|
4 out of 5 stars |
Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure novel by Yann Martel published in 2001. The protagonist, Piscine Molitor "Pi" Patel, a Tamil boy from Pondicherry, explores issues of spirituality and practicality from an early age. He survives 227 days after a shipwreck while stranded on a boat in the Pacific Ocean with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.
How many times have you heard the saying Stranger than fiction? I’ve been known to look back at an event and
declare that it would be unbelievable as fiction—that no one would deem it
credible. Life of Pi presents an extremely unlikely series of events, but
they are strung together in a way that allows the reader to suspend their
disbelief and continue on to see what happens.
I found the combination of zoology and theology to be very
interesting. If you are a militant
atheist or an easily offended agnostic, this is not your book. Although the book claims that it will make
you believe in God, I found that to be a large exaggeration—instead it made me
think about the status of the “Animal lover” in our society.
If you ask anyone, who will tell you that they don’t love
animals? Even serial killers, who often
begin their trade with animals, know enough to feign warm & fuzzy feelings
for cats or dogs—they know that they will stand out from normal people like a
sore thumb if they admit that they really don’t care about animals (or
people). But not all animal lovers are
the same. It’s like Protestant,
Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
There are Pet Owners, who are daft about cats or dogs or
rabbits. Pet ownership is often a gate
way to becoming a member of an SPCA and becoming a member of a civilian
“police” force, checking up on pet shops, volunteering at animal shelters, and
leaving notes on car windshields where dogs have been left inside.
Then there are Breeders—people who raise animals for a
living. They raise cattle, horses, dogs,
cats, or rabbits. Any species where
money can be made and they often inbreed their animals to try to create
offspring that conform to an ideal notion of what the breed should look
like. Think Thoroughbred horses, bred to
run, or Pug dogs, which now have eye issues and breathing problems because they
have been chosen for particular facial conformation. Which is not to say that these people don’t
love their animals—they clearly do care about them, value them, and take very
good care of them.
Farmers are a subset of Breeders—they raise animals for
various purposes. Cattle become beef,
pigs become pork, chickens produce eggs and meat, and farmers provide the food
that the vast majority of us cannot raise ourselves. Although the animals may be a business, the
farmer is not an uncaring person. Animal
well-being is necessary down on the farm as well—unhealthy animals cannot be
sold, certainly, but no one likes to see suffering in beings that they are
responsible for. Having grown up on a
farm, I can tell you that we did make an effort to not get too attached to
those animals which had been selected for future consumption. It was much safer to become “friends” with
animals which would either have long lives or would be sold and slaughtered
somewhere else. Having said that, our
food animals often had names and my mother would sometimes tell us, “This is
Pumpkin, isn’t he delicious?” Although
we cared about our animals, we weren’t sentimental about them. Their purpose was to be food and we stayed
very aware of that.
Many of those of us with farm upbringing also feel strongly
about wild animals. I remember seeing
deer, coyotes, foxes, and even, once, a lynx from my bedroom window. Most farm people are aware of the birds on
their property, hearing frogs peeping from the ponds, and the progression of
the seasons.
Some of us even join the ranks of the Wildlife Warriors,
those who advocate for wild animals and wild spaces. These folks range from the mild (signing petitions,
writing to politicians) to the extreme (Green Peace volunteers on ships
harassing Japanese whalers). I started
in the mild category and I remember having discussions with my father, who
believed that animals were secondary to humans.
As long as there were humans in need, he couldn’t understand worrying
about endangered animals. I didn’t
believe it was an either/or situation—why couldn’t we help people AND try to
save species? I told him we needed both
kinds of people, concerned about both issues.
I still see it that way, incidentally.
Then there are the Animal Rights Advocates, those who
believe that animals should be granted all the rights that we as humans
claim. According to them, we should all
be vegan, we shouldn’t keep animals as slaves (i.e. pets), and we shouldn’t confine
animals in any way. Some of them also
seem to feel that hurting people is okay, but hurting animals is evil. I’ve attempted to be vegetarian several times
(it is still an ideal that I aspire to for environmental reasons). My experience of pet ownership is that of the
owner as slave, filling bowls, cleaning up the furry dust bunnies, and scooping
poop.
I should also come clean at this point and tell you that I
was a docent (education volunteer) at our city’s zoo for 17 years. It felt like the job that I had been
preparing for all of my life—my experience with livestock as a child, my
fascination with wild animals, my concern for endangered species, all these
factors made me an enthusiastic educator.
I appreciated our zoo’s programs for funding research and conservation
work in Canada and elsewhere and for breeding endangered animals for potential
return to the wild. In fact, some of the
Whooping Cranes that I helped to raise and some of the Vancouver Island Marmots
born at our zoo have been returned to the wild to augment diminishing wild
populations. I know there are a lot of
zoo haters out there, but I don’t know any of them who are actually doing
things to truly help wild animals. They
seem solely focussed on shutting down zoos, not on solving the problems that
zoos recognize.
It seems to me that many of these positions are “religious”
in nature—we have chosen our position and we stick to it and denounce the other
religions. You would think that all
“animal lovers” would be able to work together for the benefit of all. Instead, we are engaged in
interdenominational warfare. For
example, our city’s zoo was affected by a major flooding event in 2013. During the height of the waters, an animal
rights advocate decided it was the perfect time to go to the zoo and to release
the animals. He was shocked to discover
an army of zoo employees, busily saving animals under harrowing circumstances,
who saw him off the premises.
Apparently, zoo keepers in his mind were uncaring, callous people who
would simply leave their charges to sink or swim.
We all care about animals, but we are as separate as
Protestants and Catholics, as Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as Israelis and
Arabs. This week in Spain, people got
very worked up—not over the fact that a Spanish nurse had contracted Ebola, but
because her dog was euthanized as a precaution.
Thousands of people have died in Africa, but the death of one dog
finally got people to care about Ebola.
I’m still not sure that they care about the people in Africa.
Perhaps this is why I love the writings of Kurt Vonnegut so
much—babies, we just have to be kind! To
each other, to other beings, and to the planet.
Let’s put aside our dogma and work together.