Baudrillard included this chapter on animals so that we as humans would stop and think about our actions. We as a society have become obsessed with greed, and we dont think about anyone else but ourselves. I think alot of times humans feel as though they are the dominant creatures of society and therefore they can do whatever they want, but I disagree with this. I feel God created everyone equal and no one is above or more superior than someone else(including animals). After reading the chapter and watching the film in class it made me re-evaluate the ways in which I take food (especially meat)for granted. Although not all animals are treated harshly as we saw in the video, I still feel bad now everytime I pick up a piece of meat to put in my mouth.
I feel that Baudrillard included this chapter to make us more aware of how we treat other living things as well as the earth. Many people remain ignorant to the world around them & tend to just accept things, thinking that the majority of the population goes along with it, so it must not be that bad, or that wrong. And because the majority of the population feels a certain way, it would be almost an inconvience to think differently, or that changing your views will not make that much of a difference. I feel that many people would actually no eat meat if it wasn't such an "inconviencance." I'm a vegetarian, and I know that usually when I got to a restuarant there is going to be about 1 or 2 things on the menu that I can actually eat. It's a shame & that society has not gotten to the point yet where it accomidates more for the minority or the "outisders." I feel in general many people in society lack knowledge of what is really going on around them & this makes it hard for change.
Animal rights activists are a very large part of counterculture that often gets overlooked. Although we have organizations like PETA which we can recognize in popular culture, it isn't a part of our lives like say music is. Eating meat, although we may not really think about it, is a part of many facets of popular culture. Restaurants all serve meat, there's meat at cookouts, and if you go to a park like Disney, you can get a Turkey leg. I think this chapter is included because we often take the availability of meat for consumption granted because we ourselves are being consumed by popular culture and what is expected of us by society.
I think Baudrillard included this chapter to show us that animals are a part of our society and that we should not disrespect them the way we do. Simply because we are more intelligent does not give us the power to be cruel. I could not keep my eyes on the screen for the majority of the film - it was too painful... the images that I did see are permanantly stuck with me. I wish there was a more humane way to handle the animals; however, I feel billmac has a good point when saying that people will bitch when prices go up. I do feel that if people were educated and knew of the torment these animals went through then perhaps they would be more willing to pay the extra costs.
I think that this chapter was included because animals are people too. (Pardon the obvious cliche) Animals are so much a part of our society that they become like family members, friends, and in fact, people in a manner of speaking. They have emotions, they have personalities, and all that they lack (aside from the opposable thumbs)is the ability to fully vocalize their emotions. Baudrillard says that reason separates us from the animals, but I believe that to be wrong. Animals can reason, I have watched my dog do this many times when gauging how she wants to deal with a certain situation. People regard themselves as being highest on the food chain but really we are mid grade at best. We keep ourselves up on this lofty pedestal of our own creation and are content to sit there for as long as we please. I believe this is how this relates to the course. We as humans place ourselves into this simulacra of our own creation where we are loftier than the lowliest creature, thinking that our lives mean more than that of a cat or dog, when in fact the animal has just as much to live for, and is probably a better person. I have come to believe that this course is about challenging ourselves to think outside of the proverbial box so to speak, and because of that I think that this manner of thought is completely valid. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the viewing of the movie, but as I understand it, it was a little gruesome, and more or less disturbing to the stomach and sensibilities for us omnivores.
"I believe Baudrillard included this chapter in the book to make us more aware of the horrific ways we treat animals. We can go on thinking that they are all treated kindly, but the fact of the matter is, they are most definitely not. He tells us how animals at one time were considered extremely valuable, worshiped even, and now they are treated as these things raised only to be consumed by the people of the world for food.
After reading this chapter in Baudrllard and watching the video, my eyes were opened to the reality of the cruelty to animals. I wanted to believe that all animals were raised and treated kindly before they were used for human consumption; I thought they lived on farms, and when they died, that was when they were sent to a slaughter house. But that idea was because I live in my own little naïve world, where everything was done in a humane way, not through what seems like torture. After watching the disturbing video, it made me think twice about where some of the things I eat almost on a daily basis came from."
Thanks,
~Alexis Lanzillo
I feel as though Baudrillard had included this chapter to show how humans feel that they are the superior species to anything else that can be found on this planet. This idea of speciesism is brought up in the manner that animals are considered inferior to humans becasue of their lack in ability to reason. This reminds me of the book Tarzan of the Apes, in the sense that tarzan had all the attributes of the apes as well as the ability to reason and this made him far superior to any other species. This idea connects humans back to their roots in nature and produces the complete or flawless species. To become so flawless one must obtain both qualities, human and animal so in a sense these two species are equal in capability but only differ in intellect or what we humans consider superior intellect. However, even the most intellectual would not survive in nature without animalistic insight so therefore one should not be recognized over the other. This then brings us to the point of animal cruelty and the idea that we breed animals strictly for profit because we are the superior species and can, because of reason, benefit from the inferior. Because of this in ability to co-exist with animals in a more acceptable manner, people are being forced to see animals as just that. Simply an animal or object produced for the benefit of humans. This chapter comes to challenge our ideas of space infringement and how it affects our lives. I realize that the video was probably a worse case scenario of what conditions are like, but nontheless it challenges the viewers idea of what is morally right and forces them to become destablized.
Baudrillard has been talking about simulacrum throughout the whole book. What I believe that he is trying to bring to the surface in this chapter is the disasters of mass production. All the animals are massed produced as copy or their original so we as human can use them at our dispense. However, this is hurting the animals more than helping us. Craming them into tight cages because of the lack of space is driving them crazy. I believe this is a lesson to be learned. Someday humans are going to be in the situation. We are going to be crammed into small apartments because of the lack of space. Then we will go crazy just like animals. Look at New York City, or any city for that matter, millions of people crammed into a small space causes people to act in different ways. They are hostile towards others because there is never enough personal space for a person to live their daily lives in. It is only going to get worse as population rises.
I believe that Baudrillard included animals into his book because animals are a huge part of our society. Most people if not all the people I know have an animal and it is part of their family. It is sometimes a status symbol for celebrities or richer people to have expensive breeds of animals. This relates to the course because they are part of our space and are just as social as we humans are. I took nothing really away from the viewing. I don't believe that all animals are treated like that when being used for food and only the harsh ones were.
I feel that Baudrillard based a chapter in his book for the same reason that he has posted every other chapter. Once again, I feel that he would look at this topic of wether or not is right, if society has taken this issue to far, and wether or not this is a space? I dont feel that killing animals for food is wrong, I do feel that torturing animals and then killing them afterwords is def. wrong. I know that when I hunt, I say a prayer thanking god for providing me with food, that he has placed on this earth. I dont think that Baudrillard would say it is wrong or right. I think that he would have a say on each side, defending both sides.
Post a Comment