Proof Reading help?

Hello. I'm a procrastinator. I left my essay until the last possible second.
I think I'm decent at writing- but I would really appreciate it if someone (anyone!) could quickly look over my essay for grammer and punctuation errors.
I'm not expecting miracles here, my essay is due at 10 am, it's 6 am, and I leave my house at 8am. I'm doubtful anyone will get this fast enough to help me, but then again, that would be my fault wouldn't it?
Ha, regardless, if there is anyone about who could give me some quick things I need to improve on or fix, that would be really appreciated.
I hope it's not too bad, because I have no time to re-do it.

Animals

Don Lepans novel, Animals, should serve as a warning to the modern world. In the futuristic setting of the story, thousands of animal species, as well as all trace of society’s ethical values, have become extinct. “Mongrels” emerge out of the chaos and depression that the world falls into. They are a genetic spin off of the human race and are intellectually stunted. These “sub-humans” are of a lesser value to society and in the world’s economic turmoil they have no place to go. To fuel the animal fat addiction that humans have and to solve the problem of where to locate these unfortunate beings, the government funds new slaughterhouses and the factory farming of these creatures. Don LePan uses these “sub-humans” to blur the line between morally just and ethically unsound. The future he creates, with thousands of animal species wiped off the face of the earth, is something our current society could arguably be on the road towards. The novel forces the reader to rethink the way that our current society so irresponsibly lives. Animals is a subtly persuasive attempt to convince society that eating meat is an unethical, unsustainable habit that should be given up.

In Lepans novel, thousands of animal species have been become extinct. Though it is never stated specifically how this happened the reader is told that society wonders if “just maybe, our own behaviour had had something to do with it, that the diseases wouldn’t have spread so quickly if the creatures hadn’t been packed thousands upon thousands together in feedlots or in dark and poorly-ventilated areas” (LePan 58). Further it explains that because we had bred these creatures to be so alike, to be the perfect carcass, we had “in turn drastically [reduced] resistance to disease”(LePan 58). Because the animals lived in their own filth, antibiotics were abused in an attempt to ward off infection which was “quietly paving the way for the pandemics” (LePan 58). Later in the story he tells us that “the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases . . . [were not] restricted to birds and mammals that had been bred for consumption”(LePan 83), explaining that dogs, cats, budgerigars and other pets and wild animals who lived near the diseased farm animals also became extinct. Reading these facts in a past-tense form is eerie, as it is not our past but actually our present- could this be our future?

Society has had many scares as of late- The Mad Cow Disease, the Avian Bird Flu, and, most recently, the Swine flu have all sent entire nations into panic. The reality is that “humanity has become vulnerable to cross-species illness, thanks to . . . a growing dependence on intensified livestock production” (Karesh). These diseases prospered in the filthy sheds and excrement that livestock live in and mutated enough to jump to humans- an issue that should frighten us even more than the threat of a mass disease confined only to animals. If such dangerous diseases can jump from factory farm animals to humans, who can deny the chance that these diseases could intensify and jump across animal species barriers, that they could even wipe out entire species? LePans future could easily become our reality.

In our current society, where vegetarianism is on the rise in young people, we see that children “may be educating their parents” (Corliss). LePan uses the young character of Naomi to bring up the topic of right and wrong. Naomi approaches her parents and tells them that she “[doesn’t] think [they] should eat any meat” (LePan 83). Naomi’s mother responds that “it’s natural” (LePan 83) and that “a human life is worth more than a non-human one” (LePan 84). LePan uses Naomi to bring up the ethics of meat eating, because children challenging meat is a sensitive topic for readers. Many parents will have heard their children question the ethics of meat eating- many more will have encouraged children to stop asking questions and to just eat their food. In the story, Naomis mother seems abrupt and wrong- LePan tries to transfer that feeling to real parents in hopes that they will realize that their children are right to challenge societies unethical norm of eating flesh.

Her husband admits after that he thinks the issue isn’t as simple as Naomi’s mother had claimed. He asks if the human so called superiority over animals can “justify our treating them that badly through the whole course of their lives” and goes on further to say, “maybe were not justified in eating them regardless ... when we could eat other things, things that have no senses, things that can’t feel pain” (LePan 86). That question is asked by many animal rights activists and is brought up by LePan to soften the reader to the idea that maybe society is wrong in its decision to eat animal flesh- Should our superiority to other species not leave us with a responsibility to care for lower beings, rather than justify us exploiting those weaker than us?

The debate the family has is over chattel meat, but to the reader it is impossible to not transfer the theories over to animals. LePan blurs the line between humane and sadistic by throwing a new species, the Mongrel, into the debate. Where a person could comfortably draw a line between man and cow and see that eating a man is wrong, and eating a cow is considerably less wrong, the line between man and Mongrel is much harder to draw. In this way he forces the reader to rethink the position of the once unmovable line that puts animals below us and onto our plates.

LePan gives us a chance to imagine what life in a factory farm would be like- It is difficult for humans to empathize with animals because they are mentally different than we are. When LePan has us see the horrors of slaughter through the eyes of a child the reader is left utterly defenceless. Sam tells us of the filth and muck they live in and about the illnesses and sickness around him. Sam views the other chattel in the slaughterhouse and realizes that they “could feel the same pain he felt, could feel fear, in their way could feel love and be loved, the things that he could feel” (LePan 164). From the perspective of a human child, nothing can justify the conditions that LePans chattel live in- That perspective can be transferred over to also challenge our way of life, asking if the meat we gain from exploiting animals is worth forcing them to live such terrible lives in such horrible conditions.

The conditions described to the reader throughout the story, about what the animals we eat for food are subjected too, are not fictional. They are reality. We subject living creatures to horrible conditions and cruelties for the benefit of our taste buds- And yet, rarely do we hear anyone protesting or challenging it. At the beginning of the story the reader is given a quote from a man about the truth of eating meat:

If we knew exactly how they lived and died, we’d be horrified. Fortunately for us we’re so removed from where our food comes that we can choose not to know. Ignorance is bliss, and I, for one, am a devoted carnivore. I have studiously tired to avoid learning about the revolting details of factory farming, because if I knew, then I would have to stop eating meat and start sending money to the animal-rights movement, or at the very least search out meat that had an okay life. That would be hard. It’s easier to be a hypocrite. (LePan 44)

LePan himself knows that this mindset is the reality of most meat eating people- His novel is written to break down those barriers of denial and force people to really see the horrors that they are supporting. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights”(Sustein), when presented with hard facts they cannot deny, only the most callous or disturbed of people would claim that the way food animals are raised is justifiable. The real issue isn’t having society admit what it is doing is wrong; The issue is convincing society to change. LePan challenges the way that people think and refuse to let ignorance be an excuse.

The novel has a determined animal rights movement called People Advocating Fair Treatment of Animals- a name which leaves few readers who wouldn’t draw a connection to our own real life animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. In the Novel PAFTA argues that “eating meat- any meat- is bad for you, bad for your health, as well as bad in terms of right and wrong” (LePan 105). The views of PAFTA are not appreciated and it is explained that people often complain when hearing PAFTAs opinions, saying that they “don’t see why [they] should have to have that stuff rammed down [their] throats” (LePan 145). The narrator challenges that no one complains that a “good-looking women in an advertisement” is being rammed down their throats or that “advertisements with luxury goods which most of us can’t afford” are rammed down our throats. LePan includes these trivial pieces because they connect with the reader in a real life way. In reality, usually people will also reject the truthful messages that PETA presents them- We only push away the messages that are of an inconvenience or a challenge to our comfortable ignorant ways of life. In the novel, it is easy to see that PAFTA is correct in wanting freedom for the Chattel- Upon a second look in our real life situation, is it also clear that PETA is correct in their wanting freedom for Animals?

There are two main focuses that Don Lepans story strikes us hard with. One is the environmental issues that his world has- Issues that most indefinitely could stem from our current way of life. By presenting these facts to us the form of a story, he can get his message across without seeming overbearing and without being dry. The second, and most powerful, section is the position of ethics. The mighty question of “is it ok?” Whether it is the flesh of a sub-human or a “dumb animal,” (LePan 83) do we as humans have the right to kill and eat others? LePan doesn’t tell the reader the answer, or make their decision for them. He leads the readers in the direction that he wants them, and lets them come to their own conclusion.

Lepans book is powerful and influential but at the same time also subtle and respectful. They way that Don Lepan portrays his story’s history, our present, is shocking and disturbing enough to trigger a reaction from the reader- By presenting his opinions in this manner he doesn’t demand action but politely suggests it to society and no one feels pressured or threatened.

His novel is a warning to the modern world about the dangerous path we are currently on and about the consequences that our ignorance could lead to. We should re-evaluate the irresponsibly tentative ethical view that we have on eating animal flesh and choose instead to lead a more humane, conscientious lifestyle.

It’s easier to be a hypocrite though.

Bibliography

LePan, Don. Animals. Montreal: Vehicule Press, 2009. Print.

Corliss, Richard, et al. “Should We All Be Vegetarians?” Time 160.3 (2002): 48

Karesh, W.B., and R.A Cook. “The Human-Animal Link” Foreign Affairs 84.2 (2005): 38-50

Sunstein, C.R., “The Rights of Animals” The university of Chicago Law Review 70.1 ihatewoood(2003): 387-401