Life Of Pi Dialectical Journal
Life of Pi: Journal Response #1
The narrator of this book has his own view about zoos. He tries to make it seem as if his view is absolutely true and is scientifically proven and that he is 100% politically correct. According to him a zoo to an animal is like a home to a human. But I totally disagree with his view on the zoos.
In the book the narrator’s view is totally opposite. He assumes and thinks that keeping animals in cages is normal to them and they don’t mind… He persuades us to think that animals are perfectly fine and find it normal to be kept in cages “Animals like being in the same cages, it’s like their home, There is no place like home? That’s certainly what animals feel.” According to him animals would rather live in a …show more content…
We all humans know that animals do not like being kept in cages and in enclosed enclosures. “Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territorial will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. So biologically sound zoo enclosure – whether cage, pit, moated island, corral, terrarium, aviary or aquarium- is just another territory…” “In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses…” Now he is comparing the animals’ cages to our homes! How is it possible to compare an animal’s cage to our houses? They are definitely vastly different. We cannot possibly compare a place like our home to an animal’s cage. Animals are meant to live in the wild - in the forests, the desserts etc. That’s their home. Like our homes are our habitats in cities and country sides. It’s not possible to call a cage, an animal’s territory; it’s like a jail for …show more content…
Finding within it all the places it needs- a lookout, a place for resting, for eating and drinking, for bathing, for grooming-etc. – and finding that there is no need to go hunting, food appearing six days a week, an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim…” I disagree with the fact that the cages are the animal’s territory and home. Just because the cage can fulfill the basic needs (resting, look out, eating, and bathing) that doesn’t mean its territory. The animal is being forced to live in the cages and so it has to deal with the situation and cope with it. Where he says “… fulfilled by close by and safely” he is wrong. The bars around the cage aren’t for safety for the animals but for simply keeping it inside its cage. It’s a safety for us! How does this even make sense in the first place? It’s basically saying that, someone a human is forced to live in a cage where he/she will be supplied with food and calling that cage their home! Their safe, have a place to eat, rest, lookout… It’s the human’s territory and home now because it will stay there forcefully until it dies… You can also look at this like this. You see a lady bug crawling around. So you take a jar and cover it atop it. You give it food/water daily… So basically now the jar is its home
The narrator of this book has his own view about zoos. He tries to make it seem as if his view is absolutely true and is scientifically proven and that he is 100% politically correct. According to him a zoo to an animal is like a home to a human. But I totally disagree with his view on the zoos.
In the book the narrator’s view is totally opposite. He assumes and thinks that keeping animals in cages is normal to them and they don’t mind… He persuades us to think that animals are perfectly fine and find it normal to be kept in cages “Animals like being in the same cages, it’s like their home, There is no place like home? That’s certainly what animals feel.” According to him animals would rather live in a …show more content…
We all humans know that animals do not like being kept in cages and in enclosed enclosures. “Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territorial will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. So biologically sound zoo enclosure – whether cage, pit, moated island, corral, terrarium, aviary or aquarium- is just another territory…” “In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses…” Now he is comparing the animals’ cages to our homes! How is it possible to compare an animal’s cage to our houses? They are definitely vastly different. We cannot possibly compare a place like our home to an animal’s cage. Animals are meant to live in the wild - in the forests, the desserts etc. That’s their home. Like our homes are our habitats in cities and country sides. It’s not possible to call a cage, an animal’s territory; it’s like a jail for …show more content…
Finding within it all the places it needs- a lookout, a place for resting, for eating and drinking, for bathing, for grooming-etc. – and finding that there is no need to go hunting, food appearing six days a week, an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim…” I disagree with the fact that the cages are the animal’s territory and home. Just because the cage can fulfill the basic needs (resting, look out, eating, and bathing) that doesn’t mean its territory. The animal is being forced to live in the cages and so it has to deal with the situation and cope with it. Where he says “… fulfilled by close by and safely” he is wrong. The bars around the cage aren’t for safety for the animals but for simply keeping it inside its cage. It’s a safety for us! How does this even make sense in the first place? It’s basically saying that, someone a human is forced to live in a cage where he/she will be supplied with food and calling that cage their home! Their safe, have a place to eat, rest, lookout… It’s the human’s territory and home now because it will stay there forcefully until it dies… You can also look at this like this. You see a lady bug crawling around. So you take a jar and cover it atop it. You give it food/water daily… So basically now the jar is its home