Throughout this course there has been a lot of debate about the culturally constructed aspects of science. One aspect of this debate has been the question of whether we, as humans, need to resist privileging humans as subject and all other life forms as object. Basically, is speciesism ok? Our course materials have thoroughly explored how speciesism works and where we can see evidence of it in our understanding of science. By failing to acknowledge the vast array of differing subjectivities of animals and organisms, (and plants too, perhaps to a lesser extent) humans engage in speciesism constantly. However, this aspect of debate has taken on a new form in our class while talking about animal rights and genetic engineering. The assertion that humans, if we are no different than other animals in our instinctual drive to survive, are not doing anything wrong by using our considerable scientific means to "survive" has come up several times. This is speciesism sneaking in through the back door. At first glance, it seems this argument does not engage in speciesism: "Humans are the same as all animals, no worse or better." From this, it might seem to follow that humans, like any other animal, will use all of its power to survive. However, there is fallacy in both of these points.
To start, humans are very different from any other species on this planet. This is not to say better or worse, but surely different. Humans alone have access to intellect that separates us from all other species. (Stating this fact is not speciesist, because it does not deny that other subjectivities, and perspectives exist for other species and individual organisms.) This separates the scientific research and methods, such as research using animals and genetically engineering plants and animals, from a situation of predator and prey. A lion preying on an antelope is a vastly different situation from genetically altering an organism so that it is more beneficial for humankind (which is debatable as well). Although all types of scientific research can very well be defended for innumerable reasons, and I am not arguing against those, scientific research is not a predator-prey scenario and it shouldn't be defended as one.
My second objection to this line of argument that has come up many times in class and on this blog is that while an animal hunts its prey for its individual benefit, the development, research and use of scientific and technological advances do not aim to ensure the survival of the human race, but rather to improve quality of life. While there is the possibility that the results of lab testing or improved disease resistance in crops will save lives, the survival of the human race by and large does not hinge on these. Humans existed long before the types of scientific advances that we investigate in this class came into existence. Also, there is no animal other than humans that have the same capability of collecting, imprisoning, breeding, altering the genetic makeup of, violating, and killing other organisms. It is not a level playing field. While invasive species have been known to kill off other organisms on a large scale, it is very different from the scale of damage that humans can knowingly enact, and the conscious effort behind these enterprises is what separates humans' deployment of scientific advances from animals preying on others for food and survival.
I realize that there may be possible points for debate in my argument, but I am really frustrated at this analogy that continues to be wielded in defense of very intricate and specialized scientific research that is in no way similar to a predator-prey scenario. It is speciesism because it assumes the guise of equality between humans and other species in their predator capabilities, but really is used as an excuse to continue the hierarchy of humans manipulating other organisms without consent. I like to think of the difference between speciesism and an understanding of the nuanced place humans hold in their intellectual differences from animals as akin to the famous line from spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility." It may be cheesy, but there is some real truth to it, and it is very applicable when we investigate the issues of this course. (If you want to relive the wonderful movie moments, here is a link and here is another link with Uncle Ben telling Peter Parker all about this... I'm not going to address the "becoming a man" part and the issues therein today though...)
Does anyone else agree? If people think there is a hole in my logic, by all means, defend this analogy. I am very interested to see if anyone has other thoughts that may be different.
I think this is an excellent analogy for speciesism. I had previously thought that there was some validity to the predator-prey analogy, but I am willing to admit now that it may not fit as well as I thought. The reason I say this because of your point that human beings are in fact different than other species. This may seem quite obvious, but the fact of the matter is, humans evolved higher level cognitive abilities for a reason. Lions and killer whales do not have the ability to evaluate ethical decisions, but humans do. If we evolved to have these characteristics, are we not obligated to use them? One quote in particular from the clip you posted was, “Just because you can beat him up doesn’t mean you have the right to.” Are we not as humans beating up the environment and abusing animals just because we can? This completely fits the speciesism model by saying that because we are stronger and have more resources at our disposal means we have "the right" to destroy and exploit organisms we see as lesser. I agree with the fact that with great power comes great responsibility and I would argue great compassion. I really liked one of Donna Haraway's quotes that stated something along the lines of using animals for research in moderation is ok, but we shouldn't feel good about taking another life. We should have compassion and empathy for the life we took and in essence thank it for what it has given us. I know we have the capability to do this, and yet many times we do not. Why? I know it may be slightly controversial to post a Disney song from Pocohantas because there are a lot of misrepresentations, but I love the lyrics of this song and think they represent how we should treat the environment:
Colors of the Wind:
You think I'm an ignorant savage
And you've been so many places
I guess it must be so
But still I cannot see
If the savage one is me
How can there be so much that you don't know?
You don't know ...
You think you own whatever land you land on
The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name
You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew
Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon
Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
Come run the hidden pine trails of the forest
Come taste the sunsweet berries of the Earth
Come roll in all the riches all around you
And for once, never wonder what they're worth
The rainstorm and the river are my brothers
The heron and the otter are my friends
And we are all connected to each other
In a circle, in a hoop that never ends
How high will the sycamore grow?
If you cut it down, then you'll never know
And you'll never hear the wolf cry to the blue corn moon
For whether we are white or copper skinned
We need to sing with all the voices of the mountains
We need to paint with all the colors of the wind
You can own the Earth and still
All you'll own is Earth until
You can paint with all the colors of the wind
So, as I read this post, I tried to take a side on the lion's survival instincts issue, however, I stopped myself. I think that in this class we need to see the larger picture. Everything isn't black and white. If anything, I think something we are supposed to get out of this class is just that. We shouldn't have to choose one side or the other. We should be critical thinkers and understand that not everything is going to have an answer. This brought me back to a day in class when we making a chart on the board about males and females. Then we connected all the different lines to show that there are so many different ways to see people in general. There are men and women, there are gays and straight people, but there are also transsexuals, bi sexual,ect. everyone is obviously allowed to have their own opinion, but I think that we need to be active knowers and be able to criticize what we believe to be right and wrong. Even with the recent elections, I saw so much animosity through people, but I think in politics especially there is so much drama and anger that people don't think everything through. They close up their minds to understanding and listening to the other side of things. So, in all, my point is that with the genetic engineering group, we shouldn't have to choose pro or con, we should evaluate the information and discuss together the reasons for discontent and content towards the issue. A big shout out to Mitchel, I am glad you didn't take a pro or con side to the issue in your introduction.