Overall this is an analysis of novels and films in which positive human relationships with animals are a major theme (not those akin to Old Yeller, Skippy or Alaska!).
Having spent the best part of my time in ecology focused on plants and fungi, I do not want to detract from human relationships with all kingdoms of life, but there is something different about our relationship with animals, in particular large furry ones.
Ghost in the Shell draws heavily from the movie Blade Runner, which is based upon ‘do androids dream of electric sheep?’. Though the importance of animals is played down in Blade Runner (which is nonetheless a great film) the latter and the former of these make it a key issue.
In Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence an investigation into a murderous malfunctioning android is the plot in which questions are explored about what it means to be human (questions also raised in the first movie). Though animal life is scarce in this futuristic megalopolis, it is a key part of the philosophical chat everyone seems to engage in in this world. The central character Batou is a formidable hard-boiled cyborg* cop, who lives alone but for an affectionate Bassett Hound. As one of his colleagues points out, this is an weird pet for such a man, but Batou is very devoted to the animal and it provides a useful function for him.
To explain this function here’s a quick recap: After the first movie Batou loses his closest friend, a woman who had an entirely cybernetic body (Major Motoko Kusanagi), when her consciousness is transferred to “the net” (the endless sea of information that presumably started with the internet). Effectively she lost her link with humanity in its most basic form. Batou too has a high proportion of cybernetic body parts including his eyes, which are bound to create a disconnect with his origins as an ape who evolved to live in the African savannah. The function of the animal therefore, and the reason for the extreme care he gives it, is that it is his link with the animal origins of himself.
I don’t know about everyone else, but the company of an affable dog provides me with a sense of calm I don’t feel with many humans. They remind you that you are an animal and not some kind of synthetic scanner as we might sometimes be persuaded to feel.
With this in mind Philip K Dick creates a world where nuclear fallout has caused a lot of people to bugger off to Mars and the remaining population living with ailments precluding them from following. The fall out has also meant the loss of almost all animal life and left the remainder a valuable commodity.
Here the focus of people’s attention, and a symbol of their status, is the animal they possess; essentially the bigger the animal the higher your status. Obviously an artificial animal is less desirable than a real one. At the beginning Rick Deckard (another cop) has only a malfunctioning artificial sheep, but a new assignment to ‘retire’ (kill) human ‘replicants’ (artificial humanoids) promises pay enough for him to afford a real goat (on hire purchase of course). The introduction of the ‘replicant’ characters depict what are essentially humans but lacking that quality of empathy, they lack value for other life that is a given in non-psychopathic humans. This is displayed when one of the replicants, Pris, takes a spider cherished by the innocent and mentally handicapped Isidore (a human) and proceeds to pull off its legs one by one.
Our link with animals is a strange one. It could be argued that it’s merely a projection of human feelings onto an organism that is not really like us at all, that we anthropomorphise animals. It’s no coincidence that the animals most people feel affection for are mammals that have a lot of our characteristics, hence the WWF logo, a panda, and the adverts to sponsor a stray dog, polar bear, snow leopard etc.
Ignoring the ecological impacts and the fact we would have rubbish BBQs, what would be lost in a world without fauna? No elephants, no butterflies, no birds, no primates, no fish, no whales. Boring? Perhaps, but I think it would do more harm than that to us. Without any animals I think we’d all go a bit nuts. At the moment the world is not being experienced just through human eyes, but by millions of different species. If they weren’t there we would be alone in perceiving anything. Watching a starling murmuration, or any bird flying is generally pleasant if you're feeling spiritual, and I think that as well as just enjoying the spectacle there is vicarious experience gained. This happens when we observe the behavior of any animal.
The title of the second Ghost in the Shell "Innocence", referrers ostensibly to the cruel use of little girls in the film, transferring their 'ghosts' into androids; but apart from children, animals also have another type of innocence. I argue that losing this innocent perspective would affect people in a way akin to the dystopia in Children of Men where there are no children.
The title of the second Ghost in the Shell "Innocence", referrers ostensibly to the cruel use of little girls in the film, transferring their 'ghosts' into androids; but apart from children, animals also have another type of innocence. I argue that losing this innocent perspective would affect people in a way akin to the dystopia in Children of Men where there are no children.
While this is not a scenario likley to be realised, the incremental loss of animals and their unique perspectives is, to my mind, worth considering when someone asks 'why save it?'. This in supplement to ecosystem service and trophic cascade arguments.
Anyway this is turning into a stream of consciousness so I’ll leave it there.
* For someone who isn’t cool enough to know the difference between a cyborg and an android, a cyborg is part organic part machine and in this case an abbreviation for ‘cybernetically enhanced human’, an android is an entirely artificial being in the form of a human, duh!
No comments:
Post a Comment