Caution: Spoilers through Season 5 below.

Last year, I wrote a (relatively) brief summary of the few animal-friendly plot lines found in seasons one through four of Lost. Animal advocacy issues are rarely addressed in the show, but look closely, and you’re bound to discover occasional gem: lovable Kate is a vegetarian, while show villain Anthony Cooper enjoys blood sports such as hunting. The Losties (understandably) took to hunting wild boar for sustenance early on, but the slaughter quickly ceased when they discovered the Dharma food drops. And who could forget Sayid’s memories of Amira?

While nonhuman animals didn’t much figure into the season five story arc, one episode in particular stuck with me. In fact, I meant to write about “He’s Our You” (Season 5, Episode 11) months ago, but somehow it kept getting placed on the back burner. With the final season of Lost set to begin tonight, what better time to revisit an old episode?

As I noted previously, Sayid’s story lines oftentimes revolve around the themes of forgiveness and vengeance, with Sayid struggling to come to grips with his strikingly violent past. As a soldier in the Iraq Republican Guard, he was captured, co-opted, and trained as an “interrogator” (read: torturer) by American forces during Operation Desert Storm. At the close of the war, his “skills” were put to use and turned against his fellow Iraqi citizens in the Republican Guard, where he was promoted to the Intelligence division and tasked with torturing dissidents and political prisoners – including his long lost childhood love, Nadia (as well as the aforementioned Amira). Torn between his allegiance to his country and his moral qualms, he helped Nadia to escape, but could not bring himself to go with her.

Once on the island, Sayid (somewhat reluctantly) put his interrogation skills to use several times (as if fate would not allow him a break from his past – even when stranded on a lost island!), first torturing an innocent but obstinate Sawyer, and later, a guilty but cunning Ben Linus. During the “A-list missions” and battles with the Others, Sayid proved to be a valuable military asset. After escaping from the island, Sayid reunited with Nadia, only to see her murdered not a year after their wedding. The rest of Sayid’s time off the island is devoted to hunting her killers down, one by one, and exacting revenge. This came with an uneasy alliance with Ben, on the premise that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” However, it’s still unclear whether the men Ben directed Sayid to kill had anything to do with Nadia’s murder – or if Sayid was being conned.

Flash forward to Sayid’s return to the island – circa 1977. Here, a lost and confused Sayid struggles with the reason why he’s been brought back to the island; what is his purpose here? After meeting 12-year-old Ben Linus, Sayid has an epiphany: if he was to kill Ben, then the young, innocent Ben would not live to grow into the evil, adult Ben that the Losties know and hate – and thus most of the (present-day) events in Lost would never occur. But can Sayid really murder a child in cold blood?

“He’s Our You” deals with Sayid’s inner struggle over this complex moral dilemma. As with earlier episodes, Sayid wonders whether he’ll ever be able to escape his past as a torturer and killer; are these merely things that he has done – bad things, of course, but things that can be left in the past – or are they what he is? To what extent do Sayid’s sins define him as a person? And, given the American occupying forces’ role in shaping his destiny, is Sayid a natural born or man-made killer?

In this episode, the audience learns that Sayid worked for Ben as a sort of “assassin” after Nadia’s death. We’re also (finally!) treated to flashbacks of Sayid’s childhood (whereas we saw many of the Losties as children in earlier seasons), including this particularly disturbing memory:

[Chickens clucking]

Title card: Tikrit, Iraq

MAN: [Pulling a boy alongside him.] [Subtitle: Come on! You are not a child anymore. Act like a man. You must kill one.] [Gestures toward a chicken coop.]

BOY: [Glances sadly at the chickens. Hesitantly:] [Subtitle: I...I don't want to.]

MAN: [Sternly] [Subtitle: You will do as your father asks.]

BOY: [Subtitle: No!]

MAN: [Subtitle: Listen to what I’m telling you! Come on, kill one of them! You will stay outside until you do!]

[The man leaves the boy standing in front of the chicken coop with knife in hand.]

[Smaller boy approaches from behind, lays a hand on the larger boy's shoulder. They look at each other. The smaller boy opens his hand to reveal a handful of chicken feed. The smaller boy enters the coop and lays the feed on the ground in front of him. A bird approaches, which the boy lifts into his arms. The boy snaps the bird’s neck while the other boy looks wincingly on. The smaller boy brings the bird out of the coop and offers it to the larger boy, who takes it. The MAN reapproaches the pair.]

MAN: [To the larger boy] [Subtitle: Good for you. You did it.]

BOY: [Subtitle: It wasn't me.]

MAN: [Subtitle: Well, at least one of you will be a man. [Approaches and bends down to look the smaller boy in the eyes.] Well done, Sayid.]

Transcript via Lostpedia; unfortunately, I couldn’t find a video of this individual flashback, but it is shown briefly in the recap video below:
 

Perhaps more commonly, pop culture depictions of animal abuse involve “pet” animals, such as dogs and cats (see, for example, The Butterfly Effect, in which a dog’s torture and murder is one of many pivotal/potentially life-altering moments in the narrative). And for obvious reasons: dogs and cats are familiar to us, such that we are able to see the animal on the screen (or in the latest undercover investigation) as an individual being, complete with a family, emotions and a personality, as opposed to an abstract, depersonalized object. So good on Lost for considering a “lesser” animal as one worthy of compassion and sympathy. (Even if it was incidental or accidental!)

Of course, this flashback doesn’t really “solve” Sayid’s moral dilemma, as it is open to multiple interpretations. While Sayid was, in fact, able to strangle the chicken with little display of emotion, this doesn’t necessarily brand him a born killer. His father is portrayed as “a hard man” who obviously valued an unemotional, detached, even brutal version of masculinity – and, consequently, tried to instill these values in his sons. Raised in another environment, Sayid might have become an entirely different man. Additionally, it’s not clear that he took any pleasure in ending the chicken’s life; and as an adult, Sayid struggles with his roles as a soldier, interrogator, killer and assassin. He rarely kills because he wants to (the obvious exception being his stint as Linus’s hit man), but rather because he feels as though he has to in order to achieve a loftier goal.

Likewise, is one the sum total of one’s past (mis)deeds, or is there always a chance for redemption and evolution? Sayid’s flashback shows that his history of violence is lengthy, but does not indicate whether it’s a fate he’s destined to continue in perpetuity.

Perhaps we’ll find out more in the final season of Lost (!squeal!). No spoilers, please, I probably won’t be able to watch it until Friday night!

Anyhow, on a lighter note:
 

Journalist Bob Woodruff made an appearance on The Daily Show last night in order to promote his latest project, Earth 2100:
 

I find it interesting that Stewart and Woodruff open the discussion with a clip of Earth 2100 that invokes the anecdote of the frog submerged in a pot of boiling water: namely, if you put a frog in a pot of water that’s already boiling, she’ll jump right out, having sensed the heat and danger. But if you place her in a pot of cold or lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature, she’s none the wiser, and will remain in the deathtrap until she becomes frog soup. In this metaphor, humans are the frogs, and the pot is earth.

Which is all fine and good, except according to Snopes, this is a folk tale:

Like a fable, the “boiled frog” anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it’s based upon something that is literally true. But it is literally true? Not according to Dr. Victor Hutchison, a Research Professor Emeritus from the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Zoology, whose research interests include “the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behavior”:

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

The “boiled frog” legend is a ubiquitous one – one that, given its falsehood, is both speciesist and completely inappropriate for what I assume is supposed to be a scientific documentary. The latter point is a given, but allow me to explain the former: central to the anecdote’s premise is the idea that a frog is so utterly stupid that, given subtle but entirely discernible cues, “it” would remain oblivious to the increasing danger and allow “itself” to be boiled alive. “Let’s not be like those lesser animals!” the tale cautions. Except. In denying climate change and poo-pooing slight increases in average global temperatures as “insignificant,” the human species is actually exhibiting less sense than Dog gave a frog. The frog isn’t earth’s complacent village idiot – we are.

Also of note: Jon alludes to the presumed vivisection which led to the “discovery” that frogs might allow themselves to be boiled alive, given the right circumstances. Both Stewart and Woodruff appear to think that such gruesome experiments probably took place years ago, in the distant past. Except.

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

While I can’t locate citations for these experiments, Wiki suggests that they’re more recent debunkings of “research” performed in the late 1800s (“research” on which the legend is apparently based).

So, yeah, we boil frogs alive – or attempt to, anyway. And that’s not even the worst of it.

Anyhow, back to Earth 2100.

The show strikes me as a prequel to Life After People – which I blogged about last week – albeit with a contingency plan. Of course, all the lifelines in the world won’t help unless we’re willing to avail ourselves of them.

From ‘Earth 2100′: the Final Century of Civilization?:

It’s an idea that most of us would rather not face — that within the next century, life as we know it could come to an end. Our civilization could crumble, leaving only traces of modern human existence behind.

To change the future, first you have to imagine it.

It seems outlandish, extreme — even impossible. But according to cutting edge scientific research, it is a very real possibility. And unless we make drastic changes now, it could very well happen. [...]

In the history of Earth, there have been five mass extinctions in which at least half the species on the planet disappeared. Scientists believe the extinctions were brought on by natural disasters — massive volcanic eruptions, rapid climate changes and meteors hitting Earth.

Today, scientists say we are in the middle of a “sixth extinction” — and for the first time, it’s being caused by one species — us. It seems inconceivable that we could do so much damage to our planet that we actually cause society as we know it to collapse. But historical precedent shows that it is, in fact, a very real possibility.

“Every society that collapsed thought it couldn’t happen to them,” says Joseph Tainter, an expert in anthropology and societal collapse. “The Roman Empire thought it couldn’t happen. The Maya civilization thought it couldn’t happen. Everyone thought it couldn’t happen to them. But it did.”

These populations grew too much and exhausted their resources — and their climate suddenly changed. People were forced to fight each other for what little was left or face starvation. Entire societies broke down.

“Civilizations in the past have lost the fight,” says climatologist Heidi Cullen. “They have collapsed as a result of the inability to deal with several different events going on at once. I think the takeaway is that honestly, we are not that special.”

Earth 2100 covers the obvious suspect (climate change) as well as water scarcity, oil and fuel depletion, national security, migration patterns, drought, flooding, mass (non-human) animal (species) extinctions, and other global crises. If you’re as cynical as I, probably you’ll read this as Exhibit #23,386,982 in favor of VHEMT.

Anyhow, if this all sounds interesting, Earth 2100 airs tonight on ABC at 9 PM ET – so set those timers!

There are also a number of clips available on the show’s website, so check it out.

In an entirely unrelated matter, I’m supremely disappointed that The Daily Show didn’t so much as mention the murder of Dr. Tiller on Monday’s episode. Granted, I didn’t expect them to devote a segment to it – nor would such a segment have been appropriate, unless conducted with righteous anger and a complete absence of humor, which Jon rarely deals in – but I had hoped for a mention of the crime, or at least an “in memoriam” graphic to close the show. But nada on what amounts to an atrocity committed against women everywhere. Fauxgressive much?

Videos in this post

The Daily Show – June 1, 2009 – Bob Woodruff
Bob Woodruff lays out the worst-case scenario for the future of our civilization in “Earth 2100.”

Proceed with caution: Moderate spoilers ahead. Specifically, I’ll be discussing Sayid’s flashbacks in the Season 3 episode “Enter 77″ (3×11). There may also be a few small spoilers through Season 4, but none for Season 5 – promise! (Although the external links may lead to more current spoilers.)

The husband and I became Losties rather late in the game. We picked up Season 1 on DVD on a whim during the writer’s strike last winter; within the first five minutes of the pilot episode, we were hooked.

Lately, I’ve taken to consuming pop culture with a more critical eye. I’ve always been somewhat sensitive to how women are portrayed in the media; increasingly, I’ve consciously tried to expand my “circle of compassion” vis-à-vis pop culture to other marginalized groups, including non-human animals. While animal welfare issues rarely surface on Lost, one episode in particular has stuck with me – “Enter 77″ (3×11), a Sayid-centric episode.

For those unfamiliar with Lost, most of the episodes to date (i.e., Seasons 1-4; the show’s now in its fifth season) follow a similar format: each episode focuses on one character, juxtaposing real-time action with “flashbacks” that offer the audience some insight into the characters’ current situation and state of mind.

Sayid Jarrah, played by Naveen Andrews, was once a Communications officer in the Iraqi Republican Guard. During Operation Desert Storm, he became an “interrogator” (read: torturer) under the American forces, a “skill” to which he later returned for the Republican Guard. As an Intelligence officer, he tortured rebels and military prisoners, including women. Eventually, Sayid left Iraq and found his way to Paris, where he found work as a chef and tried – unsuccessfully – to forget his past (a past which frequently haunts him). This is where “Enter 77″ finds him.

You can find a full episode summary for “Enter 77″ here; I’ve also included an “episode wrap-up” video from Daily Motion below, to place the flashbacks in context – but you can skip these if you’d rather. Only the flashbacks are relevant to this discussion.