“The Simpsons” and Anthropocentrism: Can a Cartoon Show Demonstrate Society’s Detachment from Nature?

I wrote this as my dissertation for my under-graduate degree. I grew up with The Simpsons and remain a fan of the show to this day (well, the first ten seasons anyway). The show is the holy grail of political and cultural commentary in American culture, offering opinions and criticisms through the apparently benign facade of four-fingered yellow cartoon characters. A live-action television sitcom would never get away with such staunch criticisms of western culture in the way The Simpsons does.

Much of the ideas discussed in the report relate to anti-anthropocentrism — the philosophy that human beings and other living things share the same intrinsic value. I personally would not have any particular affiliation with this idea (or some others discussed), but I feel using it in the context of this report demonstrates The Simpsons’ ability to capture the cultural and political moods and values of a nation. In this case, the Environmental Debate.

Introduction

Anthropocentrism can be defined as “considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe” while “interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences.” (Merriam-Webster 2014) In essence, anthropocentrism places human-beings at the centre of Planet Earth, as the most important of all beings on our planet. Animals and non-human living things are important only so far as their instrumental value to us. Such a mode of thinking is inherent to human beings and can be argued to be the root cause of many of the planet’s environmental issues, from pollution, destruction of rainforest, glacial melting and animal rights issues. For the purposes of this paper, I will attempt to answer the question: “The Simpsons and Anthropocentrism: Can a Cartoon Show Demonstrate Society’s Detachment from Nature?”

Anthropocentric thought has dominated human society for centuries and became particularly prominent as the industrial revolution began to take hold in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The exponential increase in the burning of fossil fuels in factories created untold amounts of pollution, with little regulation, care or understanding of the environmental effects of new-found ideologies of consumerism and industrialism.

Anthropocentrism began to be challenged as the Beat Generation of the nineteen fifties and later the Hippie Generation of the nineteen sixties began to take hold in America. Major cultural and political shifts began to take place, with many Americans rejecting the capitalist industrialism along with a major backlash against the American invasion of Vietnam. War, nationalism and consumerism were largely rejected by counter-culturalists in place of individualism, freedom of thought, environmentalism and pacifism. Counter-culturalists sought independence and self-determination like no generation before them. From this freedom of expression and thought spawned an environmental generation, who began to understand the effects of human industrial activity on the environment and sought to reverse them. Human endeavours, such as space travel and perhaps more specifically, the Earthrise photograph taken on the Apollo 8 mission, allowed people to gain a better understanding of the planet and its fragility. (NASA 2013) Although, pro-environmental ideals had existed long before, through the writings of William Wordsworth and Henry David Thoreau among others, this new environmental movement took on an urgency unlike never before. Some, such as James Lovelock, espoused an environmentalist ideology, that incorporated anthropocentrism into a plan to reduce what came to be known as climate change. Others however, such as Arne Naess, espoused a more radical ideology, Deep Ecology, which demanded a complete ecocentric societal overhaul, placing humans on the same level as non-human beings. (Naess 1995) This ideology, however, would require the eradication of capitalism, consumerism and industrialism, ideologies so ingrained in human society that most argue it is not possible.

Despite these advances in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies the ecological crisis remains. The Reagan Presidency saw a return to anthropocentric ideals, as Ronald Reagan rejected many environmental proposals including safeguards for the reduction of acid rain, as he considered them burdensome to industry. (On The Issues 2014) The capitalist conservatism of the Reagan and Bush years in the nineteen eighties along with the decline of the counter-cultural movements beforehand saw the ecological and environmental issues fall by the wayside. Today, climate change and global warming have moved into mainstream political and cultural discourse. However political action in reversing its effects remains a secondary concern as world leaders and corporations are unwilling or unable to tackle the problem.

The cartoon show “The Simpsons” may seem like an arbitrary method of describing American society’s disconnection from nature. However, since the show’s inception in the late nineteen eighties, it has offered astute and adept commentary on many of American society’s cultural and political norms. Issues such as political corruption, religiosity, classism, and of course, the environment are satirised. The show, which is still running and to date has over five hundred episodes and a theatrical film, appealed, in its prime in the nineteen nineties, to a large demographic of American viewers. (Du Brow, 1990) The sheer popularity of the show gave it a platform from which to influence American cultural and political discourse. It placed a heavy emphasis on satire based around real issues in American society. In many ways, the town of Springfield and its inhabitants serve as somewhat of a microcosm of America as a whole. As such, one can determine that “The Simpsons”, as it commentates on political, societal and environmental norms offers an interesting perception on how modern western society interacts with the environment. Through this, anthropocentric thought and action are frequent themes in “The Simpsons”. Although the writers of “The Simpsons” may not seek to convey anthropocentrism consciously or overtly, they do so through their portrayal of cultural norms in American society.

By and large, Springfield’s inhabitants have a severely under-developed relationship with nature and the environment. The vast majority of characters live inherently anthropocentric lifestyles, unable or unwilling to comprehend that their actions have consequences on the world around them. Perhaps an apt portrayal of this is in the season seven episode “Much Apu About Nothing.” In the opening sequence, a lone, docile Brown Bear enters the town of Springfield, sparking an widespread panic, fear and anger from much of the townspeople, before it is eventually tranquillised and removed. Soon, the townspeople riot, demanding that more be done by the city’s mayor, Diamond Joe Quimby, to “protect” Springfield from this apparent onslaught of bear “attacks.” Before long, a Bear Patrol is set up to keep bears out of Springfield, paid for with taxpayers’ money. (Cohen, 1996) The bear, which entered Springfield from the surrounding forest, never at any point posed a danger to Springfield’s citizens. Yet, the townspeople felt so invaded and besieged by the presence of this bear that they were willing to forfeit part of their wages to keep any more from entering the town. Such animosity toward animals and nature in general is a common theme throughout “The Simpsons”, but perhaps none more so than here. The townspeople treat the meek and gentle bear as a foreign invader, symbolising a distinct lack of connection or understanding between human beings and the natural environment.

Springfield’s citizens’ relationship with the natural world is strained and alienated. I aim to argue that their uninformed outlook on nature is, at least in part, due to their inherent anthropocentric nature, which in turn serves as a commentary on how American society as a whole displays anthropocentric ideals. To do this, I will discuss three themes that are prevalent in both “The Simpsons”’ universe and American society today. Those are: anti-intellectualism, nuclear energy and animal rights.

Lisa, Homer and the Acceptance of Anti-Intellectual Anthropocentric Thought

The American author and biochemist, Issac Asimov, said of anti-intellectualism in America:

“The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” (Asimov 1980, 19)

The term, anti-intellectualism, can be defined as a hostility toward intellectual thought and knowledge (Merriam-Webster 2014) and, often, an embracement of ignorance. Richard Hofstadter categorised intellect as different from intelligence, arguing that “intelligence will seize the immediate meaning in a situation and evaluate it” whereas “intellect evaluates evaluations and looks for meanings of situations as a whole.” (Hofstadter 1974, 25) Many philosophers and thinkers believe that a pandemic of anti-intellectualism now exists in the United States.

Anti-intellectualism as a cultural phenomenon in the United States affects many aspects of society, from education, to politics, religion, and environmental and ecological discourse. The Climate Change phenomenon, despite the scientific consensus on the reality of it, is subject to intense anti-intellectualism from those who seek to deny its existence. Climate Change and Global Warming, are the result of human industrial activity. A 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report signified that the concentrations of CO2 have increased by 26% since 1750, (IPCC 2007) which can be attributed to human anthropocentric activity and the onset of the industrialist capitalist and consumerist age. Yet, despite an international consensus amongst the scientific community, many Americans deny that Climate Change even exists. A Pew Research survey conducted in 2009, saw that 33% of Americans did not believe that global warming exists, an increase of 12% over the previous year. (Pew 2009, 1) Furthermore, The Guardian newspaper revealed in 2012 that conservative billionaires in the United States donated up to $120 billion dollars to groups seeking to derail and deny the scientific consensus on climate change. (Goldenberg 2013) Many American conservatives see climate change as a threat to business and the capitalist market, as their bulwarks, oil and industrialisation, are increasingly being portrayed as dangerous to the planet. JD Sachs, said extant in American culture is an “aggressive fundamentalism that denies modern science, and an aggressive anti-intellectualism that views experts and scientists as the enemy.” (Sachs 2008) Krugman opines, in an op-ed for the New York Times, that The Republican Party pander to an electoral base that embraces anti-scientific rhetoric on climate change denial. (Krugman 2011) In essence, the denial of the effects of Climate Change represents an embracement of anthropocentrism. As climate change and global warming are the result of inherently anthropocentric ideals such as industrialism and consumerism, to deny the existence of the damage they cause and refute the scientific consensus on it is to embrace anthropocentrism and anti-intellectualism.

“The Simpsons” exudes many instances of anti-intellectualism winning out over rational discourse, particularly in terms of environmental and ecological common-sense. Many of the characters in the show act on irrational impulse rather than logical thought. Lisa Simpson, however, is the antithesis of this. As a character she is by far the most intelligent. As an eight-year-old, it is fair to say that she is a child prodigy, but she goes beyond that. As well as her unsurpassed intelligence within Springfield, she is also wise beyond her years, often offering more in-depth, rational and canny analysis than any other character on “The Simpsons”. Lisa’s perspicacity extends from uncovering corruption by the senator Bob Arnold in Washington, (Meyer, 1991) to discovering that Springfield’s founder, Jebediah Springfield, was actually the murderous pirate Hans Sprungfeld. (Collier, 1996) After witnessing a contest among Springfield’s citizens that awards a prize for the most idiotic act, Lisa pens an open letter in the regional newspaper, The Springfield Shopper, bemoaning that “We are a town of low-brows, no-brows, and ignorami. We have eight malls, but no symphony. Thirty-two bars, but no alternative theatre. Thirteen stores that begin with, “Le Sex.” I write this letter not to nag or whine, but to prod. We can better ourselves!” (As she writes this, her dim-witted brother Bart rides a pig around in the hallway while naked, offering a stark polarisation between the mindset of Lisa and those around her). (Selman, 1999) From her letter, it is obvious that Lisa possesses an intellect far beyond that of her fellow townspeople. She decries the anti-intellectualist archetype that has plagued Springfield, arguing for a more sophisticated society. Of course, she is ignored, belittled and shot down. Her intelligence is real; in one episode it is revealed that her IQ is 159. (Schwarzwelder, 1997) In line with her unmatched intelligence and wisdom, Lisa possesses a moral compass that sees her often crusade for various causes, including animal rights, (Schwarzwelder, 1993) environmental causes, (Schwarzwelder, 1997) and political transparency (Oakley and Weinstein 1994). In line with this, Lisa is often seen to be campaigning for environmental conservation. The anti-intellectual predisposition of Springfield’s citizens often leaves Lisa at odds with them, her warnings about environmental damage dismissed as she is subjected to the anti-intellectual predilection of “your opinion is as valid as mine,” despite her obvious intelligence.

In “The Simpsons Movie”, a film with obvious environmental overtones, Lisa is subjected to dismissal and even abuse as she campaigns for an environmental clean-up of Springfield Lake, which has become incredibly polluted due to the townspeople’s lack of environmental ethic. As she campaigns door-to-door, she is repeatedly turned away for even mentioning environmentalism. (Brooks et al. 2007) The townspeople do not want to hear about the issues that Lisa raises, in what could be described as a collective denial on the environmental damage that human activity is causing in the town. In an earlier scene, the rock band Green Day pause their concert to talk about the environmental damage that Springfield is doing to the lake. They are variously told that they “suck” are being “preachy” and to “shut up”. Lisa contends that they touched on a vital issue, but local barman Moe Syzlak begs to differ. (Brooks et al. 2007) The citizens of the town constantly decry and react angrily toward any attempt to convince them that their inherent anthropocentrism is damaging their world, as they use Springfield Lake to dispose of the excessive waste they create, despite Lisa’s foretelling of the impact it will have. Similarly, in the episode “Two Cars in Every Garage, Three Eyes on Every Fish,” the Simpson family become puppets to the evil Mr Burns’ gubernatorial campaign. In a publicity stunt, Burns has a televised meal with the family, in an effort to show that he is in touch with the common man. Lisa, who fundamentally disagrees with the indelible damage that Mr Burns’ nuclear power plant’s is doing to the environment, is asked to memorise an extremely generous question for Burns, on the success of his campaign. Her father, Homer, who is employed by Burns seems to be blissfully ignorant of how the family is merely being used as a prop, but Lisa is not. She counters, saying “as long as I’m asking something, can I ask him to assuage my fears that he’s contaminating the planet in a manner that may one day render it uninhabitable?” to which she is met with a resounding no, followed by Homer assuring the campaign team that her daughter is “very bright” and by virtue of this will be able to memorise the original question without trouble. In this instance, Lisa is acutely aware that Burns’ environmental policies are disastrous, but any attempt she makes to highlight or educate on the issue is met with patronisation and belittlement. (Simon and Schwarzwelder, 1990) This type of political campaigning in the Simpsons universe, based around appearances rather than engagement with real and obvious issues is synonymous with anti-intellectualism and further highlights a culture of staunch anthropocentrism in favour of environmental and ecological responsibility.

Homer, as mentioned above, is often oblivious to the consequences of his actions. In many ways, he is the epitome of anthropocentric thought. He is forever on the take, takes the easy way out of every situation he finds himself in, and has no basic understanding of nature, the environment, or humanity’s impact upon it. In “The Simpsons Movie”, he dumps a silo of pig manure into Springfield Lake, destroying its ecosystem beyond repair, because he cannot be bothered to wait in line at the local waste disposal centre. Incidences like this put Homer at odds with Lisa. In many ways, despite holding a certain respect and familial love for one another, Homer and Lisa are polar opposites. Lisa espouses a strong moral philosophy based on rational understanding of the world around her. Homer, conversely, rarely thinks before he acts, places himself and those around him in dangerous and disastrous situations, and is inherently anthropocentric. He is also a classic anti-intellectual. When Marge suggests that he read a book, he retorts: “I’m trying to reduce my boredom.” When he is forcefully enrolled in Springfield University in order to become qualified to keep his job at the nuclear power plant, he invariably tries to cheat the system. He mocks and cajoles anyone of a higher intelligence than him, shouting “Nerd!” at one college student and laughing opening at his college professor when he drops his notes, while simultaneously missing the humour in a physics joke. (O’ Brien 1993)

Homer is a devout anti-intellectual, whether he knows it or not. Similarly, and because of his anti-intellectual outlook, he is also a devout anthropocentrist. Lisa is the antithesis of Homeric thought, and any attempts she makes to exact change in her father, particularly when it comes to the environment and nature, falls on deaf ears. In one particularly apt scene, local news broadcaster Kent Brockman reads a bulletin announcing that “A massive tanker has run aground on the central coastline, spilling millions of gallons of oil on Baby Seal Beach.” Lisa is aghast, but Homer, seeking to reassure his daughter, replies: “ It’ll be okay, honey. There’s lots more oil where that came from.” (Appel 1996) This moment, perhaps more than any other, highlights the sort of anti-intellectual anthropocentrism that “The Simpsons” seeks to satirise. The loss of life and environmental damage does not register with Homer, whose sole concern is the loss of the oil for human consumption. Indeed, after the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, many oil-industry leaders and sympathisers sought to downplay the environmental and ecological impact of the spill. (Palomo 2011) The dynamic between Lisa and Homer is synonymous with the opposing views between environmentalism and anti-environmentalism based upon ignorance. Lisa, as a morally astute and intellectually proficient activist, has become a symbol of a strong environmental and ecological ethic. Homer, on the other hand, is portrayed as what is wrong with society. He cannot understand nature, or perhaps refuses to. When the family gets lost in the woods, Lisa reminds Homer that the handle of the Big Dipper points toward the North Star. Homer snobbishly replies “That’s nice, Lisa. But we’re not in astronomy class. We’re in the woods.” (Schwarzwelder, 1990)

In another scene perhaps reminiscent of Henry David Thoreau (Beck 2008) and his retreats from urban life into the forest to write a journal of his thoughts and ideas, Homer day-dreams of quitting his job and undertaking a similar pursuit: “March 15th, I wish I brought a TV. Oh god I how I miss TV!”. (Oakley and Weinstein 1992) Even as he attempts to escape into a Thoreauvian lifestyle, which by definition rejects anthropocentrism, Homer cannot escape his own anthropocentric ideals. He’s a consumerist and cannot enjoy nature for what it is. In the day-dream sequence, Homer instantly looks foreign in his surroundings. Bare-footed, surrounded by animals in a forest, writing, and perhaps even thinking rationally and coherently, these are not the traits of the Homer Simpson viewers of the show have come to know. He’s a stranger in a strange land, and he’s clearly uneasy with it, despite his initial enthusiasm. It could be argued that this image is symbolic of American society (personified by Homer), which has anthropocentrism so ingrained in its collective psyche, through consumerism, capitalism and industrialism, that to remove itself from this culture and away toward a philosophy more in line with Thoreau or even Naess, would be incredibly difficult and such an environment would be alien to humans.

Anti-intellectualism regarding the environment helps to mask the fact that human beings need to curb its ever-accelerating anthropocentric activities. “The Simpsons” serves as perhaps the first post-anthropocentric fictional television show as it favourably portrays Lisa as the intellectual environmentalist who would embrace a Thoreauvian lifestyle. As such, she is the antipode to the ever-ignorant perpetual environmental (and societal) hindrance that is Homer.

America’s Relationship with Nuclear Power as Told by “The Simpsons”

As anti-intellectualist anthropocentrism has become a mainstay in American culture and society, so too has the debate on nuclear energy. Arguably one of the most divisive and complex aspects of the human energy problem, nuclear energy and its applications in human society have long been a source of contention. Industry experts argue it is a “clean” energy source, emitting comparatively little greenhouse gas emissions as fossil fuels, (Ferguson 2011, xiii) while environmental activists and ecologists argue that it is just another anthropocentric method of human consumption, with the risk of a catastrophic event that could cause untold damage to the planet, too much of a risk to justify nuclear energy as an energy solution. As a legitimate energy source it presents huge security and health risks, particularly as more and more nations begin to use it. Nuclear energy’s potential application as a weapon of mass destruction, as well as the possibility of a nuclear meltdown at one of the one hundred active nuclear reactors in the United States, (Energy Information Administration 2014) is a concerning issue, and one that has pervaded American societal discourse.

Public opinion on the use of nuclear energy has fluctuated over the last several decades. Throughout the Cold War, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons in particular were seen as a necessary evil within American society, as they represented a show of might as well as deterrence against The Soviet Union’s own arsenal of nuclear weapons. The rise of green parties and environmentalism in the nineteen-seventies saw a rise in anti-nuclear movements within American society, (Rudig 2002, 24) which were exacerbated following the Three-Mile-Island nuclear incident in Pennsylvania in 1979, followed by the Chernobyl disaster in The Ukraine in 1986. In the ten years following the Three-Mile-Island incident, opposition to the building of nuclear power plants in The United States went from 43% to 65%, while those in favour went from 53% to 35% over the same period. (Rosa and Dunlap 1994, 299) The same survey found however, that Americans believe that nuclear energy would become an important energy source in the nation’s future. In “The Simpsons”, the townspeople rarely question the potential dangers surrounding the nuclear power plant which serves as Springfield’s primary energy source (dangers which are exacerbated by its employees’ gross incompetence), but the show still serves as a social commentary on the use of nuclear power, as the plant is often portrayed as an evil and dangerous method of energy production. As the show exhibits many pro-environmental viewpoints, it portrays nuclear energy as an anthropocentric endeavour, with its potential dangers (which are almost realised on several occasions) unjustified and unsuited for the natural environment.

As nuclear energy proliferation is undertaken to meet the demands of society’s ever-increasing energy demands, the use of nuclear power, and the potential risks it poses, can be said to inherently anthropocentric. The incidents of Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl, and the recent Fukushima disaster in Japan had hugely detrimental effects on the surrounding ecological systems. (Goldstein 2012) While the risks of such accidents are rare, nuclear energy proliferation is nonetheless an anthropocentric activity, and such incidents have forged a mistrust of the energy source by society. “The Simpsons” taps into this societal fear by placing Homer Simpson as the Safety Inspector at the Nuclear Power Plant, a position for which he is grossly under qualified. On numerous occasions, Homer put the lives of himself, his co-workers and the entire town at risk of a nuclear meltdown. The episode “Homer Defined” is perhaps one of the best examples of this. It begins with Homer narrowly averting a nuclear meltdown of the power plant through sheer luck. He realises it is his job to stop the impending meltdown from occurring, and somehow manages to do so by pressing a random button on his control panel. He is hailed a hero for saving the town. Soon, his “expertise” are called up again when the neighbouring town, Shelbyville, suffers a similar disaster. He averts a meltdown once again, but is exposed as a fraud — his luck saved the lives of countless people rather than his expertise. (Gewirtz, 1991) The episode offers a commentary on the perceived risks associated with nuclear power plants, and the potential for catastrophe through human error. Human error caused or contributed to all of the three most high-profile nuclear accidents that have occurred to date (Lean 2011) and Homer Simpson is the epitome of human error. The incident involving Homer, who avoids nuclear catastrophe through his sheer ignorance and luck, satirises the dangers surrounding nuclear power and the potential for human error. The episode aired in 1991, at a time when confidence in nuclear power was at an all time low among the American public. (Rosa and Dunlap, 299) Homer can be seen to represent the chink in the armour of America’s nuclear power plants — a man who slipped through the system and managed to inherit a huge amount of responsibility without the technological know-how to carry the weight such a responsibility bears. Homer, in this instance, is representative of the fear and mistrust that much of American public held for nuclear energy in the years after Three-Mile-Island and Chernobyl. The perceived risk posed by the anthropocentric activity of creating energy to aid human consumption using nuclear fission is allegorised by “The Simpsons” through Homer’s incompetence.

In the episode “Two Cars in Every Garage Three Eyes on Every Fish” viewers are introduced to the character Blinky, a three-eyed mutant fish, whom Bart Simpson catches when fishing in a lake near the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. It is implied that Blinky has been mutated as a result of waste disposal into the lake by Burns’ plant, and as such Blinky becomes a point of contention in Burns’ environmental policies (or lack there-of) when he subsequently runs for election. (Simon and Schwarzwelder, 1990) Later in the episode, Burns’ runs a campaign advertisement, in which he consults “an actor portraying Charles Darwin” what the implications of such a mutant fish are, who assures Burns (and the audience) that a three eyed fish can only be a good thing, in fact one could call it a “super-fish”.

Blinky, as a three-eyed mutant fish serves as somewhat of a mascot for the anti-nuclear pro-environmental subcurrents of “The Simpsons”. He represents the unnaturalness of nuclear energy, its potential effects on the environment, and ultimately, the human-centred anti-nature values it espouses. For Burns, as he seeks to justify Blinky’s existence through spurious reasoning, it becomes clear that the fish is represented as having no intrinsic value. The fish is the product of an inherently anthropocentric activity, in which human-beings exploit the planet through radioactive waste disposal, and risk of catastrophic events in order to counteract the energy problems caused by overconsumption. Furthermore, Burns’ uses the fish for his own potential gain when discussing the ‘merits’ of a three-eyed fish.

Blinky’s existence and purpose within “The Simpsons’” universe brings to mind Arne Naess, the environmental philosopher, who was staunchly opposed to anthropocentric ideals. His eight point platform on Deep Ecology sought to counter anthropocentrism and highlighted the many ways in which human-centredness is disruptive to the natural world. In the first point he argues that “The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.” Points two and three of his platform relate to non-human life and how it ought not to be interfered with, or its diversity reduced, while point five argues that “present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.” (Naess 1995) Each of these points can be reflected in the existence of Blinky, particularly the fifth point. Naess says that “the guiding principle should probably be the continuation of biological history, creating large enough wilderness areas to allow for the continued speciation of plants and animals”. (Naess 1995) Human interference in the biological processes of non-human life is obviously a gross obstruction of the biological processes that Naess argues should be allowed to continue without human intrusion. Burns’ nuclear power plant shows no regard for these points and Blinky is the result. As such, the fish represents the result of overt human anthropocentric activity, particularly when it comes to nuclear energy consumption within human society.

The owner of The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, Mr Burns, is a character of questionable morals. He is oft portrayed as the epitome of evil, showing little to no virtuous character traits. He’s an inherently malicious man, frequently seen to berate his employees, exhibit psychopathic behaviour, take pleasure in the suffering of others, and even liaise with the devil. As Springfield’s richest, oldest and arguably most powerful man, he instills a fear and certain respect in the townspeople. Barwick contends that he is almost unable to experience happiness, as he attaches no meaning to personal relationships, such is his lust for power and control. (Barwick 2001, 192) However, while Burns represents malevolence and hatred, he also represents much more.

Given that Burns is 104 years old (Barwick 2001, 201), he is representative of an era gone by, frequently recalling with rose-tinted hindsight his past experiences, such as The Great Depression and his experiences in World War II (Collier 1996). He is also extremely uninformed of current trends, his mindset concretely set in decades past. In “Homer at the Bat”, Burns sets up his own company softball team and plans to poach professional players — asking his assistant Smithers to get him players from, among others, the long defunct “Negro League”. Smithers also informs him that his “right fielder has been dead for 130 years.” (Schwarzwelder 1992) Mr Burns’ inability to keep up with the times makes for an interesting analogy when one consider his ownership of Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.

Although he owns a nuclear plant, Burns could easily be seen to own an oil company of decades past, when environmental standards were either lax or non-existent. As a staunch Republican and conservative, stereotypical in almost every sense, he represents industrialism, corporatism, consumerism and Big Money. His plant makes no apologies for its poor public image, rather he buys off those who reprimand his poor environmental record. (O’ Brien 1993) Mr Burns, much like Big Oil, owns a monopoly on Springfield’s energy, so public image is a non-issue for him. One instance sees him being caught dumping nuclear waste next to a children’s playground, and the Environmental Protection Agency fines him $3 million, but it doesn’t affect his business, and it doesn’t bother him. (O’ Brien 1993)

Indeed, Burns’ is a representative of a time, long past, when environmentalism was hardly part of public discourse and anthropocentric activity for monetary gain went unchecked. Today, large energy corporations in America, such as ExxonMobil are forced to espouse a certain level of environmental concern in order to appease environmentalists and governments. Yet, in 2012 Exxonmobil profited $44.9 billion (Associated Press 2013) and made environmental contributions of just $4.2 million. (Exxonmobil 2012) The environmental contributions by Exxonmobil are tiny compared to the overall profits of the company, and often those environmental contributions are made purely to create a facade of environmental concern and justify their anthropocentric business methods which damage the natural world. Furthermore, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska in 1989, Exxonmobil suffered huge a public image fallout due to the extent of the environmental damage and the inadequate response to the cleanup effort, and in intervening years has sought to repair the damage reputation through environmental contributions, however small.

Burns, on the other hand, does not even bother with the facade. He makes no apologies for his staunch anti-environmentalism. He is of a time when environmental concerns didn’t exist, so he refuses to conform to them in the modern day. On one occasion he attempts to bribe the Environmental Protection Agency when it is uncovered that Homer is grossly under qualified. (O’ Brien 1993) On another occasion, his plant is presented with 342 health and safety violations after inspection, but rather than uphold safety standards, he seeks to change them to fit his own ‘standards’ — and so that he can save $56 million in the process. (Simon and Schwarzwelder, 1990) Burns’ antediluvian ways coupled with his unwillingness to conform to health and safety standards place him and his power plant in a timeframe of decades past, when environmentalism was non-existent and anthropocentric profiteering was an accepted practice.

In Springfield, the Nuclear Power Plant is an established cornerstone. It has always been there, and it always will be. The townspeople rarely question its existence or the dangers it poses. However, the plant and its position in Springfield society serves as an allegory of America’s relationship with nuclear energy and its dangers. Its anthropocentric nature is much of the reason that nuclear power is mistrusted by the public. Inadequate nuclear waste disposal can severely disrupt the natural processes of an ecosystem and the environment, while the risk of a catastrophic event such as the Chernobyl disaster could wipe out an entire ecosystem. Homer, through his somewhat ironic position as Nuclear Safety Inspector illustrates the potential for human error when using nuclear energy. Many nuclear accidents involve some level of human error (Of Nuclear Energy 2014) and Homer’s gross incompetence represents all that could go wrong. Burns’ outmoded demeanour lends credence to his misanthropic approach to how he runs his nuclear power plant. He is of a time when big industry and big money were king, and anthropocentric gain was far more important than environmental welfare. Burns’ portrays nuclear energy as being an inherently selfish and unethical pursuit, and as such “The Simpsons” promotes a strong pro-environmental and anti-anthropocentric message. Blinky complements this negative portrayal of nuclear energy, as a symbol of the destruction of the natural environment that human proliferation of nuclear energy can cause.

The Instrumentalism of Society: Animal Treatment on “The Simpsons”

Perhaps one of the most prevalent themes running through “The Simpsons” that exhibits the townspeople’s innate anthropocentric nature is its treatments of animals. Whether it be local bartender Moe Syzslak storing a Killer Whale in the back room of his bar for undisclosed reasons, (Harrison 1997) or Mr Burns stealing twenty-five greyhound puppies from the Simpson family in order to kill them and create a tuxedo, (Scully 1995) Springfield’s inhabitants rarely see other living creatures as anything beyond a tool or a piece of property. As previously discussed, Arne Naess’ Deep Ecology platform sought alternatives to the anthropocentric nature of human society. His eight point platform espouses the idea that non-human life has intrinsic value unto itself and that human beings have no right to interfere with non-human life other than to satisfy “vital” needs. (Naess 1995) The philosopher Peter Singer goes a step further by contending that society needs to overcome speciesism, which he defines as “prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”. (Singer 1975) Yet, in reality, mankind is constantly taking advantage of non-human life in order to better their own position in the world. Animals are routinely bred and slaughtered for human consumption, either for eating, creating clothing, or even entertainment. “The Simpsons”, as perhaps the first post-anthropocentric television show, satirises many of the less than savoury aspects of the human relationship with animals and non-human beings.

Perhaps one of the most obvious instances of Springfield’s citizens relationship with animals is in the episode “Lisa the Vegetarian”. The episode chronicles Lisa Simpson’s decision to become a vegetarian after visiting a petting zoo. Vegetarianism in Springfield, as it turns out, is incredibly stigmatised with Lisa being chastised at home and at school for her decision. As Lisa becomes increasingly disillusioned with society’s taste for meat, it becomes increasingly clear that people have become desensitised to the killing of animals. The episode attempts to portray the idea that the eating of meat and the killing of animals have become disassociated from one another. In one instance, Lisa sees a sign that says “Try our new beef-flavoured chicken”, (Cohen 1995) which invariably points to the idea of consumerism for consumerism’s sake, as beef-flavoured chicken is an absurd product. Similarly, after Lisa’s protestations about the eating of meat, her class is shown an educational video from the “Meat Council”, in which the “benefits” of eating meat are explained. The two-minute film satirises American meat consumption as something wholesome and traditional. The presenter, Troy McClure, is dressed as a cowboy, a traditional American archetype, and seeks to belittle nay-sayers at every turn. The cattle are portrayed not as living beings, but merely as meat, as they travel up a travelator, almost robotically, to be slaughtered. McClure then decries vegetarians as “ignorant” while the child actor in the video laments that he was a “grade ‘A’ moron to ever question eating meat”. (Cohen 1995) The film highlights, perhaps more acutely than any other instance in “The Simpsons”, society’s intolerance to the ethical treatment of animals. McClure’s “educational” video purports animals, cows specifically, to be of no use other than to be slaughtered for human consumption. His lack of sympathy or understanding toward vegetarian culture is symptomatic of society’s lack of understanding and stereotyping toward vegetarianism. (Sulzberger 2012) In a society that is innately anthropocentric, the factory farming, slaughtering, and consumption of animals for human benefit is considered a traditional norm, which is how the two minute segment portrays it (despite its absurdity). This line of thinking is bolstered throughout the episode as Lisa’s classmates and even her family openly mock her for her dietary choice, in a clear satirisation of American cultural norms. (Cohen 1995)

As the episode discussed shows, Springfield’s citizens are shown to show a stark lack of understanding about the ethics and welfare surrounding animals. The 1994 episode “Bart Gets an Elephant” also exhibits many characters’ inability or unwillingness to see animals as anything less than instrumental. The plot entails Bart Simpson winning a fully grown African elephant in a radio competition. Although offered $10,000 in lieu of the animal, Bart rejects the offer and demands the elephant. When he receives it, Bart names it Stampy and it is chained up in the Simpsons’ back garden. In an effort to keep up with the food costs of feeding Stampy (Homer initially believes that elephants eat only peanuts), the elephant is paraded in front of the townspeople who are charged by Homer to see and ride him. When this doesn’t offset the costs of keeping him, Homer attempts to sell Stampy to an ivory dealer, justifying doing so by arguing that “a guy who’s got lots of ivory is less likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low.” (Schwarzwelder 1994) Eventually, Bart convinces Homer not to sell his pet to be slaughtered and Stampy is given to a wildlife reserve. The treatment of Stampy in this episode highlights anthropocentric behaviour among Springfield society. Lisa, one of the few true intellectual citizens of Springfield argues against the idea of keeping Stampy: “You’re all forgetting the most important thing! Which is that it’s wrong to imprison an animal!”, (Schwarzwelder 1994) but beyond Lisa’s logical and ethical mindset, nobody in Springfield truly thinks of the animal’s welfare. Homer, in particular, does not see the animal as anything other than a tool to forward his anthropocentric wants. When confronted with the prospect of having to get rid of Stampy, Homer has a choice between selling Stampy to the aforementioned ivory dealer for a hefty profit or to give Stampy to a wildlife reserve for free. Without Lisa and Bart (who doesn’t want to give up the elephant but doesn’t want him slaughtered either) to tug on his conscience, Homer would have taken the money and ran. Earlier in the episode, Homer charges money for the townspeople to ride the elephant as it is chained up in his backyard, further exhibiting his lack of understanding about animal welfare and ethics. The townspeople don’t question Stampy’s welfare either.

Homer does not care about the well-being of Stampy. He doesn’t know how to. He sometimes sees him as a money-maker, and other times as a nuisance. When the animal becomes frustrated at its alien environment and lack of care, Homer suggests “maybe if we tied it down so it couldn’t move it wouldn’t get so hungry.” (Schwarzwelder 1994) Under no circumstances should Stampy have even entered the Simpsons’ backyard, but a distinct lack of understanding about the welfare of animals permitted that he end up there. Stampy’s treatment, much like the treatment of cattle in “Lisa the Vegetarian” satirises society’s disconnection from animals and nature as a whole. It parodies the anthropocentric nature of American society, seeing animals as tools and that their only value is their instrumental value to people.

Albert Einstein said that “a human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.” (Einstein 2011, 339-340) This is particularly apt when discussing the relationship between anthropocentrism and non-human beings. The characters of “The Simpsons”, often with the exception of Lisa, offer a somewhat exaggerated but interesting parody of the difficulties of this relationship. The society that “The Simpsons” is depicting through its satirising of American culture is an inherently selfish one, which places people before anything else. Humans are seen as the supreme species, the ones that can take advantage of the planet and therefore the ones that should. The writers of “The Simpsons” attempt to tackle this established norm of society through the absurdity of its characters and the situations they put themselves in, Homer in particular. Homer’s treatment of animals on the show, be it Stampy, his love of killing snakes in “Whacking Day” (Schwarzwelder 1993) or his complete inability to understand the ideas surrounding his daughter’s vegetarianism, makes him out to be a wildly confused and in-compassionate man, with little understanding of animal welfare. His cruelty toward animals does not stem from malice or malevolence, but rather from an anthropocentric nature that is innate in him. By making Homer’s actions towards animals less than savoury, “The Simpsons” challenge this anthropocentricity through satire and make the case for a non-anthropocentric view outlook on animal welfare and ethics.

Conclusion

“The Simpsons” television show portrays the town of Springfield and its inhabitants as a population that insist upon unnecessary consumerism and material wealth. In “Marge vs. The Monorail”, the town wins $3 million in a law suit against Mr Burns, but rather than spending it in a wise manner, they instead waste it on a monorail that a town with such a small population clearly does not require. (O’ Brien 1993) Yet, this does not matter to them, as the town, with its corrupt and power grabbing Mayor Quimby at the helm, seek only material and economic happiness.

The townspeoples’ greediness and materialism is indicative of their anthropocentricity. As a town that seems only concerned with human-centered, selfish activities, their relationship with the environment and the world around them is severely under-developed. As discussed, the townspeople reject any attempt from the show’s only environmentally-conscious character, Lisa, to become educated and understanding of the environment. Lisa serves as somewhat of an ambassador for the environment on the show. As “The Simpsons” writers seek to put forward some of their pro-environmental views on the show (Meyer 2006), this is often done through Lisa. She is an intellectual, a pacifist, a vegetarian and an environmentalist with a strong moral compass. She embraces the natural world and often sees it as a refuge from the consumerist anthropocentric demeanour of Springfield life. In the episode “Call of the Simpsons”, the family become lost in the forest. Homer, the very personification of the anthropocentric lifestyle and an unknowing stalwart of the anti-intellectual movement, is inevitably unable to deal with his estrangement from his material belongings, while Lisa embraces it, in due Thoreauvian fashion. (Schwarzwelder 1990) Lisa’s purpose in the show in many ways is to expose the irony of Homer’s anti-environmental anthropocentric actions. The juxtaposition between Homer’s inability to understand the natural world around him and Lisa’s love for it can be said to be symptomatic of the divide between American capitalist consumerist culture and the increasing need to give the environment a more importance standing within society.

The topics discussed throughout, such as anti-intellectualism, nuclear energy and the intrinsic value of animals all exhibit in some sense “The Simpsons”’ writers’ pro-environmental anti-anthropocentric views. Supplanting Homer Simpson at the heart of Springfield Nuclear Power plant as a Safety Inspector despite his incredible stupidity and disregard for the safety of himself and others both in and outside the plant, serves as a commentary on the potential dangers of human error and negligence. “Homer Defined” sees Homer save the town of Springfield from assured annihilation not through his expertise, but through sheer luck. (Gewirtz 1991) Mr Burns, the owner of the plant, attaches a certain level of malevolence and unfriendliness to nuclear power in America. He runs his plant shoddily, taking shortcuts that benefit only him while knowingly leaving the health and safety of others at risk. The nuclear power plant and how it is negatively portrayed on the show offers a commentary on the potential risks of the use of nuclear energy in American society. In essence, nuclear power is anthropocentric, because it can cause untold damage to the environment and disrupt the natural processes of the world, either through a catastrophic event such as Chernobyl, or through the irresponsible disposal of radioactive waste, a task Burns undertakes gleefully as he dumps toxic waste next to a children’s playground. (O’ Brien 1993) Blinky the fish, given his distinct mutation, acts somewhat of a mascot for what can go wrong when radioactive waste does escape into the environment.

Furthermore, “The Simpsons” acts as a commentary on many of the socially accepted practices surrounding animal cruelty and exploitation. Through the veil of a cartoon show, the writers are free to commentate on otherwise unsavoury and perhaps unpalatable situations involving animals. Most of the characters on the show display somewhat of a cruel disposition towards animals, mostly viewing them as an instrumental tool for human consumption. Be it Mr Burns’ theft of twenty-five puppies for the purposes of making a tuxedo, (Scully 1995) or Homer’s inability to understand that to sell a fully grown African elephant to an ivory dealer is not only illegal, but inherently wrong, (Schwarzwelder 1994) “The Simpsons” satires the ideal that anthropocentric wants and needs are seen as more important in American society than the intrinsic value of the animal itself.

“The Simpsons” is in many ways the first post-anthropocentric television show. It came to fruition in a time of increasing environmental awareness in society, as the debate about global warming and nuclear energy began to pick up. (IPCC 1990) Writers such as Matt Groening, George Meyer, John Schwartzwelder and David X. Cohen grew up amongst the politicised counter-culture generation of the nineteen seventies and as a result, their pro-environmental anti-anthropocentric views are espoused on the show. The show has won six Environmental Media Association Awards, which are awarded to television shows that put forward a strong environmental message. (EMA 2014) It has also won four Genesis Awards for its raising of issues on animal welfare. (Humane Society 2014)

“The Simpsons” environmental undertones are only part of the complex and vast array of issues that the show discusses, but perhaps its strong message is indicative of the anthropocentric society in which we live today. The premise of the show, as an animated situation comedy, has allowed it to commentate on extremely contentious issues, such as political affiliations, religiosity, animals rights and the environment in ways that other television shows could not make palatable to a wide audience. As such, the show has become an American institution, a cornerstone of pop-culture. At the height of its popularity in the nineteen-nineties, the show was influenced by American social norms, but it also influenced them. Lisa, as the proto-environmentalist in the town of Springfield, serves as a sign of hope and change within society. She is consistently beaten down for her beliefs on protecting the environment, but she never loses her resolve, even when nature itself goes against her. (Schwarzwelder 1996) “The Simpsons” demonstrates many of the ways in which society has become detached from nature, through an anthropocentric philosophy that has become established in society. The show is a seen as a social commentary, often skewered and exaggerated, but nonetheless critical of the anthropocentric norms that pervade American culture and, indeed, western culture as a whole.

Bibliography

“Anthropocentric.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed April 11, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric.

“Anti-intellectual.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed April 11, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-intellectual.

Appel, Richard. 1996. “Bart After Dark.” The Simpsons. Original airdate November 24.

Asimov, Issac. 1980. “A Cult of Ignorance.” Newsweek, January 21.

Barwick, Daniel. 2001. “Enjoying the so-called “Iced-Cream”: Mr Burns, Satan, and Happiness.” In The Simpsons and Philosophy, edited by William Irwin, Mark T. Conrad and Aeon J. Skoble, 191-202. Illinois: Open Court.

Beck, Gunter. 2008. ““Mmmm …, Individualism!”: Thoreau and Thoreauvian Thought in The Simpsons.” Americana vol. 2 no. 2

Brooks, James L., Matt Groening, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, George Meyer, David Mirkin, Mike Reiss, Mike Scully, Matt Selman, John Swartzwelder and Jon Vitti. 2007. The Simpsons Movie. Original release date July 26.

Cohen, David S. 1995. “Lisa the Vegetarian.” The Simpsons. Original airdate October 15.

Cohen, David S. 1996. “Much Apu About Nothing.” The Simpsons. Original airdate May 5.

Collier, Jonathon. 1996. “Lisa the Iconoclast.” The Simpsons. Original airdate February 18.

Collier, Jonathon. 1996. “Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in “The Curse of the Flying Hellfish”.” The Simpsons. Original airdate April 28.

Du Brow, Rick. 1990. “A Simpsons Demographic Lesson.” Los Angeles Times, October 16. Accessed April 1, 2014. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-16/entertainment/ca-2464_1_bart-simpson.

Einstein, Albert. 2011. The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, edited by Alice Calaprice. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Energy Information Administration. 2014. “How many nuclear power plants are in the US and where are they located?.” Last modified April 3. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3.

Environmental Media Association. 2014. “EMA Awards Recipients and Honorees.” Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.ema-online.org/ema-awards-recipients/

Exxonmobil. 2012. “Exxon Mobil Corporation 2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments Environment.” Accessed April 6, 2014. http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Datasets/Worldwide%20Giving%20Report/2012/gcr_contributions_environment12.pdf.

Ferguson, Charles D. 2011. Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

“Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming.” Pew Research Center. Released October 22, 2009. Accessed April 3, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/556.pdf

Gewirtz, Howard. 1991. “Homer Defined.” The Simpsons. Original airdate October 17.

Goldenburg, Suzanne. 2013. “Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks.” The Guardian, February 14. Accessed April 3, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network.

Goldstein, Chris. 2012. “Ecological Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster.” Paper, Stanford University.

Krugman, Paul. 2011. “Republicans Against Science.” The New York Times. August 28. Accessed April 3, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1&

Harrison, Reid. 1997. “The Springfield Files.” The Simpsons. Original airdate January 12.

Hofstadter, Richard. 1974. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Alfred A. Kopf Inc.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1990. “IPCC Overview”, p 52. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide”. Accessed April 10, 2014. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html

Lean, Geoffrey. 2011. “A nuclear future — proceed with caution.” The Telegraph. March 18. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://fw.to/WrqnPZm

Meyer, George. 1991. “Mr Lisa Goes To Washington.” The Simpsons. Original airdate September 26.

Meyer, George. 2006. “Welcoming Homer the tree-hugger.” BBC News, August 3. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5237038.stm

NASA. 2013. “Earthrise.” Last modified July 28. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html#.U0fmEuZg5e4.

Naess, Arne. “The Deep Ecology Platform.” Excerpts from Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, edited by George Sessions. 1995. Accessed March 27, 2014 http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/dpecol.htm

“Nuclear Accidents.” Of Nuclear Energy. Accessed April 6, 2014. http://ofnuclearenergy.com/nuclear-accidents.html

Oakley, Bill and Josh Weinstein. 1992. “Marge Gets a Job.” The Simpsons. Original airdate November 5.

Oakley, Bill and Josh Weinstein. 1994. “Sideshow Bob Roberts.” The Simpsons. Original airdate October 9.

O’ Brien, Conan. 1993. “Homer Goes to College.” The Simpsons. Original airdate October 14.

O’ Brien, Conan. 1993. “Marge vs. The Monorail.” The Simpsons. Original airdate January 14.

On The Issues. 2014. “Ronald Reagan on Environment.” Last modified January 6. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Environment.htm.

Palomo, Juan R. 2011. “API Response to Commission Report: ‘We’ve Made Progress to Improve Safety.” American Petroleum Institute. January 11. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2011/jan-2011/api-response-to-commission-report

Rosa, Eugene A. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1994. “Poll Trends: Nuclear Power: Three Decades of Public Opinion.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, 58:2:295-324.

Rudig, Wolfgang. 2002. “Anti-Nuclear Movements.” In International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics, edited by John Barry and E. Gene Frankland, 22-25. New York: Routledge.

Sachs, Jeffrey. 2008. “Anti-Intellectualism.” Economist’s View. September 22. Accessed April 3, 2014. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/anti-intellectu.html

Scully, Mike. 1995. “Two Dozen and One Greyhounds.” The Simpsons. Original airdate April 9.

Selman, Matt. 1999. “They Saved Lisa’s Brain.” The Simpsons. Original airdate May 9.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1990. “The Call of The Simpsons.” The Simpsons. Original airdate February 18.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1992. “Homer at the Bat.” The Simpsons. Original airdate February 20.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1993. “Whacking Day.” The Simpsons. Original airdate April 29.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1994. “Bart Gets an Elephant.” The Simpsons. Original airdate March 31.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1996. “You Only Move Twice.” The Simpsons. Original airdate November 3.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1997. “Homer’s Enemy.” The Simpsons. Original airdate May 4.

Schwarzwelder, John. 1997. “The Old Man and the Lisa.” The Simpsons. Original airdate April 20.

Simon, Sam and John Schwarzwelder. 1990. “Two Cars in Every Garage, Three Eyes on Every Fish.” The Simpsons. Original airdate November 1.

Singer, Peter. 1975. “What Is Animal Liberation? Excerpts From Philosopher Peter Singer’s Groundbreaking Work”. PETA. Accessed: April 9. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/ingrid-newkirk/animal-liberation/

Sulzberger, A.G.. 2012. “Meatless in the Mid-West: A Tale of Survival.” The New York Times, January 10. Accessed April 9, 2014. http://nyti.ms/1iOW8JK

The Associated Press. 2013. “Exxon’s 2012 profit of $44.9B just misses record.” Yahoo News, February 1. Accessed April 6, 2014. http://news.yahoo.com/exxons-2012-profit-44-9b-170340809.html.

The Humane Society of The United States. 2014. “The Genesis Awards.” Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/hollywood/genesis/#.U05gEOZdV68