Elena Shippey
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110-G
17 April 2019
Consider the Human Lifespan
How can we openly discuss the death and suffering of others if we cannot face our own mortality? This is a question the western world has wrestled with for centuries, specifically the United States. In America, billions of animals are tortured and sacrificed every year for scientific research, makeup testing, furs and livestock. Although the commercial use of animals is widespread, the subject remains touchy in American culture and is avoided as much as possible. Why do we struggle to openly discuss these ideas?
The avoidance of suffering and death is rooted in the resistance to recognize human mortality. When a person dies, responsibility usually is handed over to the mortician to prepare the body for a funeral or cremation; rarely is the family directly involved in the aftermath processes of death. Although it may be easier to push the subject away, refusing to acknowledge death can become problematic. Non acceptance of human death disconnects us from empathizing with other animals when they die. This lack of empathy makes it difficult to recognize the indignity in our ambiguous actions towards animals in America.
While many prefer to change the subject, writer David Foster Wallace refused to ignore the controversial treatment of animals. In his piece, “Consider the Lobster,” Wallace questions the ethics of traditional lobster preparation after attending the Maine Lobster Festival. After establishing his internal discord, he closes with “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other” (Wallace 510). Although Wallace may have been speaking logistically, people are technically limited as far as they choose to limit themselves. With the wealth of the universe online, one can find articles on the mistreatment of animals, or the conceptualization of human death. Whether the person decides to explore the information or ignore it is where the line of limitation is drawn. By exposing ourselves to the concept of death and coming to terms with mortality, we may be able to better understand the death of other animals, including those which we cause. With greater awareness of the pain we inflict on other animals, we may recognize the indignity of these actions which may lead us to asses (or reassess) our morals. This may guide us towards living with a higher standard of morality.
The information a person is willing to expose themselves to reflects their value system. Many Americans are incredibly sheltered; this nature comes from the common characteristic of selective knowledge. Based on what I have observed, people choose to know what they wish to know and neglect the knowledge that makes them uncomfortable. The human brain is so manipulative that people can convince themselves what is true and carry their lives out based on these “truths”. In writer Hal Herzog’s “Animals Like Us” one woman successfully convinces herself that fish are not animals to eliminate feeling remorseful when eating them. “This intuitive biological classification system enabled Judith… to think of herself as a vegetarian, yet still experience the joys of smoked Copper River salmon and lemon-grilled swordfish” (Herzog 1). Judith redefines the term “animal” to feel better about consuming them. Just because we can avoid certain truths, or twist them to align with our beliefs, does not mean we should. We are more willing to undergo self-manipulation than face the truth of our values and actions. This dangerous contortion of our perception of reality can make it difficult to decipher the truth. If we can confidently call ourselves vegetarians when we clearly are not, who knows what else we can convince ourselves is acceptable?
Thus far, we have accepted many controversial actions including animal testing and experimentation, wearing furs and skins, and animal consumption. Although anyone can recognize (or at least those who choose to) that an animal must die for these uses, there may be more than meets the eye in understanding just what these animals have to undergo. We can recognize that for our own needs, animals have their lives taken from them. But what does that really mean? One reason this is so difficult is our resistance to fully accept death of our own kind.
The conservative mind of the western world has led people to struggle with the concept of death. As a rule, death is a taboo subject; it brings people’s moods down and makes them uncomfortable. Consequently, when death is inevitably brought upon us, we are overcome with great sadness. We refuse to mentally and emotionally prepare for tragedy, yet are surprised when we cannot cope with the loss. Growing up, I had the same problem: I assumed everyone lived forever. This made it extremely difficult for me to accept the death of my grandmother. This was the first family member I lost. It took awhile for me to transfer my sadness to acceptance, after all I was only eight years old. For me, this tragedy made me realize that life is temporary and death is permanent; it cannot be avoided, so it might as well be accepted.
By approaching death more open-mindedly, we may feel more comfortable with it. Jessica Mitford’s “The American Way of Death Revisited” is revolutionary literature for its time, describing American death rituals explicitly and in grave detail. Specifically, she explains the process of embalming step by step, which had never been done before in such a public way. Mitford mentions how books on the process are hard to come by, and as a result very few people actually know what the process entails. Embalming is one of the most popular American death rituals, yet is completely unknown to the majority of people. It was so taboo that Mitford warned her audience before she explained the process. “For those who have the stomach for it, let us part the formaldehyde curtain. Others should skip to the bottom of page 49” (Mitford 44). Expecting discomfort, there is an option to skip the gory details, literally. If the majority of the public is either in the dark or uncomfortable about this information, they are limiting their ability to connect with the process of death and the concept of mortality. Limiting understanding of this process for ourselves, the extent to which we can understand it for other animals is even shorter.
Articles like Mitford’s are crucial in helping introduce ideas about death to ourselves. As people read and discuss the article, they can better connect to what formerly was an avoided topic. Discussing human mortality openly may broaden the conversation from humans to other animals, or the interaction between the two groups. Such is the case for Hal Herzog as he addresses the various human-animal relationships and what they say about our morality and values. Herzog shares the story of his friend Ron Neibor who had a complicated relationship with his subjects for a scientific study, which “…lasted a year, during which time he became attached to the two dozen animals in his lab. On weekends, he would drive to the lab, release his cats from their cages, and play with them” (Herzog 4). Building a loving relationship with these animals made it extremely difficult for him to sacrifice them for his study. Neibor found himself in a paradoxical “troubled middle” which Herzog refers to as the clashing of morals and actions. Neibor recognized that killing the cats was wrong, but he did it in order to further scientific knowledge. Does that make it justified? Not necessarily, but recognizing and admitting indignity in one’s actions is a key step in the process of making more moral decisions moving forward.
Herzog and Neibor find themselves in the strange space of the “troubled middle”, as does Wallace. Before attending the Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace did some research. He found statistics like the 100,000 people (and 25,000 pounds of lobster) that attend the festival each year, but he also read up on the anatomy and physiology of the lobsters themselves. Some argue that lobsters can’t feel pain since they don’t have a cerebral cortex, which is a key component of the complex human nervous system. While the nervous system of a lobster is much different from that of a human, Wallace found that “pain reception is known to be part of a much older and more primitive system of nociceptors and prostaglandins that are managed by the brain system and thalamus” (Wallace 504), concluding that lobsters can definitely feel the physical trauma of being prepared for a meal. This theory is tested every time a lobster is cooked, fighting to escape the boiling water it is trapped in. Although less complex, a lobster “behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water” (Wallace 506). Wallace’s research put him in a troubling position, recognizing that the practices of lobster preparation are cruel and inhumane. More so, he seems unsure whether or not the practices will be reconsidered since it has become a custom in Maine. Traditions are often difficult to reverse and are rarely questioned because the custom normalizes over time, no matter how controversial it may be at its roots.
Although its name infers that it isn’t the desired destination point, the “troubled middle” is an important stop on the road towards morality. To recognize our wrongdoings and see them for the controversies they are is crucial for making morally conscious decisions in the future. Authors like Mitford have started a conversation that the public had previously hesitated to discuss. Writers Herzog and Wallace have picked up the conversation and taken it in a new direction, widening the scope from humans to all members of the animal kingdom. While all three authors raise questions about our ethics and societal values, the answers are not so simple. There isn’t a single way to properly accept or conceptualize death, nor is there a single right way to properly regard or treat animals. I too find myself lost in the troubled middle when it comes to this dilemma; I am a vegetarian who, like Neibor, experiments on animals for scientific research. Although my actions don’t line up with my own values, I am in the process of evaluation and re-evaluation hoping to make a future change to my lifestyle. I am not perfect; I am human. As humans, the best we can do is value our personal beliefs of what is right and try our best to live up to those standards, as imperfect a process as it may be.
Works Cited
Herzog, Hal. “Animals Like Us.” UTNE Reader. July-August 2011. Accessed 3 April 2019. https://www.utne.com/environment/animals-like-us-human-pet-relationships
Mitford, Jessica. “The American Way of Death Revisited.” Vintage Books. 2000. Accessed 3 April 2019.
Wallace, David F. “Consider the Lobster.” Consider the Lobster: And Other Essays. 2005. Accessed 3 April 2019.
