#5: Anthropocentrism, Anthropodenial, & Other Big Words

Going along with the theory of relativity (Foer's not Einstein's), it's interesting to observe the extent to which humans either accept the relation with animals or refuse to accept it. After all, we are all animals. It's true that we have opposable thumbs and we do things that the average lion cannot, but we are very similar.

Foer first discusses the meaning of anthropocentrism. He says that it's the conviction that humans are the center of evolution. We can measure the "rightful" owners of every living organism and the lives of other animals in terms of human evolution. To me, this seems reasonable that the only living species on the planet capable of this kind of thinking should get to decide how to measure other living things. But what happens when humans believe they have the right to rule animals in all aspects, not just how to measure their lives. Then, I believe, problems arise. Religion, values, and truth are all things that make animal agriculture so complex and controversial.

Another term that Foer talks about is anthropodenial. Literally, it's the denial that anthropoids share similar experiences to humans. The denial that animals are similar to humans and other animals in terms of experience. Foer uses the example of how his son asks if their dog, George, will be lonely when they leave the house without her. His answer of, "George doesn't get lonely," is the epitome of anthropodenial. I believe that this state of denial is what allows some humans to be apathetic and merciless when it comes to animals. It is obvious that we are different from most animals, but it is not obvious and ignorant to assume that animals are not like us.

Another big word that Foer explores is anthropomorphism. It's the urge to project human experiences onto other animals (like the time Foer's son asked if their dog would be lonely.) An Italian psychologist, Emanuela Cenami Spada, wrote about anthropomorphism and how humans must do it to truly understand their own human existence and experiences. He writes, "The only available 'cure' [for anthropomorphism] is the continuous critique of our working definitions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us." We need to keep questioning ourselves and keep evaluating our evolving relationship with animals. They are not who they were 100 years ago they won't be in another 100 years. The key, I believe, is to understand that neither are we. I think the "embarrassing problem" that Spada touches on is how animals depict human nature and human tendencies. Occasionally, other animals bring out compassion and empathy in humans. Other times, they bring out brutality and oppression. To make us feel comfortable with the creatures that we are forever here with, we must accept them and relate to them. This is the only way that we will be able to live harmoniously.