Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The interaction of human beings and the natural world has always been one of conflict because of the inhumane way that people can behave. Animal have been used by human beings as pets, as entertainment, and in the course of scientific research. Fictional depictions of this interaction have reflected the nature of this relationship between man and animal. Some people value animal research as a means of curing human ailments and others decry it as animal cruelty. This is not a clear cut issue, but rather one of many different viewpoints. This document will show various attitudes toward these interactions; the positive aspects of animal testing, the negative attitudes towards testing, and finally how both these attitudes are fitted into the context of the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a film which shows exactly how society feels about this complicated issue.

The film series which began with The Planet of the Apes from the year 1968 tells the epic tale of a future Earth wherein primates have evolved into intelligent beings and human beings have devolved to become nothing more than pets. Subsequent entries in the series led to two characters going back in time to actually create the series of events which would lead to the revolution and overtaking by the apes due to the cruel nature in which humans treated them. In the reboot of the franchise, the origin of the intelligent evolved chimps was reevaluated to incorporate the immorality of scientific testing on animals and the inhumane way in which such creatures are treated by those interested only in helping humanity. The plot of the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) deals with a potential future wherein mankind has inadvertently created a breed of hyper-intelligent chimpanzees that have the ability and the desire to eradicate man and take over the world. Although this seems to be something purely out of the imaginative world of science fiction, the ways in which human beings have treated animals over the course of recent history, particularly in the field of animal scientific testing shows that such occurrences are not as fantastic as they once may have been and scientific manipulation of such things like genetic code could create a breeding ground for events very similar to those presented in the film.

Animal testing is an important and common practice in the scientific community, much to the chagrin of many. There are those in the scientific community however who declare that testing on animals is absolutely necessary as a means of finding and advancing medical discoveries. Starting with the British Royal Society in the 1660s those interested in the sciences have used animals as the basis for testing medications and procedures which are not yet safe to attempt on human beings. The argument is that only by testing on lower life forms can researchers distinguish the potential effects of a course of action on higher life forms such as humans. Claude Bernard who is credited as the father of physiology claimed that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree" (Hajar 2011,-page 42). This opinion is reflected in much of the past and present scientific community who insist that animal testing is the only way to ensure that medications are alright for testing and then later use by humans. Rachel Hajar (2011) states that the tradition of animal testing goes back even further to the great Greeks philosophers such as Aristotle who used animals to better understand anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. From such an early period, the philosophy of man was made clear, that in order to understand the universe it were better to desecrate the body of an animal than that of a man. For the most part, the testing of animals was seen as an acceptable sacrifice in the hopes of receiving new information and materials to help mankind.

It is not only recently has the question of morality regarding animal cruelty in scientific testing come into question. In 1822 the first laws prohibiting animal cruelty were enacted to protect animals from the inhumanity of those who would abuse them. Charles Darwin wrote of his support of the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act by stating that he understood the importance of scientific inquiry, but that vivisection of animals for "damnable and detestable curiosity" was reprehensible to him (Life 2012). Some of the evidence regarding man's inhumanity towards animals is extremely and wholly disturbing, such as Pavlov's surgical installation of a tube in a dog's muzzle to measure its saliva output in his famous bell test. Since that time, other countries and groups have tried to eradicate animal cruelty in all venues, including in the field of scientific research. Organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have vocalized and popularized the opinion that testing on animals is inhumane as they are also living creatures (Rollin 2007,-page 521). Among the principle protests regarding the treatment of animals is the sheer number who are abused. According to Meredith Cohn (2010), tens of millions of animals are mistreated this way each year, many of whom are euthanized after the experiment is over.

The context of Rise of the Planet of the Apes is this disagreement between factions over the suitability or morality relating to animal testing. Will, the character played by James Franco, has invented a serum which he believes has the ability to curb the spread and perhaps even cure Alzheimer's disease. Before William tests the substance on a human being, he must go through various animals, the last of which is a chimpanzee named Caesar. An unexpected reaction to the medication is that Caesar has obtained characteristics which are nearly human yet he is still not treated as anything more than an animal. Will's motives are entirely humanitarian. He wishes to cure the disease and help people, including his own father. In doing so, he does not realize the damage that he is doing to the animals in his care (Jeffries 2011). Despite his non-animal traits, the chimp is still relegated to the confines of a laboratory animal and is placed amongst other animals rather than being given any regard (Loy 2011). This is symbolic of the real-world negative attitudes which are given to animals in the scientific community.