Commentary by John Lankford, Editorial Page Editor
Santa Barbara News-Press

Wednesday, March 27, 1996

The election is finished. The Oscars have been presented. Not enough people voted. "Babe," although nominated in seven categories, scored in only one, for technology that is older than me and dirt. We Babe-cans are miffed.

That's OK because the film's true value will be revealed in the coming years as it attains cult status and guides us all to a better, more pure understanding of the worth of animals other than ourselves.

All of which caused [my wife] Darlene to ask: "Can you think of a species on this planet that would not be better off without humans?

Well, no.

One might think farm and domestic animals would suffer if the comet that is now passing us by somehow caused the human race to vanish.

Hollywood once produced a movie with that theme, called "Night of the Comet." It was released to theaters in 1984, at a time when I was the movie critic for a Tucson newspaper.

I gave "Night of the Comet" a thumbs-up because it had its moments. The comet passes Earth, killing all but a precious few humans, including two Valley Girls who were sleeping off bad party hangovers. They wake up, realize what's happening and decide the only logical course of actions is to... GO SHOPPING. At the mall, to be precise.

Which is what they did. It was an entertaining film with an upbeat ending. As upbeat as you can get when most of mankind has been destroyed by a killer comet.

But how devastating would the loss of humans actually be to planet Earth?

We have, by virtue of our brain size and reasoning capabilities arrived at the very top of the planet's food chain/family tree. We are the dominators, the tamers, the takers.

I thought of all these things as I watched "Babe" the other night, its first night in video release. Propped up with pillows in my bed, sipping a cheap cabernet, I watched in wonder as a child's movie brought my own life a little more completely into focus.

Such focusing has been occurring for several years, and I had assumed it was a function of the aging process.

As you age, you learn more things, so much that at some point you realize how much you don't know, which is the crowning achievement of the circle of life. I'm just about there.

I don't much care for G-rated movies because they mostly deal with subjects in which I long ago lost interest.

But "Babe" is another matter entirely, and that's why - Oscar success or not - it will achieve a special status for many people

For one thing, without giving the game away to those who have yet to see the film, "Babe" makes an important statement on human cruelty to animals as the opening credits subside, setting the stage for many such statements that will follow. Thankfully, these statements are not at all subtle.

It can be a face-smacking experience to walk in someone else's shoes, and that is what the films asks you to do.

Actually, it makes you walk in those shoes, to understand the realities of life on the other side of the pitchfork - if you are smart enough to suspend your disbelief for an hour and a half.

I had no trouble suspending my disbelief because I talk to my cats all the time. They talk back.

No - Spot, you're getting a bit fat, don't you think?

Meeeoooowww?

Mr. Toes, wouldn't it be better if you ate this Science Diet stuff and skipped the turkey feet and chicken beaks in that canned food?

Meeeoooowww!

See?

The talking animals in "Babe" were absolutely no problem for me, having grown up in the Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule era.

And there was an eye-opener on PBS the other night. Robin Williams narrates and participates in a show about dolphins. It should be required viewing for anyone who still thinks it morally acceptable to destroy dolphins as part of the food-gathering process - in some cases to make cat food.

Dolphins, with whom I have frolicked in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, are our friends in every sense of the word. Yet they are being killed for no apparent reason.

But at least they're better off than the whales being destroyed so scientists can tell how old they are and how healthy they were.

Would dolphins suffer without humans? Would pigs, cows and chicken? What about whales and elephants? Has mankind been kind to them?

"Babe" forced me to think about this stuff, which is a refreshing respite from ballot measures and apathetic voters.

Still, I am stumped by Darlene's question, her challenge for me to come up with a single species of living thing that would not benefit from and prosper in the absence of humans.

Can you?

By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA

In an emotional response to the movie "Babe" (page A11, March 27, "Out of the mouths of 'Babe' comes the awful truth about humanity"), John Lankford, an editor with the Santa Barbara News-Press is "blue" that "Babe" didn't win more Oscars.

Lankford is sure, though, that "Babe" will attain cult status, guiding "us all to a better, more pure understanding of the worth of animals other than ourselves." Lankford then asks the self-annihilating question: is there "a single species of living thing that would not benefit from and prosper in the absence of humans"?

Lankford appears oblivious to the fact that Babe the pig, as a domesticated animal, is completely dependent on people for its care, breeding and existence. Without a market for pork, this animal would not exist.

Lankford focuses his anxiety for the ocean's inhabitants on marine mammals, although fishermen face a higher chance of dying from fishing operations than do dolphins. Lankford also, as a pet owner, is oblivious to the millions of land mammals and pets that suffer and die miserable deaths from being hit by cars annually. Is the human-induced suffering and death so great that it outweighs the value of the animals' existence and the benefits of pet ownership?

Lankford notes that believing in talking pigs was no problem for him since he talks to his cats (animals also completely dependent on Mr. Lankford for food, shelter and their existence). Lankford states he grew up in the "Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule era." And the century of Mickey Mouse, Bambi, Flipper and Thumper, the century when food producers shifted from over 90 percent of the populace to less than 2 percent. Against this background, it is understandable why Lankford misses the connection between the costs and benefits of hunting and gathering, domestication of animals and dinner.

Should Lankford and guilt-ridden others feel that vegetarianism is the answer, it is necessary to point out that vegetarians oppose the direct harvest of animals for food production while ignorantly supporting indirect harvest. Agriculture is the number one cause of loss of habitat for animals worldwide and hundreds of millions of animals in the fields are chopped up annually during the harvesting process.

There seems to be no respite from humanity's impact on the animals. Oh, the angst! So Lankford reaches the common, modern day state of self loathing, sure that animals would be better served by total annihilation of mankind. "How devastating would the loss of humans actually be to planet Earth?" he asks.

No more human babies or picnics by the beach or boat rides, good books, movies or human romps in the hay. Domesticated animals and pets would, of course, disappear but wild animals would continue without the human animal. Reproducing until they collapse habitat, animals would die natural but miserable deaths of starvation. Predators (non-human, of course) would rip the weakened animals to shreds, consuming the entrails of their prey while the living feast bellows in pain.

Lankford fantasizes that a human-free world would, in some magical way, transform into a more humane planet. Without any expression of human cruelty in the world, would animals "rediscover" their more "humane" natures, would the lion lie down with the lamb in a picture postcard Ecotopia/Disneyworld? Those who interact with nature every day look on this naive and nihilistic view of the world with amazement. Is modern urban man so far removed from natural reality that he is now truly clueless?

Just as the world would continue after the loss of whales or dolphins or pets, it would continue after the loss of homo sapiens. But the world would be less rich if it suffered the loss of dolphins, blue whales, elephants, piglets, puppies or people. The biological and spiritual loss is just as great if we lose gnatcatchers, butterflies, sharks, New Yorkers, Manchurians or Inuits.

The world would not be improved if it lost the only animal with a conscience. Man is the only animal that appreciates and values the rest of the world's animals. He is the only animal able to manage and domesticate, the only animal capable of imposing a moral code on his behavior toward other animals.

Lankford, so depressed by screen images designed for children, has lost touch with the value of his own humanity.

Perhaps a stormy night at sea on a fishing boat would help Lankford put the Earth and his place on it back into perspective. I heartily recommend he join the Eskimos as they paddle their boats out to sustainably hunt whales. Celebrating the hunt with a slice of warm blubber in a frigid land, would do much to restore Lankford's sense of value for his own very dear, very human life. It would certainly make him appreciate his pampered but very temporary place on this planet.