
Earthlings - grobmeier
http://www.unleashed.org.au/features/earthlings/
======
fasouto
This is an excellent documentary but I'm surprised on how many people simply
don't get the point.

This documentary is not about being vegan, is about give the animals a decent
live and improve the way we treat them. Also talks about speciesism:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism)
comparing it to racism.

The documentary shows crude images, but this is how it is. Closing the eyes to
the reality won't make it better.

~~~
jere
>Also talks about speciesism:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism)
comparing it to racism.

That's a nonstarter for me and makes me want to avoid this film.

Speciesism is a perfectly reasonable position. Assigning the exact same values
and rights to cockroaches/jellyfish/ants as we do to humans is ludicrous. Any
number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how absurd
that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1 human?).

~~~
PavlovsCat
> Any number of moral thought experiments should immediately demonstrate how
> absurd that would be (e.g. would you refuse to sacrifice 2 ants to save 1
> human?).

Ahh, but don't stop there. Make such though experiments with humans (Would you
sacrifice one 80 year old to save two 40 year olds? Would you sacrifice 3
illiterate children to save one wunderkind? Is a person you know worth 1.3 or
rather 2.7 people you don't know?) quickly shows that those are equally
absurd, so the absurdity in one case proves nothing.

~~~
pavelrub
There is nothing absurd about any of those scenarios. Those are perfectly
valid questions, and to answer them might be difficult - that's why it's not
at all obvious that 40 year olds are more morally "important" than 80 year
olds (for me they obviously aren't). However, to answer the original question
is very easy: Human > Rat. Defending the opposite position is absurd, and
although some people might feel Human=Rat - it's a fallacy to compare this to
"Black human = White human", or to "Jew=Non-Jew".

------
bluedino
Why don't more people post videos and articles about the mistreatment of
migrant farm workers in America?

[http://www.economist.com/node/17722932](http://www.economist.com/node/17722932)

My ex was a vegan. She always complained about the mistreatment of animals
used for food but never thought twice about how the people were treated who
picked all the vegetables she ate.

It's basically slave labor in many cases. Low pay, terrible working
conditions, long hours. Imagine crawling through the dirt on your knees for 10
hours a day in the California sun, filling buckets of vegetables for $0.80 a
bucket, and if you screw up your boss reports you to immigration?

I have family members who were migrant workers just a single generation ago so
it hits a little closer to home than some people. But those vegetables don't
make it to the store without any suffering, just like pork chops don't.

~~~
kayoone
I dont know how it is in the USA but in europe we have multiple organizations
that make sure Food (Animals or not) is processed in a sustainable way. They
offer a signet (?) and when producers want it on their food they have to play
by the rules. Ever heard of FairTrade ? All vegans i know hardly buy any food
without a signet like that, knowing that its more expensive. But the race to
the bottom in food prices is one of the worst developments that leads to so
much misery for animals and humans producing food.

I eat meat maybe about once a week and pay 3 times as much as i would have to,
but i am not willing to support this development any further.

------
bane
I love meat, it's an important and delicious part of the human omnivorous
diet.

That being said, I wouldn't object to the periods wasted on home economics in
middle school being turned into a "sources of food" education class that
included trips to farms, food processors, factories, sausage-makers and
slaughterhouses. It should be on par with "sex education" in terms of parental
consent, but should be a necessary and important part of every child's
education. It should include information on nutrition, vitamin and mineral
sources, discussions on food chain contamination and concentrations of heavy
metals and contaminants in the upper ends of the food chain and what that
means (and why we as a species tend not to eat animals like apex hunters).
Oddball foods that kids wouldn't normally eat at home like yeast paste, soy
products and seaweed/kelp/sea vegetables should be included.

I grew up pretty rural in my teens so a class like this would have been a bit
superfluous -- there's a cattle farm not 10 minutes from my parent's house.
Growing up around farms, you get to know the birth-to-dinner plate process for
food stock animals pretty quick. Many of my neighbors were too poor to buy
meat, but filled a couple chest freezers every year with meat during deer
season. It's not unusual to see a deer being processed in somebody's yard
where I grew up. Deer are very good eating.

But before that I was a city kid (until my parents fled to the boondocks), and
had I finished growing up in the city, would have needed an education like
this to understand better what I'm eating and why.

I wouldn't even object to two films being shown as part of the curriculum,
industry standard humane practices for food stock animal handling, and PETA
style shock videos of unethical and deplorable conditions...leaving it open
for the students to reach their own conclusions about what it means and what
to do about it.

~~~
belorn
> economics in middle school being turned into a "sources of food" education
> class that included trips to farms

As someone who grown up on farms, I would be quite worried in how such trips
would work. The difference between a small farm (< 50 animals), is day and
night. I could also easy see how kids without good guidance could imagine a
sterile environment to be a "good farm", while a well kept farm to be "bad"
because it has stray of hay laying on the floor.

To take a more specific example, a chicken population of 6, 30, and 300 is
each radical different in design.

~~~
bane
Probably true. I could also see farm field trips becoming a nice source of
regular revenue for some struggling farms.

------
PavlovsCat
I saw this a few years ago.. it turned my stomach, but I'm glad I saw it.
Maybe I should watch it again. The disconnect between things we buy/do and
what goes into them can be so huge, and it's so easy to get lulled back to
sleep.

I have no idea what this is doing on HN, but _if_ you can stand it, do watch
it. You might be sad/angry after you did, or have nightmares, or become
veg(etari)an. It is not pleasant and will not leave you cold. If you already
are depressed because of the season or something, bookmark it for later maybe.

------
notjosh
Just a heads up: there's a _lot_ of confronting and graphic imagery in that
movie. It's not something you can easily unsee.

I'd still recommend watching it. Knowledge is power, of course, but in a safe
state before tuning into it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Is there knowledge here, or heavy-handed emotional manipulation?

I'd attack a water buffalo with a fork and eat his brains out raw if I were
starving enough, but I don't know if I'd want to keep videos of it around on
YouTube.

Thanks for the heads-up. I love emotionally-powerful messages, just not
simple-minded manipulative ones. Sounds like it _might_ be a good flick.

~~~
cburgas
I've seen it some months ago and I would lean to the manipulation side. There
are a lot of heavy-handed comparisons (e.g. to the holocaust) and things like
that just to get their point across.

I agree that the imagery is powerful and will most likely haunt a lot of
people for days or weeks, but the narration bothered me at a number of points
during the documentary

~~~
itistoday2
How are the comparisons to the Holocaust incorrect or unjustified?

------
kayoone
Species kill and eat other species in order to survive, but the way we have
automated the killing so that we have a total disconnect from the awareness of
what we are actually eating is very distressing.

~~~
code_duck
Humans _did_ kill and eat other species to survive. At this point, Americans
eat far more animals than needed solely for survival - often so much as to be
unhealthy - and it is quite possible to survive and thrive without consuming
animals.

~~~
bluedino
>> At this point, Americans eat far more animals than needed solely for
survival

They eat far more plants than needed as well. Animals has nothing to do with
it.

~~~
shawnc
Animals has a lot to do with it - Animals are sentient, thinking, feelings
beings. A calf has the same personality and emotions as a puppy.

~~~
repseki
And a pig has the IQ of a 3 year old human.

------
lgierth
Oh come on, really? Contrasting caged animals with jews in concentration
camps? Meat consumption equals holocaust? People feeding on meat equal Hitler?

I can see the point animal rights activists are tring to make, but the
hypocrisy of this movie was already making me sick when I watched it the first
time a couple years back.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken
being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do
things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly
different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in
darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals
me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering
in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other
hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we
most closely identify with), but otherwise..?

Take this statement for example:

"[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would
have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask
why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost
your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you
have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew
other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle,
you have done the same which Eichmann did."

\-- Erich Fromm (
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s)
)

Do you find this offensive too, or do you agree he has a point? I think the
key concept here and elsewhere is "in principle".

~~~
Nursie
What marvellous hyperbole!

Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must
be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of
genocide!

I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in
principle at all.

~~~
PavlovsCat
What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent
out.

> "don't stop eating"

He said "lost your appetite".

> "that must be much the same as"

This might be new for you:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)

~~~
Nursie
>> He said "lost your appetite".

There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural
consequence of losing your appetite.

>> This might be new for you:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)

Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann
did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the
actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they
hear of hunger in the world.

One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose
your appetite in sympathy.

\--edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the
wikipedia page on analogies.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural
> consequence of losing your appetite.

No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're
hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely
missing it.

> it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone
> loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world

Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide")
make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann
"just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care
about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to
"Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis _you_ equate them with,
instead of going by what _Fromm_ means in context, is such a waste of time.
You're offended over your own strawman.

If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the
same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other
explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to
follow sometimes. If there _wasn 't_ something you could point to and claim
"Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an
analogy in the first place.

> What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia
> page on analogies.

Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.

~~~
Nursie
>> _No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you
're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely
missing it._

So whether you eat on with no appetite or stop eating is the difference
between whether you're as bad as a genocidal nazi or not?

The distinction is trivial and beside the point.

>> _Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ( "deliberate
Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making.
Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much
care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to
"Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead
of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're
offended over your own strawman._

Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of
Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about
that. Either way I didn't say I was offended, I said the comparison was
hyperbolic to the point of the ridiculous.

>> _If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the
same, "in principle"._

You have not demonstrated that keeping your appetite and committing genocide
start from the same principle, which you would need to do for your analogy to
hold here. It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that
someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all
people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think
of. There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply
scale.

>> _Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar
system or something... that 's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes._

The analogy isn't hard to follow, it's nonsense.

>> _If there wasn 't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous!
There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first
place._

But I can point to all parts of it, and say none of it is anything like what
you're trying to compare it to.

>> _Childish? You said he said it 's "the same", so I felt it was warranted._

No, I said "much the same", not "the same". If we're going to play this game
then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to
be condescending.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of
> Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about
> that.

He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had
happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job. But
where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi? I said that's not the point of
why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is. He doesn't mean if we
don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and
clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start
putting people in box cars. To ridicule my supposed lack of reading
comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on
strawmen, is kinda rich.

I don't know if you clicked the link, but he goes on to say:

 _I don 't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of
ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot
discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner
reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that
the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in
general._

Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is
kinda fitting.

> It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show
> empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The
> second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of.

The second is _also_ "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not
want to play games.

> There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply
> scale.

I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists
of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.

~~~
Nursie
>> _He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he
had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job._

1\. So he said. Others thought differently - "When considering the sentence,
the judges concluded that he had not merely been following orders, but
believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of
the genocide."

2\. Somewhat irrelevant. He committed genocide, if he hadn't had the
opportunity he may not have done. So what?

>> _But where did I say that 's not genocidal or Nazi?_

>> _" Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not
getting the point Fromm is making."_ >> _" To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and
from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going
by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time."_

You're saying it's not right to say he was a Nazi, and not right to go from
there to calling him genocidal simply because of that. I'm not calling him
genocidal because of that, I'm doing it because of his actions.

And to be very clear, I understand entirely the point Fromm is making (lack of
empathy is the root of Eichmann's actions and if you don't lose your appetite
when reading about hunger you lack empathy, this puts you on the same spectrum
as Eichmann). I understand and I disagree, vehemently.

To really hammer this home, your very first post about Fromm quoted - "As soon
as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving,
then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which
Eichmann did." Eichmann organised and supervised genocide. This is not simple
lack of empathy, and neither does keeping your appetite demonstrate a total
lack of empathy. The argument is wrong at both ends.

>> _I said that 's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack
of empathy is._

And if you think lack of empathy was all Eichmann had going then you're pretty
delusional, IMHO.

>> _He doesn 't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we
grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He
doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars._

Then why make the comparison? It's hyperbolic in the extreme and basically a
Godwin violation.

>> _To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this
whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich._

You misread something and childishly posted a link to the definition of
analogy as if I might never have heard of it. I'm sorry I shot back at you, I
hope you didn't find it too offensive.

>> _Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any
comparison is kinda fitting._

No, not really. Eichmann's crime is substantially different from a simple lack
of empathy, as I've said many times now, he was actively involved in some of
the worst evil we know of. It may well be that many/all people are capable of
this level of evil. However that still doesn't mean that failing to respond in
a simplistic, set way to an empathic situation is anything like organising the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of jewish people. It's not the same principle,
it's not the same root to the action, and I fundamentally disagree that a lack
of empathy and a set of orders was the driver behind Eichmann's actions. And
yes, I am familiar with Milgram.

>> _The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do
not want to play games._

It's a lot more than that.

>> _I acknowledged that before. But that doesn 't change the fact that it
consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy._

But if that's only one aspect, the analogy is about as useful as saying "You
know who else had a moustache like that?" as happens on fark.com, except here
you seem to want to be taken seriously whereas over there everyone knows it's
a joke.

------
bowlofpetunias
The fact that the landing page immediately suggests going vegan is a turn-off
for me.

I'm all for the humane treatment of animals, and I'll gladly pay several times
more for my meat and eat considerably less off it. In fact I think most of the
mass meat production methods should be completely outlawed.

However, I'm not going to sit through another manipulative propaganda film
from the anti-meat lobby. I'm happy being an omnivore, thankyouverymuch, and I
have no problem with animals being killed for food or clothing.

~~~
nawitus
>However, I'm not going to sit through another manipulative propaganda film
from the anti-meat lobby.

Yes, the billion dollar tofu-industry has created this propaganda film.

>I'm happy being an omnivore, thankyouverymuch, and I have no problem with
animals being killed for food or clothing.

Is your argument that you don't want to watch a movie because you don't agree
with it before hand? I recommend you to reconsider the function of documentary
films.

------
grandalf
This is one of the most profound, consciousness-altering films I've seen. I'm
not vegan. It's one of those films that anyone who aspires to be truly
rational ought to watch.

------
locusm
I found the doco Blackfish to be pretty thought provoking, its about the
keeping of animals in captivity.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_\(film\))

