Something that interested me most about Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood was looking at the value that the characters in the novel put on individual lives. Oryx and Crake asks it’s reader to really consider what makes a life worth saving and as I read it I found myself struggling with my own morals in regards to living things.
It all starts with the pigoons. Early on the in the novel Jimmy is taken to OrganInc and is introduced to the pigoons. Pigoons look like pigs but contain human organs, scientists then harvest these organs and use them for transplants. On the surface it seems that the scientists at OrganInc value the Pigoons lives more than the life of a normal pig; “it was claimed that none of the defunct pigeons ended up as bacon and sausages: no one would want to eat an animal whose cells might be identical with at least some of their own.” (24). However we soon find out that the value placed on the Pigoons lives is far more to do with individual morals than overall consensus. Jimmy is upset when he finds out that Pigoon meat may be being slipped into the cafeteria food and this is one of the first things that marks Jimmy out as being potentially more morally good than some of the other characters in the novel. In direct contrast to his feelings about the pigoons Jimmy’s aversion to eating the ChickieNob’s comes from them being too far removed from a normal living being. “He couldn’t see eating a ChickieNob. It would be like eating a large wart.” (203).
Atwood continues to look at the value that the characters put on individual lives in a much more dramatic way when Crake decides to destroy almost the entire human population. Destroying every human on Earth certainly seems like a large jump from eating a few pigoons and the question of why Crake did what he did is one that looms over the entire novel. I think that Crake’s decision comes fundamentally from a place of pain. He has discovered the drug companies plans to make people ill in order to sell them drugs and he also suspects them of killing his father. It’s an extreme decision to make but by blurring the lines of morality in regards to other creatures throughout the novel, Atwood makes us slightly more sympathetic to Crake. His hatred of his species has grown so large that to him it makes complete sense to wipe them out and replace them with another.
The novel ends on a cliffhanger but one that also concerns the way that different species regard each other. The Crakers are the species in the novel closest to humans however it is unclear at first whether their lives are valued or not, and it is eventually Oryx who convinces Jimmy that their lives are worth saving;
“If Crake isn’t here, if he goes away somewhere, and if I’m not here either, I want you to take care of the Crakers.” (said Oryx).
(…)
“They are like children, they need someone. You have to be kind with them.”
(322).
After this Jimmy treats the Crakers like children, making sure they are fed and looked after. However when Jimmy discovers that there are other humans alive the question of how the Crakers and the humans will interact becomes key and Jimmy worries that the humans will not see the Crakers as lives similar to their own; “Maybe all will be well, maybe this trio of strangers is good-hearted, sane, well-intentioned; maybe he’ll succeed in presenting the Crakers to them in the proper light. On the other hand, these new arrivals could easily see the Children of Crake as freakish, or savage, or non-human and a threat.” (366).
Okay so after that very long point I do finally have some questions:
Do you think that Atwood is making an argument that all living creatures should be valued or do you think she is saying that none should be?
Do you think she is using the blurred moral lines regarding life throughout the novel to highlight our societies confused conscience when it comes to what animals we are okay with destroying and what animals we place extreme value on?
Another large theme in the novel is extinct animals. Do you think Atwood is making us look at the way we kill entire races of animals by showing us Crake’s decision to destroy the entire human race?
To answer your first question, I think Atwood is saying that, whether it is there naturally (like the Crakers) or applied by humans (as seen in the pigeons representing the humanness we see in other creatures), there is an element of humanity in every living creature. This should be recognized and used as a way to sympathize and connect with other people and creatures, and as a means of valuing them.
In regards to the commentary on morals, I think Atwood is using the blurred morality of the characters to point out issues on how we see life. However, I think it extends beyond just whether we should kill animals. I think it comes down to how we treat nature and each other. Both animals and humans are viewed in this book as something that is both natural and a creation of the human, some combination of both ideas, which is similar to real life. Atwood uses the story to point out the fact that we should treat everything with care because everything is both impactful on our lives and a product of our presence.
I do not believe Atwood wants us to look specifically at the extinction of animals, but rather the extinction of empathy. When our empathy is gone, the animals will be some of the first to go, but humanity will not be far behind. I believe that is the point Atwood is trying to get at, and using the extinction of animals as a negative effect of human apathy is a good example to prove her point.
Wow, this is an amazing point. I think I was reading Atwood’s words too literally and like most others, thought she was focusing on environmental degradation and the slaughter of animals. This notion of our empathy being the thing we’re degrading makes a lot of sense. As we become collectively more and more materialistic and care so strongly about our social position, we stop caring about everything else. Like Ryan said, who cares if we clear a rainforest as long as our new houses have beautiful hardwood floors throughout. While wars have been happening for all human history, I believe Atwood was hinting at the fact that much larger massacres were to come. When the few demanded what was left from the poor to continue to live their luxurious lives, there’d be quite a clash. Resource wars would be far more destructive than any religious or territorial ones because it’d be a matter of life and death. I feel that we’re already on the road to decreased empathy. We’re desensitized to violence, we group global issues in our minds with vague symbols like “The Middle East” or “Africa”, and don’t take the time to actually research them. While increasing population is going to be hard to feed, we shouldn’t abandon any shred of morality and rather use technology and increasing global flattening to work together for creative solutions.
I think Atwood wants us to think highly of all animals regardless of their backgrounds. One thing that comes to mind is the cloning projects that exist today. In the future, scientists may turn to cloned animals in order to feed the growing population. Though slaughterhouses can still be brutal, there are some restrictions placed on the treatment of farm animals in order to be humane. Some people may look down on cloned animals and want to lift some of those restrictions. I believe that Atwood would argue for clones’ treatment to be the same as the originals.
There is definitely a point to be made about what animals we place value on. We only do our best to preserve animals that are on the brink of destruction saving species that only have a couple hundred individuals left. We also only step in on behalf of animals that are useful to us (honeybees are one example). Any other type of animals is not given the same treatment. Even animal rights and pet adoption organizations seems to have an agenda with saving “cute” animals. The commercials they distribute only represent a handful of fluffy mammals. You never see any reptiles or fish in their efforts to save a species.
Although I had not thought of the story in this light, I can see now why you would think there is a parallel between the destruction of humanity in the book to our destruction of other animals. There is certainly a superiority complex among people in regarding our place in the circle of life. We often destroy a species without giving as much as a second thought believing that we are justified in our actions. Humanity often feels that our needs come first. We would gladly clear a rain forest killing native species if it meant that the resources harvested would benefit us. At the end of the day though, animals still have the capacity to feel emotion and pain just as we do.