Asian Religions

I was intrigued in seeing the reasoning of others about the environments constant harm due to the human race- the idea that money is a primary reason behind this big mess is an obvious answer to the problem, however I would’ve never thought of religion as a secondary problem. It blew me away that this could be seen as the answer. While the idea was making my head spin, I continued to read and came upon a comment that stated “landscapes that appear to be most free of human culture turn out, on closer inspection, to be its product” (810). After much thought, I understand and believe that this is true. Even the most natural setting have all been in the hands of man for several years and have been used as sources of income for one thing or another, take for example the Grand Canyon and any National Park the beauty of these places remains only in an effort to preserve what once was for profit.



As I continued to read I began to wonder more about our ideas about the things we do daily and how they affect our planet. I realized how so much has changed even in cultures religious practices stem back centuries ago. For example, Indigenous people once had “respect for the sources of food, clothing, and shelter that nature provides” (812). Appreciation of the creator and the natural spiritual forces were at the heart of every tradition and now it’s the greed for money that seems to support a lifestyle different from what it once was. Getting an inside perspective into the Jainism religion really made me think.

alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459364350857381362" />


Being raised in the American culture, I know that the teachings apart of Jainism are far from anything I learned as a child. What is portrayed as the essential rule of the religion goes against what we are taught about standing up for ourselves, killing the bugs that land on you during little league games instead of just running away. It makes it almost seem impossible for Americans to practice Jainism, come to think about it I find it hard to see how anyone could around the world especially in Asian societies could practice this religion. Asian countries are known for their pollution problems due to their mass production in which so many people are not necessarily being cared for. The articles talk about Ahimsa as if a person could truly exists never harming anything, putting others before themselves, and turning the other cheek. I honestly think that in this day and age, its almost impossible with all the chaos its hard to be upset even when its at something insignificant. “In the regeneration and divinization of man, the first step is to eliminate his beastly nature. The predominant trait in beast is cruelty. Therefore, wise sages prescribe Ahimsa (non- injury). This is the most effective master- method to counteract and eradicate completely the brutal, cruel Pasu- Svabhava (bestial nature) in man. Practice of Ahimsa develops love” (815). The practice in Jainism reflects an idea of a hopeful future without any further pain inflicted on any living thing. The article finally stated what I believed all along “you cannot find a single non-injurer in the world. You have to destroy life in order to live. It is physically impossible for you to obey the law of non destruction of life, because the phagocytes of your blood also are destroying millions of dangerous intrusive spirilla, bacteria and germs” (818).



While the practice of Jainism is very influential, its also really idealistic. Religion and money are two extreme factors on the environmental problems; I don’t feel that they are the only ones however. “In addition to their knowledge, technology, ideals, and God, they must above all search deeper for the source of life, the depth of personality and the common origin of human culture in order to arrive at a true unity with mankind” (833).

Berger

In the section from John Berger’s About Looking we learn that while ‘all creatures, including man, originally lived together in fellowship in one camp” (797) the effects of corporate capitalism have broken “every tradition which has previously mediated between man and nature” (795). Everything that humans have done to better themselves and prove superior to the other creatures of Earth have negatively affected other creatures, just look all around at the constant construction that destroys the homes of so many animals, the pollution that ruins the food and water sources of animals, and our constant obsession with the items produced by the death of these animals including food and clothing.



But that wasn’t always the case. “Animals first entered the imagination as messengers and promises” (795), the bible shows several examples in which animals are used as symbolic messages to humans. For example the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. However, not all examples in the bible show kindness to animals. In book 9 of Genesis in the Kings James Version it states that after God has given Noah and his sons the right to rule over the animals he also says that “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast” (809). While this statement is not intended to be negative it reflects the idea of superiority of humans to animals which has caused much suffering to Earth’s creatures. “



"'Tis by the same vanity of imagination that he equals himself to God, attributes to himself divine qualities, withdraws and separates himself from the crowd of other creatures, cuts out the shares of the animals, his fellows and companions, and distributes to them portions of faculties and force, as himself thinks fit” (835). Man took what God told him and overtime has used his power for evil more than good because there is no one there to stop him. However, there is much proof in that shows that there exists a vast number of similarities in comparison with the differences. “Animals are born, are sentient and are mortal. In these things they resemble man” (795), so much of how all earthlings are created shows that a closer relationship between humans and animals. Aristotle himself “declared that human beings and animals share a common ‘sensitive’ soul” (801) making them both able to experience emotions. The only barrier that exists is that of language but while humans continuously state that animals cannot understand we must ask ourselves if it isn’t man whose “lacked the capacity to speak with animals” (796). With that being said we must also “determine where the fault lies that we understand not one another- for we understand them no more than they do us; and by the same reason they may think us to be beasts as we think them” (835). The interesting concept that develops of the misunderstanding of one another has also allowed The representation of animals over time has varied. “They were subjected and worshipped, bred and sacrificed” (796).



However, the only thing that has in my opinion remained constant is the human infatuation with the power “ascribed to the animal, comparable with human power but never coinciding with it” (795).

Alice in Wonderland in IMAX 3D

After reading Alice in Wonderland and having viewed the movie I realize that it would have been satisfactory to evaluate the movie based solely on the books read for class. Because the book allows for your imagination to go wild in visualizing the beloved characters I found the constraints and stereotypical portrayals of the movie didn’t allow for the story to really come alive to me. I realize it isn’t really a remake; it’s more like a sequel that gave a different view of the books characters. Tim Burton is a great director who always takes movies a little bit closer to the dark side but I’m not really sure what his intentions were with this movie since I feel that most of the time the characters end up making fun of themselves and each other. Several instances of animal cruelty appeared throughout the movie, nothing really changed much from the book.



Like in the book the Red Queen is cruel and gets joy from inflicting pain on the creatures around her. She was exactly what I expected: needy and greedy with a low self esteem that was hidden by an oppressive attitude that made those around her pretend to be her friends.



One of the most memorable scenes is that of Alice playing croquet with the Queen using hedgehogs as balls and flamingos as a club. In the book, Alice doesn’t appear to have any concern for the animals while in the movie she actually doesn’t participate in the game itself and instead helps free the hedgehog before growing and being renamed ‘Uhm’ and becoming a guest of the Queens. The Queen then uses a pig as a stool and has monkeys hold up a table top in which Alice is to sit on. I think of this as another level for the Queen, she doesn’t only mistreat animals but she also treats them as objects in her world and not as living creatures.



Another scene in the movie in which the Queen is on the balcony also shows the animals struggling to maintain the furniture’s location in fear of the Queen’s wrath. While Alice appears to be a threat to animals in the book in the movie she is portrayed almost as an activist for the rights of animals since she is constantly seems to help animals. In one scene she returns a stolen e eye to a creature that she once feared and goes against the dormouse that had it as a trophy, thinking that it is the best option.




The most interesting character was the White Queen, while appearing only a few times in the film she plays an important role in Alice’s life. Because it is necessary for the Jabberwock to be defeated, she pushes Alice to do it since she has take a vow not to hurt any living creature. However, I feel that though she isn’t the one that has caused creatures its life she has conspired against it and helped end its life. I felt that though she was portrayed as the nicer, she was very deceptive in her actions. Besides asking Alice to end the life of a creature because she herself couldn’t she also held a lot of power over all animals.



She almost seemed like a puppet master having the puppets do her work for her. These are only a few instances that I felt were important in both the book and movie. I focused on events involving animal cruelty not only because that is what the course covers but because the rest of the movie wasn’t that entertaining, I didn’t enjoy the love story developed between Alice and the Mad Hatter or the story of Alice in the real world.

Panel Discussion at AT&T Conference Center

In attending the animal panel at the AT&T Conference Center, I heard three very different perspectives on the topic of the treatment of animals by humans in several perspectives. The first speaker, who clearly stated that his topic was furthest from the panel topic, was Mr. Thomas Prasch. His part of the discussion covered a book rarely talked about from Darwin on the relation of animals and humans through the expression of behavior.



One of the key points of his argument shed light not only on the relation of animals and humans but on the similarity between races. He talks about how it is the cultural differences that cause a divide and not really biological differences. Most of his talk was read off his paper, and since I had previously read the paper I was annoyed and bored. I believe he could’ve made really good connections and use his paper to defend animal’s rights and make a case against animal cruelty but his disappointment in not being able to participate in the Darwin panel made him not want to be really active in any panel.




The second speaker, Professor Bump covered his favorite topic of discussion- the Alice in Wonderland books. He showed instance in the book and the movie in which the characters are portrayed with constant changing views towards animals. Some of the characters, especially Alice throughout the book seem to portray aspects of animal cruelty. I think one of the greatest topics of discussion was brought up by Dolphin’s question which led to discussing the differences between the White and Red Queens.



While the White Queen states that she does not harm animals she has no problem asking Alice to do the dirty work for her. The Red Queen openly expresses her dislike of animals; she is honest about her intentions and does most of the dirty work herself. I really liked looking at the differences in the movie and the books. The last person to talk was Professor Styles, I felt as if she chose to really use her time and talk about everything she wanted to get across about her paper.





Her paper discussed the book Dracula and the significance of vivisection. She also makes the comparison between Dracula’s obsession and necessity of human blood with that of humans need for animals through the use of a food chain system that seems to develop in which Dracula is at the top. I really enjoyed her power point presentation that summarized all the main points of her paper and I loved hearing questions from audience members. It all went by a little too fast, most of the time the presentations seemed rush which I don’t think allowed for me to really enjoy the conversation as I felt a little lost at times.

Earthlings 2

Throughout this video I’ve asked myself several different questions but now that I’ve seen it all I can’t help but think specifically of one thing: how did all these practices develop. I’ve seen several different ‘tricks’ that men do to animals to continuously dishearten them as they lead them to their deaths, I wonder why people think it necessary to do this, how sadistic must the people who do these acts to animals be. The animals intended for food sources are forced to watch the suffering of their fellow animals. I wondered how this affects the flavor of the meat obtained from some animals, I would think that the cow would be tense and make the meat harder and lower the quality of the product. Other animals killed for their fur go crazy in their cages before they are suffer through anal electrocution in order to become expensive fur coats. Choosing the least expensive ways to get the fur off of these beautiful animals means that at times they might feel the skinning procedure and suffer the final moments of their lives.




The images of the cows too weak to stand make me think of all the images of Jews in concentration camps leaning against each other for support. The actions that those men did to the cows in order to get them to stand or move disgusted me. They intentionally inflicted pain on the animals knowing that they would get an adrenaline rush and then be able to continue on the march to their deaths. What made my stomach turn was the scene in which the men took chili pepper and put it in the eye of the animal, how sadistic is this seriously the animal is not only on his way to die but he must suffer his whole way there.



Not only do humans who fulfill these acts hurt the animals but in the occasion of obtaining leather they also lie to other humans. “Thousands of India cows are slaughtered each week for their skins, purchased from poor families in parts of rural India who sell them only after the assurance that the animals will live out their lives on farms” (582). While this is deceitful by the people who end up killing these cows I also don’t believe that the people are really that naïve. They understand what is going on, they’ve probably heard about everything that happens to animals in order for them to be used as food or clothing but the limited resources that they have pressure them into deceiving themselves about the possibility of their animals being slaughtered. In the labor of killing animals I believe deception must exists, you deceive those who eat the meat about how it is produce, you deceive the animals thinking they are in good care since they are fed several times and surrounded by their peers, you deceive yourself if you participate in the acts of killing believing that the practices are ethical. The death of animals is not the only way that humans have used in order to inflict pain on animals.



In rodeos around the world, the roping of animals which “involves throwing a rope around the neck of a frightened animal running full speed, jerking the poor creature to a halt, and slamming him or her on the ground” causes seriously irreversible damage to the bodies of the animals. Upon being pulled they hit the floor with the no cushion and risk possibly damaging bones and organs that will be left untreated. Elephants in circuses are yeld at, hit, poked, and tied with chains by their ankles throughout their life. These massive animals are broken down with such horrific practices that it isn’t hard to see why they have retaliated in the past.



I would have never looked at things in this perspective and I can’ help but know that I wouldn’t want my younger siblings to see it in this perspective making me wonder if I am part of the problem.

Sexism and Derrida

The comparison presented in the readings of speciesism and sexism doesn’t cease to amaze me. I’ve always found that the ‘isms’ were all similar in the sense that they were against an ‘other’ but through this reading and the course, I’ve come to think of each ‘ism’ promoting the others. In looking at just women and animals, I see that “many women adopt the very attitudes which are oppressing them” (789). Women definitely treat animals different than they would other humans; I think of the annoyance at insects and sometimes at pets displayed by women in my childhood and see the same treatment inflicted by men who believe themselves to be superior. I think of our culture which promotes the use of derogatory terms to people of different color and to women, how many times a day do we hear in music that a woman is a ‘bitch.’



“Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior and available for abuse” (785). The acceptance of negative metaphors between animals and women allows for a dehumanization to takes place and permits men to do as they please with women, in the past the same has occurred when white men considered African Americans different and treated them like they would other animals. Most metaphors that reference women as animals are negative and ironic in the ways the animals are perceived. Animals don’t often share the features associated to the derogatory term used against women for example, ‘bitch’ is used to refer to women who are thought of as “malice and selfish” but dogs are usually thought of as “loving and eager to please” (787). Why the association is made in a negative perspective and not a positive one not only harms the reputation of the creatures bit further allows for a separation of good and evil to be made between the oppressed and the oppressors. I’ve also begun to truly understand the importance of words and how “language fosters exploitation and abuse” (788). The terminology used against women and animal allows for the differences to appear larger than they are and therefore permitting the mistreatment since they are different.



“When used to denote other species only, animal falsely removes humans from animal kind” ( 789).After years of reoccurring events in which a group of people have gathered and stood up to fight for those who were once unable to do it for themselves it seems as if we’ve gotten nowhere since it continues to happen the only difference is the group that’s being targeted. “To think the war we find ourselves waging is not only a duty, a responsibility, an obligation, it is also a necessity a constraint that, like it or not directly or indirectly, everyone is held to” (723).

Animal Research

Dissections and vivisections have been performed on animals and humans since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans. While prohibited by various governments and frowned upon by Catholic Church officials, these acts took place for scientific and medical purposes. Galen made anatomical discoveries using these practices but his dependence on animal subjects led to erroneous information about humans that would be challenged and disproven by Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius. French philosopher Rene Descartes used Vesalius findings to support the idea that animals were “unthinking unfeeling machines” which encouraged researchers to use animals without moral concern. Criticizing Vesalius, French philosopher François- Marie Arouet de Voltaire stated that vivisection “uncovered organs of feelings in animals” proving that they weren’t machines. British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shortly after posed the question that many still ponder today. “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”
During the nineteenth century, a new found awareness of animal welfare led to organized efforts that helped pass The Cruelty to Animals Act in Britain in 1849. In December 1875, Frances Power Cobbe, founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection (later, the Victorian Street Society), the first organization to campaign against animal experiments. Cobbe would be the founder of other animal advocacy groups including the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Other parts of the world would also begin the fight against animal cruelty. In 1871, the first vivisection laboratories in the country were at Harvard University, despite opposition from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Various animals’ rights groups formed and tried to outlaw the cruelty practices, they would help pass legislation during the 1890s that outlawed repetition of painful animal experiments for any purpose.
In 1906, after a series of injuries, sicknesses, and deaths, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act (PFDA). Until the 1930’s, doctors lobbied for a crack down on drugs and personal products sold. It wasn’t until after the death nearly 100 people that the public put enough pressure on Congress to strengthen the original PFDA. In 1938, the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (PFDCA) passed stating that animal testing would be a requirement for all products. Wilson-Sanders notes that as time progressed the testing requirements were “gradually amended to include different species and to last for longer time periods.”
The antivivisection movement did not resurge again until the 1960s. Pepper, a Dalmatian disappeared from a family’s backyard, they searched for the truth and discovered that she had been sold to a hospital that conducted an experiment on her and euthanized her. People wanted new legislation that protected animals and would be monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) were brought forth. Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 making it necessary for animal dealers to be licensed and laboratories regulatory. In 1970 the act was renamed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and covered all warm- blooded animals, a year later rats, mice, and birds were excluded. In 1985, the act was amended again to require that researchers minimize the animal’s pain whenever possible through the use of anesthesia, pain killers, and humane euthanasia. In 1990, it was extended to farm animals.
Around this time Richard Ryder, coined the term speciesism referring to a “widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals […] can also be used to describe the oppressive behaviour, cruelty, prejudice and discrimination that are associated with such a belief.” Ryder, after years of inflicting pain on animals through research, Ryder began to work against the evils done to animals by humans. Like many others before and after him, he used his sympathetic imagination to understand the animal’s experience. While in this class, we’ve been challenged not only stand outside ourselves and see how our reactions have affected other earthlings but to also try and place ourselves in the position of those animals who are so often mistreated in order for the human race to achieve a medical or scientific advance of some sort. But are the experiments performed considered essential for the betterment of mankind, is the use of animals even really necessary?
These questions constantly crossed my mind throughout the course especially when considering that we, as humans, try to separate ourselves from animals, why then is it that we try to find out about ourselves through the use of creatures that are different from us. Animal research is an established practice done all over the world that many believe is beneficial to advancements however it is also a horrible experience for the animals partaking in the procedures. As earthlings, we must consider that we are alike and that we are harming a part of ourselves and therefore to protect our own we should get rid of animal research ending animal cruelty and the moral damage that we are causing to ourselves. However this goal cannot be obtained right away, smaller steps must first be taken, the implementation and enforcement of laws has already began in past generations now we must ask ourselves what will we do? I think of the class and the small group of dedicated young men and women and how we could change the treatment of animals, what better way than to start right here on campus.




Built in the summer of 1977, the ARC (Animal Resource Center, previously the Animal Research Center) was originally a 50,000 square foot facility capable of housing 10-15,000 laboratory animals per year. Claiming to be "Seeking progress for all species through research" and located on 2701 Speedway, the “centralized facility permits the most efficient and up-to-date environmental control for sanitation and animal health monitoring. It also has access to a diagnostic laboratory, two complete animal surgery suites, several darkrooms, controlled environment rooms, and a necropsy room.”


The three primary units of the center are veterinary support, husbandry, and administrative services intended to help researchers and their goal. Users of the center include students and faculty from the departments of Anthropology, Chemical, Electrical, and Bio-Engineering, Biochemistry, Kinesiology, Nutrition, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Psychology, Zoology, and the School of Pharmacy .Since its construction, a 20,000 square foot extension was added with facilities for molecular biology, biohazard, and transgenic research. People in the building of assistance to researchers are fifteen part and full-time animal attendants and technicians, an administrative associate, a facilities manager, a compliance and training manager, and the director whose specialty is lab animal medicine. The mission statement of the ARC states that they will oversee “the care and use of vertebrate animals utilized as part of the research and teaching activities of the University and serves as a source of expertise and support for investigators and the administration on all issues related to laboratory animals.”
The activities performed in the center are pre-approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee whose mission is to “oversee the provisions for the care and well-being of animals used for research and educational purposes at The University of Texas at Austin. The IACUC is also committed to serving the public by ensuring conformance to all legal and ethical standards regarding the use of animals in research.” The facility is not open to everyone, to get into the center you must first fill and print out the ARC record, have it signed by your PI (Principle Investigator), obtain a proximity card from the ID center located in the FAC ID, and take printed form and ID to ARC front office to get card activated. When getting access to the center you must then enter the lobby/office/conference area and in order to go beyond this point you must be escorted by UT faculty member. “ALL visitors must register at the front desk of the ARC prior to entering the animal care areas.”


A limited amount of information regarding the ARC is posted online and few even know that the location exists on campus. These two factors lead me to believe that UT officials are aware of the uproar that would occur if the campus were made aware of the experiments that take place inside. While not much is made public about the projects conducted and several rules and guidelines are in place for researchers to follow, dreadful things still take place daily. In the experience of one of Professor Bump’s students who openly shared his work at the center he testified that the humane treatment of animals is sometimes overlooked for the benefit of research outcomes. “The subjects did not receive sedation or anesthetic as those chemicals would conflict with the aims of the experiment” (553). The results of the experiment were a priority over the treatment of animals. Something must be done, undoubtedly things of this nature take place more often than not and it’s these things that call for action and change. To get the ARC, and the atrocities that go on inside of the building, removed from campus we must first inform individuals about the situation. School officials have either intentionally or unintentionally kept the center out of sight and mind for students, even for those who pass it every day after all there is no sign with its name brightly displayed as is with other buildings on campus.
Simple ways of stopping the problem as individuals are by getting rid of household products that are tested on animals or are produce by harming animals, shopping for cruelty free supplies, or joining an organization that fights for animal rights (377). Students that already participate in organizations geared towards the protection of animals rights would be a great asset to the removal of the ARC since they in turn would further distribute information and be able to help investigate what takes place at the center. A rally in the west mall would be very helpful in getting the word out there to those other people who might care but not be involved with any campus organization. Enabling students to stay motivated, engaged, and propelled by a growing sense of confidence would be a challenge but social gatherings in which to discuss a plan of action for the upcoming semester would help keep people interested in what’s going on. By next semester, after further research has been done and information gathered to be considered a good story, it would be great to get the Daily Texan to write an article on what’s been uncovered. They would also be able to confront school officials more so than students involved in trying to remove the center from campus. It can be assumed that school officials would be reluctant to talk about the matter, this would then cause more support within the community and help enable a stronger voice against the ARC. In about mid October, after talking to officials of SG and other student based groups, I would want to see if anything could be done about presenting a piece of legislation to the campus which would call for the removal of the ARC.
Considered one of the top schools of the nations, UT is thought of as an example to many. To help lead the fight against animal cruelty would encourage other campuses to do the same and cause students to become informed about the laboratories and experiments that take place on their campus. Just looking out for animals can make a big change “In everything you do, try to educate others, stop cruel behaviors, and bring about a revolution in human consciousness” (350). We must stop being selfish and consider those that are harmed daily for no other reason than to answer a question. They are not at fault for the lack of answers and should be treated with more respect. With a few simple changes in ourselves, afterwards our community, and later the world all earthlings can live a peaceful life never worrying of any harm coming their way as many animals who live in fear about being abducted do today.
WORD COUNT WITH QUOTES: 2007
WORD COUNT WITHOUT QUOTES: 1732
Bibliography
"Animal Facility Access Policy ." UTARC. http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/access.pdf
(accessed March 29, 2010).
"General Information ." UTARC . http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/facility.htm (accessed
March 29, 2010).
"IACUC Mission Statement." Office of Research Support . http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/iacuc/
about.html (accessed March 29, 2010).
"Research Animals- History ." Libraby Index . http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2180/
Research-Animals-HISTORY.html (accessed March 29, 2010).
"Speciesism ." Richard Ryder . http://www.richardryder.co.uk/speciesism.html (accessed March 29,
2010).