Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Impending Welfarist Propaganda In Jurassic World 2

Like us on Facebook:

Frank Marshall, producer of a number of classic blockbusters including Back to the Future and the Indiana Jones movies, has tweeted recently teasing the upcoming sequel to Jurassic World. Unfortunately for us, it seems that the plot of the movie is going to deliver an “animal rights” message. The reality, as with James Cameron’s Avatar, will most likely be something akin to traditional welfarism dressed in a multi-million dollar CGI suit.

According to this article in Movie Pilot, it is suggested that the protagonists may be fighting “animal rights” groups as opposed to the traditional T-rex. Universal studios have apparently registered two domain names related to Jurassic World: AllCreaturesHaveRights.com and AllCreaturesHaveRights.org.

What rights, you ask? Well, that much becomes clear in an interview that the writer for the franchise, Colin Trevorrow, did for Time magazine last October. Trevorrow claimed the following: “The dinosaurs will be a parable of the treatment animals receive today: the abuse, medical experimentation, pets, having wild animals in zoos like prisons, the use the military has made of them, animals as weapons.”

Once again, the focus is on the treatment of animals as opposed to their use as resources at all. Much like in Avatar where Jake and Neytiri show the deer “respect” before pumping her with arrows, there is an underlying assumption that animal use itself is a legitimate practice. We focus on fringe practices such as zoo-keeping and experimentation as representing a deeper moral wrong, whilst simultaneously believing that our own daily exploitation can be rectified by eradicating “abuse.” I anticipate that the real similarities between Jurassic World 2 and reality will be the promotion of a welfarist agenda.

We don’t need a “parable of the treatment animals receive today.” We need a unified message stating that regardless of how animals are treated, it is inherently unjust to use them. Anything less than that is merely to throw dry logs on an already out-of-control blaze. A blaze that has been raging for over 200 hundred years in the name of animal welfare, systematically denying the existence of animal value as a matter of law.

It is unclear what Universal’s new domain names are really trying to say. There is profit in their ambiguity, I’m sure. If Trevorrow’s comments are anything to go by, the “rights” will be nothing more than an empty assertion that animals have the right to “humane” treatment. But to say that animals, who are property, have a “right” to humane treatment is to say that your car has the “right” to have fuel. To say that “humane” treatment can be accorded as a “right” to animals who are property, is to deny the very real implications of property status. That which is property necessarily remains a thing with no moral value. As a matter of law, this would be nothing but a “right” to ensure that animals are exploited efficiently and profitably. That’s all “humane” means.

It is to try and accord value to secondary interests without first recognising fundamental interests. In other words, aside from property limitations, it’s meaningless in its mere conception. If fundamental interests in life are not respected – where sentient lives cannot be valued at zero for the purposes of a property owner – a “respect” for secondary interests or a “right” that ostensibly protects those interests cannot rightly be said to exist. There is no context in which the animal can benefit from that “right” when their lives are already forfeit.

Further, if Universal are going to say that animals have a “right” to “humane” treatment, they need to provide a non-arbitrary and non-speciesist reason as to why animals are not also entitled to the right not to be used at all. Unfortunately for Universal, there is no non-speciesist justification for separating treatment and use.

Here we go again. Hollywood has boarded the welfarist train.  

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Stanley Loskot

    Or it’s just viral marketing to sell movie tickets, as is the business, and you’re just insane.

    • supna

      And yes i agree it with you sir. The market issue is viral type, sell it a ticket and a money incentive come to be present. A treatment of dinosaur is not it reality. A treatment for animal is real now. A treatment for stomach hunger is also it subjective.

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.