Posts Tagged ‘emotional bonding’

Variation on a theme

Monday, January 4th, 2010

I recently saw the movie Up. From what I hear, it’s been tremendously popular. My opinion of it was not quite unilaterally favorable—but I did like it.

The things I didn’t like were that the plot was a little crazy, and the true nature of Charles Muntz, Ellie’s lifelong hero, was disappointing…but I don’t want to give anything away.

What I did like was pretty much everything else: the animation, especially the facial expressions and body movements; the characters’ personalities; the lines. But my favorite thing was how the animals “talked”…but didn’t really.

Stop reading here if you don’t want it spoiled for you!

Now, I may be in small company with this opinion, but I don’t like movies in which animals talk. It just isn’t believable. Animals communicating with each other, okay. But animals cannot talk. They don’t have the part of the brain where the speech center is located. They don’t have the right shape mouth or facial muscles. They don’t have the intelligence to formulate complex thoughts.

But!

This is where Up solved the problem in a way that works for me. Being an animal lover, I know that animals think, and their thoughts are usually related to things such as food, needs for exercise or going to the bathroom, comfort or discomfort, and their feelings for their humans. So, in this movie, those thoughts are translated, by means of an electronic collar, into speech understandable by humans. So for example, a dog can certainly think (or feel, depending on how you look at  it) “I love you” to its master. If technology were able to translate those thoughts/feelings into human speech, a dog could indeed talk. So simple in theory!

As far as movie magic goes, it worked for me.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Our need to please

Monday, October 5th, 2009

I heard this at church yesterday: It’s written in the human code to be pleasing to someone.

That “someone” could be a parent, a spouse, God, or any of a number of people…or more than one person. For some, it’s a deeper need than for others; personal differences depend upon temperament, birth order, and other factors. For some people, it’s easier to just “not care.”

Yet it’s in our nature to please, and to receive affirmation. That’s why emotional neglect is so very damaging. You can read about it in my e-book, Help! I Need a Hug.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The curious concept of aging backward

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Have you seen the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? If you haven’t seen the movie or read the story, then just briefly:

Benjamin is born the size of a newborn baby, but looking like a little old man and having numerous old-age afflictions such as arthritis. As time goes by, he grows in size accordingly, but becomes more youthful and robust.

The explanation for this phenomenon is that on the day of his birth—the final day of World War I—a clockmaker unveiled a clock he’d created for the city’s train station. The clock ran backward, because, you see, the clockmaker had lost a son in the war, and he desperately hoped that time running in reverse might bring back his son and all the other young men lost in the war.

Of course, Benjamin’s condition has never actually occurred in medical history. Yet in a way, it’s merely a magnification of what happens to all of us. Part of Benjamin’s burden is that he cannot form long-term relationships. Very few people know about his condition; an acquaintance of more than a short time would need an explanation, which was difficult to give.

All of us, if we live long enough, see people around us growing old and infirm and dying. Some people, by reason of genetics or lifestyle, age faster than others. And sometimes we may be tempted to avoid forming a relationship with someone simply because it’s so hard to watch them go before us. (This is truer still with pets, of course.)

While I didn’t particularly love this movie (it was too long, I found the part about Hurricane Katrina a distraction, and I wasn’t terribly fond of any of the characters), I did find it philosophically intriguing. Benjamin is really just an extreme case of the human condition, and on that level, I empathized with him.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Pet python strangles 2-year-old

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

I just read this disturbing news online. Of course, it isn’t the first time someone’s “pet” snake has strangled (or tried to) its owner, a member of the family, or a friend.

I read a few years ago about a couple living in a motel room with their small child and an exotic constrictor-type snake. In this case it was not the child who was almost strangled, but the mother, who was seven months pregnant. And fortunately, the man (her boyfriend) was able to wrestle the snake and loosen its grip so he could call 911. The paramedics who came cut the snake off with a hacksaw, and the woman (and her baby) were presumably okay.

I can only imagine how traumatizing this would be for a pregnant woman and a small child.

Another disturbing element to this particular story (besides the question of whether the motel owners were aware of the snake’s presence) is that the woman had wanted her boyfriend to get rid of the snake. Apparently his attachment to the snake outweighed the wellbeing of his girlfriend, her/his/their child, and the unborn child.

Oh, and we might wonder if selling this exotic snake would have provided some needed income for a family of three-soon-to-be-four living in a motel room.

But anyway…the premise of the whole scenario is that some people consider a snake a pet. Many people do, apparently; after all, pet stores sell them, and people smuggle them illegally into the country at risk of being arrested.

Is a snake a pet? How do you define a pet? Well, it seems to me that the first criterion of a pet is that it bonds with its caregiver. A snake does not; it cannot, because it does not have a limbic system, the part of the brain where social and emotional bonding take place. A snake does not give or receive love—not to/from its owners or even its own kind.

A mammal mother may kill or eat her offspring if it is sickly, or if she’s under stress. Even a human mother may smother her baby to keep it from crying and betraying a group of people who are hiding from their enemies. Reptile parents, however, routinely kill and eat their children because they simply don’t care. There’s a world of difference there.

So, snake aficionados may say they’re interesting or beautiful or whatever. But a snake will never love you, any more than a plant or a piece of artwork does. And plants and artwork don’t try to kill their human owners. Simply, then, a snake is not a pet.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »