The missing in ‘the EARTHLINGS’

Last night I watched a documentary called ‘the earthlings’, which demonstrates the cruel footage of animal mistreat on the belt of production for pets, meats, clothes and scientific evidences. We already know of this animal mistreat, heard over and over, but we never really cared of what we’ve heard, nor really have wanted to take a close look into it, to avoid our moral justification. I’d not known this documentary before, and later realised that many of video footages that the organisation Peta uses come from this documentary perhaps. Surely, this documentary influenced me to reach dramatic reduction of dairy products, for the urged message saying we need to find, or create, the link between human, animal and nature. We tend to educate ourselves not to be racist and sexist, but still we tend to remain as speciest exercising the mighty power over the weaker species.

The next morning I woke up realising that upmost 15 mosquitos were on the wall right next to the bed. I felt itchy so I assumed that I served them all night quite a durable festival. So I went hunting, one by one, as the result visualised as the photo above. It was my own blood combined theirs’. Then I talked about this to my housemate with whom I watched the documentary the anterior night; that maybe insects also are part of animal, having an organ that feels. They are not just a mere machine but a alive being as well (I cannot be totally sure for I’ve never be in their perspectives). What are we doing with those insects then? Maybe saying that animals matter but insects aren’t is another form of speciest, isn’t it?

For the same reason from the Earthlings, I’ve heard that one of our friends even don’t kill mosquitos. I’d love to do the same, but just having a 15 or more mosquitos on the wall when to wake up in the morning is another level. Buzzing around my ears now and then and leaving me red marks on the body can be considered as a violence, even though it is for them a survival. Then later I wondered how Buddhist monks would perceive. Would they have such compassion toward insects like mosquitos as well? Until what level should we have compassion for other species?

When it comes to talk about comfortableness, does this comfortableness depends on others’ misery?

It may apply to many daily tasks such as cleansing dishes and taking out trash bags. If I don’t do it, someone else should dare it. In dependency theory, the wealth and comfortableness of the central countries’ is from the misery of the periphery countries’ resource. Altruism interferes here saying that this endurance is a form of self sacrifice that values as higher morality. When it comes to mosquito-and-me relation, if I want to have a uninterrupted sleeping, I have to hunt some mosquitos before going to bed. Of course, this dichotomy is an extreme simplification of how to perceive the daily tasks and how to react with these, which needs to be reconsidered firmly.

Whether to yield a bit of one’s comfortableness so to maximise the total sum of comfortableness of all other actors that interact is in question. Because there is no negotiation or bargain; There is only the self-reflective decision of the mightier being. The documentary claims to the morality of humanity to be self-reflective, but there should be argued other technological, economical or political aspects other than just knocking on the moral aspect. Maybe in case of insects, we may not be cohabitating. Rather it can be an invasion to human habitat, as mosquitos attach to my room to suck out the blood. But surely, their being also is a consequence of urban construction; giving them a condition to breed in the sewerage. Maybe it’s our responsibility that passes from former generations’ scrappy design for urban infrastructure.

Isn’t this why the phrase the inconvenient truth came out? We want others to change for the matter that our-own-selves need to change. Storing one’s comfortableness is a priority in the individualistic realm where we live in. We eventually don’t care to maximise the total sum of comfortableness but to maximise their own only.

The more I endure the bothersome from the others, then, the more I let others be happy?

This correlation can be proved only when I am the mighty being over other vulnerable beings like mosquito, since their survival is directly related to my endurance of them bothering my sleeping. It just would be arrogant to think to endure the bothersome of other human beings so to maximise their comfortableness as a whole, because there is no mighty being between beings, wouldn’t it be?

Looking at the blood I only thought of my own blood, not the mix of theirs’. They keep existing and the connection between us can be either vicious or virtuous. I’m in this vicious circle where blood calls for other blood. This documentary calls out to make a connection between the nature, animal and human.

Yet I still don’t see how to convert this vicious circle to virtuous one.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s