But People Do Eat Dogs...

I'm not really sure what is meant by analyzing whether one of the images is "justifiable" by Welling's article, so I'm going to make that judgment based on whether or not Welling would agree that the image of the dog-pig with the slogan "if dogs tasted like pork, would you eat it" was ecopornographic or not.  My answer would have to be yes, and now that that's answered, we can move on to why it is and the flawed logic behind it.

In Welling's argument about the "hidden impact" of ecoporn images is almost painfully displayed in this image (or literally so not visually displayed that it's a bit annoying).  She mentions that "ecoporn also conceals the doubly invisible forms of damage inflicted on the non represented" (57), and although she is talking about landscapes in that particular sentence, it applies here.  The thing is, people DO eat dog, in places like Korea and Vietnam, and there it's just as normal there as eating chicken or beef is here, so that image of the awkward (and badly photoshopped) dog-pig was just irritating.  Talk about the "hidden impact" and the "non represented".  This image is shameless ecopornography because it doesn't talk about all the dogs that actually do get eating with as little thought as pigs, and it shows the strength of Wellings claim that ecoporn tends to ignore everything but the tip of the iceberg, it ignores that hidden impact.

Also, Wellings claim that "this apathetic consumerism response should be exactly what environmentalists work to unsettle, not promote"(56) and that point is only emphasized by PETAs attempts to make people go vegetarian or vegan.  All these images of violence and blood seem to be PETAs first resort, it's first idea of giving the "facts" is with shock value, when really they should work on giving... I don't know, that facts?   When you constantly bombard people with violent images like these, it's like watching scary movies or playing violent video games, people become desensitized and just learn to not give a crap.  I mean, I'm pescatarian, and I didn't become that way by looking at images of animals being gutted and bloodied (well, a little, but when I first saw those kinds of images it didn't change me) but it's because I got the facts and made the choice on my own, not because I was guilt-tripped into changing my diet.   As others before me have mentioned, these adds, the dog-pig one included, seem to have no other method other than trying to guilt trip people.  Instead of trying to make the comparison between pigs and dogs, why not explain just WHY pigs are as intelligent and sensitive as dogs instead of just some awkward photoshopped image that people can't relate to.


The dog-pig-image is shameless in its ecopornographic quality.  It's focus is too narrow, it ignores too much of the unseen violence and the fact that dogs are eaten too, and its main weapons are guilt and shock value.  It proves Welling's arguments are pretty strong here, at least when applied to this image.


This fake image is to ecoporn what fake boobs are to sexual porn.  Hahaha fail.