Review of Documentary ‘Earthlings’

Standard

‘An hour of meaningless animal Gore’ probably best describes my feelings about ‘Earthlings‘. The Documentary attempts to show the viewer why we should become vegetarians by means of graphic scenes of animal cruelty. It relies primarily on emotional appeal, and lack logical appeal. They appeal to the people’s sense of sympathetic duty, rather than on the rational morale that one should keep.

In the beginning, The Narration tells us that we are all equal as ‘Earthlings’. That no one being’s interests are more important, or less important, than another being’s interest. Therefore, animals’ and human interests should be considered equal. Then, it goes on to show the cruelty that is done on animals by humans for research, food, and sport. The movie continues to throw the question, ‘would you still eat meat, when it’s been produced with these bad methods?’ The answer, for me, was ‘Yes.’

I did appreciate how the Film questioned the sources of our food, and showed that the food that we ate were prepared through animal cruelty. It was shocking to know that the animal produce that reach our tables were prepared by committing such atrocities. It did give me a chance to think about the morality of human beings. However, the logical conclusions that I reached were quite different from what the film had intended me to reach, through its emotional appeal.

The movie itself mentions an alternative method of producing meat, called ‘Kosher’. Though the movie then goes on to show that some ‘Kosher’ meat aren’t ‘Kosher’ at all, because in some slaughterhouses, they continue to cause cruelty onto the animals, necessarily. Therefore, the movie suggests, there is no such thing as meat produced without animal cruelty. Here, I couldn’t help but disagree. If Kosher regulations and rules are already existent, the method of solving animal cruelty during the production of meat, the natural solution would be to start enforcing such regulations, and spread the Kosher method further. The fact that some slaughterhouses that are supposed the practice the Kosher method don’t actually meet Kosher guideline does not mean that all slaughterhouses that follow the Kosher Method all do the same. Rather, it means that we need to strengthen the enforcement of the rules are necessary.

Another point that I could not accept was that humans are the only species that exploit other animal species. What about the predators of the wild? Do they not eat meat? Do they have to carry moral issues? Then why are humans considered exceptions? As I watched the movie, I did agree that human exploitation, and cruelty to other animals, can be extreme, and in some cases, horrendous. However, again, this is a problem to be solved my more careful monitoring of the slaughterhouses, of exteneding the Kosher method of Slaughter.

The Last point that I couldn’t agree with was the part about animal experiments. The Movie states confidently that ‘Vivisection never taught us anything about humans. They only taught us about the animals’, and that ‘(Vivisection) is an insult to real science’. However, the movie does not give any thought to the viable alternatives to animal testing. Without animal testing, there would be no way of ensuring the basic safety needed to go on to human testing. Critics of this argument point to penicillin, which turned out negative results from animal tests, and the infamous Thalidomide, which passed all animal tests with flying colors. However, what we must remember is that behind these failures, there are countless drugs out there, stopped during the animal testing procedure, which would have had terrible effects on public health if they went to sale unchecked. Furthermore, it is important to note that most research centers have moral guidelines about the prohibition of cruelty towards the test animals. Cruelty affects test results, as stress hormones are released into the subject’s body, and therefore is carefully prohibited. The graphic images they show of vivisection, such as burning a pig alive, are isolated incidents that do not happen in modern laboratories. Here’s a website that gives more reasons on why animal testing should be continued

‘Earthlings’, the documentary, was nothing more than a typical promotion of vegetarianism, through provoking graphic images and feelings of pity towards the animals that are being killed for us. However, the issue of inhumane treatment of animals can be solved without adopting vegetarianism, and going against vivisection. In that sense, Earthlings was an unimpressive movie, that left graphic images in my mind, but it was a movie that failed to persuade me to see its argument.

Here’s a video that has a similar theme with ‘Earthlings’. By the way, it was the only result in Youtube that wasn’t aged restricted, under search term ‘Vegetarian advertisements cruelty’

Here’s another Documentary film from the same organization that made the video right above, ‘Mercy For Animals’, ‘Foul Play’

24 thoughts on “Review of Documentary ‘Earthlings’

  1. Garrioch

    Good points. The aesthetic look of your post could use some improvement. How about a movie poster or something that makes this look more like a review about the particular film? Videos look lumpy at the bottom. All in all, a good essay.

  2. Luke

    Actual Kosher methods are much more cruel than the industry guidelines (i.e. the bolt gun). They hang the cow upside down and cut its throat so it bleeds out. The problem is that there is no way to mass produce meat without accidents and cruelty. Living things aren’t products, you know? They’re alive. They’re individuals. Cruelty is required to produce the amount of meat the market currently puts out.

  3. “Do they have to carry moral issues? Then why are humans considered exceptions?” Uhm, no, they do not carry moral issues and that is precisely why humans are considered the exception. Animals do not reason, they do not have morals. Humans on the other hand do reason and have morals.

    ” Without animal testing, there would be no way of ensuring the basic safety needed to go on to human testing.” There is – it’s called computers. In the age of modern technology there is no need to continue testing on animals, even if you just look at const efficiency and success rates once it gets to human trials. Also, because humans have reason they can use it to weigh the positives and negatives of a trial before attending, animals don’t have that luxury.

      • GD

        He/She doesn’t actually. See my comment further down for why. And for one, Animals do reason. Anyone who can’t see that isn’t looking hard enough, Look up Alex the parrot and tell me animals do not know how to reason,

    • Agreed with you and the funny thing is… why testing on the animals then again human if the ultimate end users are going to be human? If you wouldn’t do that to your fellow being who are in need (medical terms) and who may and may not be benefited from the medication… why would you do it to the animals living around us? They feel pain as much as we do.. and by remove animal testing, it will also stricken the regulations and testing practices to avoid failed trials. and people should be willingly and get paid for these trials in any case. But hey, it is easier to take random animals because it is cheaper and it is for the greater humanity… IMO… we have too many human on this planet… and let the nature takes its course. Whoever is still denying this… should also go and watch @cowspiracy… and these two documentary changed my view about living beings around me and I cannot stomach it seeing how they killed these animals seeing I have a father of 5 fur kids. I wouldn’t want that to happen to my kids… so it is difficult to justify how we can allow this to happen. People tend to jump quickly about animal rescues… but the biggest cause of all suffering is human slaughtering animals and even our own race through wars…

    • GD

      I’m sorry, but as a cell & molecular biologist 2 years out from getting my Ph.D., you could not be more wrong about animal testing. To think we know ANYWHERE near enough to condense ANY biological system (let alone a human) down into a computer algorithm is incredibly naive. We are decades upon decades out from even being close to such a dream. We don’t even know what every gene/protein in the human body does yet – how can you pretend to act like a computer can predict exactly what interactions any new pharmaceutical will have? Animal testing is 100% required, and absolutely saves countless human lives. We researchers have the utmost respect for the sacrifices these animals make for humanity, and we treat them as such. Protocols are always required by any institution that minimize both animal suffering and the number of animals needed, Justification for why animals must be used is also an absolute requirement of any IACUC protocol. Just search Google for “Monument to Lab Mice” and you’ll see.

      • RY

        1) Pharmaceuticals – would NEVER allow a cure for major diseases to hit the shelf if it meant a dip in their BILLIONS. I am sure they did not teach you that in the classroom.
        2) What makes humans sooo superior that we have the right to test on another live being ?? I am sure stem cell research will be advanced enough to do it on that! Or better do it on convicted rapists and pedophiles.
        3) I worry about your moral code – if any if you continue into a future of testing on animals!!!!

  4. TheAgGal

    I agree with most of what you said in your review, however I would also like you to consider the possibility that this was a biased documentary with no agricultural sources cited. Instead of citing organizations like the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA, this documentary cited sources like PETA, the HSUS, and Greenpeace, organizations which are biased and would gain a lot from this documentary. I would also like you to consider that if no agricultural sources were cited, much of the “facts” in Earthlings cannot be verified. This is a problem considering one of the first frames of the film asks us to simply accept what we’ve seen as the “industry standard” without giving us any way to confirm that this is true. This is, as you mentioned, an appeal to emotion rather than logic.

  5. Renier Claassen

    The guy who wrote this review is heavily biased in favour of his meat based life. The point is there is an alternative – something animal hardly consider because survival is sometimes scarcely possible. There are over 70000 edible plants on earthand we choose to eat the fleah of dead animals – flesh which is now connected to a lot of disease and adverse medical conditions. The consumption of meat is not a necessity. Despite this some people insist on havin it 3 times a day 365 days a year. Wtf? Saying the meat industry shouldn’t be corrupt we should just enforce regulations better is like saying communism should work if regulations were enforced better, despite no examples of governments ever being anythin else but absolutely corrupt. The nature of the machinery behind such things leave to big a margin for corruption.

    • Agreed and correct. No one is saying stop eating meat completely and some do have health reasons especially when it comes to women. But reduce the consumption drastically and you will soon see less animal abuse and cruelty as well because people can actually focus on treating the animals correctly and users must pay for ultimate prices. It is the same as old days when meat isn’t always accessible to the poor and general public… and we need to revert back to that way

      • Santiago Espinosa

        I heavily disagree with both of your points of view; yes, I agree that there is an alternative to the meatfest our meals have become, yet if you think about it there isn’t really any situation in which we could live without hurting other species or even being able to justify living off them: There are certain nutrients which cannot be easily obtained through the consumption of meat, as our digestive tracks are not designed to extract the minute amounts present.

        Furthermore, I think your example with communism is a bit wrong. In theory, communism would be the best, and most efficient and friendly system of governance, but in practice, as we have seen with many countries, the natural greed of humans has lead to corruption and ended up screwing the whole country up. If humans continue to be humans, communism will not work. But, with the food industry the suffering can be significantly reduced through the implementation of regulations and proper and regular scrutiny,

        One last point the author of this article is trying to make is that the documentary is based not on scientific data and analysis, but rather the ability for humans to feel empathy for other species. By ranting about this without taking into account all his points, you are doing exactly what he is complaining about.

        In simple words: it’s ironic that you’re complaining.

    • GetyourFactsright

      I agree about the biases of the writer here. IMO the documentary’s major motive was not to make you go vegan but to at least think about what you are eating. “If the walls of slaughterhouses were made of glass, wouldn’t we all be vegetarian.” sums up everything as most of the slaughterhouses are located out of cities, most of the people live in denial about the meat they consume.

  6. Go Vegan

    I dont agree with you. Becoming Vegan is the only way to solve this. As lomg as there are sloghterhouses there is death. No more death Go Vegan!!

  7. Felecia Ward

    I would never be intentionally cruel to an animal, but animals instinctively eat other animals. Animals instinctively discriminate against other animals. Humans are the top of the food chain and have a right to consumer animals and use them to accomplish work and to provide clothing and other tools that make human life possible and livable. People want to be useful. Who says that animals do not want to be useful. The problem is Disney-fication of people’s minds. Just because a human would not want to pull a cart or plow a field does not mean that animals think about it the same way. Dogs seems to enjoy hunting, fetching, and herding. People are supposed to responsibly harness the power of animals, never beating or hurting animals who perform tasks for them. Also, if humans did not eat animals, the animals would not exist anyway. They are grown for eating.

    • GetyourFactsright

      This is the most BS comment I have read all day. Animals are grown for eating?
      ignorance is bliss but never to the extent you are referring to.

      • anna

        stock animals are in fact raised for meat, what are you going to do with all the cows once people stop eating beef and drinking milk?

      • RY

        Nothing Anna – cows are only in abundance because human being’s mass produce them. Don’t worry no cows will be knocking on your door or taking over the world. FFS

  8. Waid Lackey

    Your review stinks, as do your opinions. You eat meat for the same reasons you do everything, out of weakness. You are a weak person, but you are not alone. You are the majority. Your habits from coffee to cigarettes, alcohol, and meat are just an endless load of self serving crap. I am not against eating meat, as long as I kill it, or eating fish, as long as I catch it. All others endorse cruelty, and therefore are weak physically and spiritually. You love your blinders though. As oft quoted, “Ignorance is bliss.”

Leave a comment