Earthlings (Documentary)

[PLFXpert 0]

I realize those who have not seen it will still comment, but ideally only looking for discussion from those who have seen the documentary film, Earthlings.

Any and all comments and thoughts welcomed (from anyone who has watched the film).

Thanks!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Has anyone seen it?

Super-difficult to watch. There are certain emotions I manifest physically without being able to help myself. I nearly barfed on several occasions. My mouth remained dry and my eyes dripping tears the entire time. But, I watched and never closed my eyes or turned away. It is important to see.

I read about the factory-farm norm all the time. Before the narrator would describe what was happening, I knew. But--just as a picture speaks a thousand words--there is no comparison to reading vs. seeing.

It is a super-tough film to watch, but I would recommend it to everyone.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Why do you think I do not like humans very much?

I eat meat, but I will not condone the mistreatment of animals.

Humans are vermin.

[ScratchTX 0]

I have been trying to watch it, so I can meet the criteria for replying. I am not sure if I can. I feel two main reactions so far, after the trailer and first minute or so:

1)I feel like I am about to watch a snuff film. I have deliberately avoided watching the video clips of Neda, who was killed on film during the Iranian protests. I am not certain what I would gain by watching this. Similarly, although I am not currently an active skydiver, I recall a discussion here from when I was (maybe it was on rec.skydiving -- showing my age!), where someone said if he was on the ground and saw someone about to go in in front of him, he would turn away. Not out of denial, but because he did not see how imprinting that gory and brutal image on his brain would make him a better person, or make him better understand the reality of the risk (I believe he had already lost some friends perhaps.) The suffering I have seen (minimal), and the more severe suffering that has been seen by people I know, is not something I would wish on anyone else to see.

2) I know someone who cannot watch "Planet Earth" on DVD because she calls it "Planet Death." I think, "Predators and prey, savage death and suffering is a part of nature, how sad that you cannot tolerate and accept that." But I do understand that suffering hurts to watch. Even when we can accept it within an acceptable context, it still can suck to watch another being suffering. So just being pained and saddened in and of itself does not signify anything.

My guess is, that after one and a half hours of graphic horrendous video, the question raised to us is "if we are able to *choose* whether to treat other living beings with kindness or with cruel savagery, why do we not always choose the former?" That is an excellent question, and I would commend the filmmakers for bringing it forward. I think the suffering we inflict in animals for pleasure or greed is abhorrent.

I really am not sure if/why I need to watch the video footage to weigh in on that, though. So I would ask you, as one who did choose to watch it, if/why you think it is important for people to watch this video?

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

where someone said if he was on the ground and saw someone about to go in in front of him, he would turn away. Not out of denial, but because he did not see how imprinting that gory and brutal image on his brain would make him a better person, or make him better understand the reality of the risk

I would probably turn away as well. I do not believe the act of watching Earthlings--in and of itself--makes me or anyone else who watches a better person. After viewing the documentary, however, one might make decisions or take a course of action that makes them feel better or helps better/improve upon the status quo.

I would argue your latter point, however, regarding understanding reality by witnessing it firsthand.

  Quote

I know someone who cannot watch "Planet Earth" on DVD because she calls it "Planet Death." I think, "Predators and prey, savage death and suffering is a part of nature, how sad that you cannot tolerate and accept that." But I do understand that suffering hurts to watch. Even when we can accept it within an acceptable context, it still can suck to watch another being suffering.

Agree. I have no problem turning away to avoid watching the shark eat the seal. Again, you are trying to compare accepting natural vs. un-natural things.

  Quote

So I would ask you, as one who did choose to watch it, if/why you think it is important for people to watch this video?

I think it opens a window to an otherwise-well-kept-undercover reality. A reality that rests in our hands (vs. the shark eating the seal) to learn about & improve upon.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

Even when we can accept it within an acceptable context

I think a lot more people would find the status quo unacceptable if they knew how unnecessary all of the suffering shown in the film is.

For example, with regard to animal-testing: Most people falsely believe the majority of animal-testing is necessary to help humans in some way, thus having accepted this "necessary evil" they choose not to learn about--much less witness--what goes on in an animal-testing laboratory. In their minds--to use your example--why would seeing the gory and brutal image make any difference in the reality?

Seeing such an image, however, would make most people cringe and ask themselves "Isn't there an alternative? Isn't there a better way?" Perhaps they might do some research and learn the answer is: Yes!

It is about taking a look at something awful (that we as humans control) and not turning away, but rather asking questions, learning and discovering alternatives.

It is_not_about going vegan.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[riddler 0]

Trying to watch it in 5-minute increments. Definitely can't watch it for too long at once. I'm OK if my daughters want to eat meat when they are old enough to choose, but I want them to see how the "meat" was raised and killed first.

BTW, Snuff Films are considered an urban legend. This film shows the reality of how people treat animals.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

Trying to watch it in 5-minute increments. Definitely can't watch it for too long at once.

I watched in two parts. I really wanted to "get it over with" all at once, but had a really tough time. I am happy I split it up because it covers a lot of material, and it was best to have a rest period to re-group and stay focused. I definitely think splitting it up in two to four parts is the way to go.

  Quote

I'm OK if my daughters want to eat meat when they are old enough to choose, but I want them to see how the "meat" was raised and killed first.

I am OK with anyone eating meat & dairy, but would highly recommend and appreciate if they first looked into where it comes from and learn how that particular farm/business operates from the moment the animal is born to the time it ends up on someone's plate.

If one wants to eat meat and dairy, I recommend checking out Local Harvest.

I also really love Whole Foods Market because it gives people a way to get closer to their local farms in a traditional, familiar setting and way of shopping. It is a great step in the right direction, imo.

Also for me, Whole Foods has the best variety of vegan options and alternatives (you know, stuff that actually tastes good or like the "real thing") and makes buying household products not tested on animals a lot easier and more convenient. I find the produce section is much better, too, with a ton of variety.

For me the film really helped me get over my personal temptations in a way that simply reading about the processes could not.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I changed the way one fat lazy ass bastard treated his employers dairy cattle.


Remember, think globally, beat locally.

It is nice that the offender can feel and think as diary cattle do when chained in their stanchions, as they get hit and kicked.

[ScratchTX 0]

Yes, I was going off on a tangent from the documentary, not addressing the documentary content itself (I still am also trying to watch it in small doses, despite my conflicted feelings about *watching* it.)

I fully agree that it is a really good thing for as many people as possible to understand how animals are treated by humans, and for what ends this unnecessary suffering is inflicted. I do think that if they fully understood the reality, many people would change their beliefs and hopefully their actions, and this could lead to some real changes for everyone (animals and people) involved.

[Like others have already said, I don't mean that everyone should become a vegetarian or vegan!]

My tangent is more about the role and impact of emotional whammies in presenting this information.

I don’t think is it bad to make documentaries like this; I think they probably do change some people's beliefs and that's good. I'm just musing about strong emotional reactions, classical conditioning, aversion, repulsion, etc. vs. rational decisions, opinions and beliefs based on well thought-through moral principles, etc.

Not saying these are mutually exclusive at all! We're emotional AND rational beings for sure. But of course just because something is horrifying and upsetting to watch doesn't mean it is "wrong." (That was my point about the Planet Earth reference.) There are deeper moral principles that make someone decide something is wrong. The emotional wallop may or may not be relevant, so it may not always be necessary either.

Now, if you know something is wrong and need a kick in the butt to practice what you preach (like PLFXpert said "For me the film really helped me get over my personal temptations in a way that simply reading about the processes could not." ) then the emotional wallop might be just the right thing. Hey, that's what the movie "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" did for me. Harder to maintain behavior that you know is wrong, by your own values, when you feel suffering the way you do when you watch movies like that.

But the approach to larger-scale change in society that makes more sense to me (because of who I am) is to try to facilitate people thinking critically. Getting information, not being in denial about that information, thinking about how that information fits into their beliefs and values, seeing how their beliefs jibe with the moral principles they hold... seeing what needs to change. Then, yeah, changing it!

And sure, emotional reaction is one piece of that "information." But obviously just seeing this stuff is not going to change everyone, even people who are affected emotionally by it. And I wonder, if by the very super-emotional impact of the images, someone might be even less likely to be changed on the rational level, since it can be hard to stay super present and functional on both levels simultaneously. (Crimes of passion come to mind...)

[riddler 0]

  Quote

But the approach to larger-scale change in society that makes more sense to me (because of who I am) is to try to facilitate people thinking critically. Getting information, not being in denial about that information, thinking about how that information fits into their beliefs and values, seeing how their beliefs jibe with the moral principles they hold... seeing what needs to change. Then, yeah, changing it!

I completely agree with this statement. I've been a vegetarian for four years now, but not as much because of my sympathy toward animals, as my belief that we must stop abusing the environment. We know for a fact that the resources used to feed meat to people far exceed the resources used to feed vegetation to people. We also know that 18 percent of all greenhouse emissions come directly from the production of animals. There are many more environmental reasons to not eat meat, or at least reduce the meat you do eat. This is a logical rationalization, not an emotional decision, since it makes sense for humans to protect their environment in order to promote our species.

But many people will still choose to become vegetarian or reduce their intake of meat, pets, and dairy for emotional reasons, and that helps the environmental cause as well.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[warpedskydiver 0]

Growing crops for people and growing crops for animals is a wash.

Neither will be without significant use of fossil fuels, machinery, chemicals and etc.

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

There are deeper moral principles that make someone decide something is wrong. The emotional wallop may or may not be relevant, so it may not always be necessary either.

I could not agree more.

  Quote

But the approach to larger-scale change in society that makes more sense to me (because of who I am) is to try to facilitate people thinking critically. Getting information, not being in denial about that information, thinking about how that information fits into their beliefs and values, seeing how their beliefs jibe with the moral principles they hold... seeing what needs to change. Then, yeah, changing it!

I never recommended a different approach (or any approach for that matter), I simply recommended the film and wished to hear thoughts & opinions from others who have seen it.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

emotional reaction is one piece of that "information." But obviously just seeing this stuff is not going to change everyone, even people who are affected emotionally by it.

I view the message as a product to sell. You want to hit people from all angles, and not any one angle exclusively.

It is not like I am on the street with a sign recommending passers-by go rent the documentary film, Earthlings. I posted on a forum with a plentiful following, respectively, and where a lot of written information with links to sources has already been provided.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[ScratchTX 0]

I know this violates the sacred laws of Speaker's Corner, but I actually wasn't debating you.

Thanks for a thoughtful discussion. If I do get through the whole film I'll come back with my thoughts and opinions on it.

[wmw999 2,485]

  Quote

Growing crops for people and growing crops for animals is a wash.

No, it's not, from the point of view of how much crop to grow to get the same number of calories.

It takes a lot more than calories' worth of corn and grass to get a 500-calories steak. So if you're using people's consumption as your end rationale, it's by no means a wash.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jimmytavino 16]

i determined many many years ago that
'the highest order of animal' on this planet, is NOT the human being..


saw the trailer...
how sad.
it looked like the entire documentary has not yet been aired.....
is that so???

don't need to see any more than the trailer though.....

Mankind just might be evidence that there is not a GOD, for if there was,,,,,,
such an "Almighty" would have wiped US out....long ago...

jt

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

it looked like the entire documentary has not yet been aired.....
is that so???

This is the first installment of a proposed trilogy. It is complete as is, however. The trilogy is a progression, not a series. The second installment is not more day-to-day footage of regular practices in our food, clothing and entertainment industries, but rather explores "the unifying consciousness found in nature, animals and humankind" (from the Earthlings website). I, myself, am really looking forward to seeing it because it is right up my alley. I am not sure if it will be as graphic or not. It does not seem like it will be. My feeling is if you have seen Earthlings and are upset, Unity will further delve into a deeper understanding of the relationship between humans and animals. As someone who believes in God, it is especially interesting to me to study such things (see my post here for further explanation).

For those who do not wish to click on the documentary website link (or just press pause on the trailer and then read the information), I would like to highlight the following:

"In 1999, writer/producer/director Shaun Monson began work on a series of PSAs about spaying and neutering pets. The footage he shot at animal shelters around Los Angeles affected him so profoundly that the project soon evolved into EARTHLINGS. The film would take another six years to complete because of the difficulty in obtaining footage within these profitable industries. " (emphasis mine)

It is another reason why I recommend the film. A profitable industry does not want me to see how they operate. Why? The very fact someone making a lot of money does not want me to know how they make it makes me suspect. And I want to see. Rather, I want to know.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

Mankind just might be evidence that there is not a GOD, for if there was,,,,,,
such an "Almighty" would have wiped US out....

I think we are doing a great job of that, ourselves. I hope I am wrong, but my position is most people today (still hoping for a majority in the opposite direction tomorrow) do not care about how long humankind on our planet survives as long as "the end" is not within their lifetime.

I believe if we are going to survive and sustain past any other potential advanced life in the universe, we need to understand and respect the importance of all beings and all life here on Earth and their relevance to our survival. I have always found it silly we would rather set foot on the moon than put that money and energy into exploring our oceans.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[warpedskydiver 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Growing crops for people and growing crops for animals is a wash.

No, it's not, from the point of view of how much crop to grow to get the same number of calories.

It takes a lot more than calories' worth of corn and grass to get a 500-calories steak. So if you're using people's consumption as your end rationale, it's by no means a wash.

Wendy P.

If we all ate nothing but vegetables and fruit much more land would need to be used for agriculture.

We cannot survive on hay and corn for long.

[riddler 0]

  Quote

Growing crops for people and growing crops for animals is a wash.

Pardon my "appeal to authority", but in order to add some data to what Wendy already said, I'll refer you to one professor of ecology at Cornell University.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

  Quote

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported

  Quote

Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

  Quote

Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[warpedskydiver 0]

You are referring to corn, however we cannot be sustained by corn alone.

There are many other variables involved.

My FIL is a cornell graduate of horticulture and has great insight on this, we have debated this and come to the conclusion that there would be far more agriculture involved in order to sustain a full vegan diet.

I agree with the data but take that with a grain of salt when you consider all the types of crops that would need to be grown in order to replace animal proteins and fat, not to mention all the other trace elements we get from eating animal products.
Factual data is one thing, but not representing it as whether it is calculated on order to replace meats and animal products is another.

[riddler 0]

  Quote

If we all ate nothing but vegetables and fruit much more land would need to be used for agriculture.

Here's a chart that shows land use and calorie use for a few different foods:

1st column - Food
2nd column - Land per kg (m2)
3rd column - Calories per kilogram
4th column - Land per person per year (m2)
---------------------------------------------------
Beef 20.9 2800 8173
Pork 8.9 3760 2592
Eggs 3.5 1600 2395
Milk 1.2 640 2053
Fruit 0.5 400 1369
Vegetables 0.3 250 1314
Potatoes 0.2 800 274

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jimmytavino 16]

"the unifying consciousness found in nature , animals and humankind"

an excellent concept and one that has been running on it's own for hundreds of millions of years, including the past 600 or 700 thousand years during which humans have been on the scene...pretty much in the same form, we are today..
Only a problem has surfaced in the last 10,000 years or so...


we learned as kids in science class that there is " an equilibrium" on this planet.
That things tend to ebb and flow , give and take, soas to keep that rhythm in harmony...
and we still see that today in pure nature, undisturbed nature, in the animal kingdom and in the plant world...
So what's the problem??

Sad to say, It's Humans,,, or more specifically it's the "intelligence" of humans..In the beginning man worked with nature, adapted to , and utilized the surroundings, hunted and gathered and did it without firearms and other lopsided advantages.. Humans respected the land and harmony did exist.... But then maybe 10 or even 20 thousand years ago, humans further spread out to many corners of the world grew in numbers, began to over tax loactions, and here's the big one.... Developed Culture and Social patterns... wherein THEY were the priority...
That was the begining of the end...
No longer would instinct and pure unadulterated "animal programming" prevail.

man by virtue of his 'smarts' had mucked everything up.

intelligence has been mistaken for knowledge and as easy as man is wise, he is also stupid...
By virtue of our intelligence we are the only species that can be 'hoodwinked' 'fooled' and 'misled'...
Humans are a very 'easily convinced' species. tell someone what they wanna know.. and 8 out of 10, they will happily believe ...
how ironic...

with "smarts" comes the ability to make decisions, complex decisions. the results of which can often be negative...and if we look objectively at the chaos on the planet, wars, hatred, poverty, illness,,,things sure don't look positive...
Animals in the wild are pretty much instinct driven... do this or do that...
Man??? hundreds of different possibilites.

We no longer keep harmony on the planet, we've interrupted it and put it out of kilter with our own Bad policies, our own arrogance, our own greed even...
Hell we need to realize that we are the stewards of the planet, and treat it as the Diamond in the Universe, which it is....

instead we are killing the waters, mismanaging the resources, damaging the atmosphere, waaay overpopulating the lands, displacing indiginous species with NO compunction,,,and elevating ourselves way beyond our true place in the system....

we are a problem, and the sooner we realize it the sooner we can remedy it..

ManKind...?
Not Kind at all....

I would say that i do believe in God, do not misinterpret my earlier post.. But damn.... He/She Must be busy somewhere else in this vast Universe. to have allowed things around here, to become so deteriorated.

I've always been ashamed of the way i see humans dealing with animals, as though they are just some commodity, or object, without soul.. I suppose some , become numb to that concept , especially those who work in the 'animal as food' industry..
this trilogy WILL be important... thanks for bringing it to our attention

jmy in rochester

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If we all ate nothing but vegetables and fruit much more land would need to be used for agriculture.

Here's a chart that shows land use and calorie use for a few different foods:

1st column - Food
2nd column - Land per kg (m2)
3rd column - Calories per kilogram
4th column - Land per person per year (m2)
---------------------------------------------------
Beef 20.9 2800 8173
Pork 8.9 3760 2592
Eggs 3.5 1600 2395
Milk 1.2 640 2053
Fruit 0.5 400 1369
Vegetables 0.3 250 1314
Potatoes 0.2 800 274

all of the above should be part of a healthy diet (except potatoes). if you can't eat it fresh raw, then our bodies weren't designed to eat it. That's why I tend to pass on potatoes (most of the time).

--
Rob