Hoppers is a deceptively simple story that opens up complex ethical and scientific questions.
Jerry (Jon Hamm), the mayor of Beaverton, has marked a forest glade for destruction, so commuters can save four minutes of drive time. The plan is environmentally assessed as feasible given no animals seem to live there.
But Mabel (Piper Curda) fights to save the glade, using the newest technology to put her mind into an animatronic beaver robot. This allows her to communicate with the animals and coordinate their collective action.
In classic Disney fashion, the town is saved, the mayor realises he was wrong, and everyone goes on to live in harmony.
It may seem like standard animated fare. But Hoppers reflects real scientific themes.
Understanding habitat rights
Infrastructure development can lead to habitat destruction, wildlife population declines, overcrowding and increased human-animal conflict.
Habitat rights can lead to complex debates between people living in close proximity to “pest” animals, conservationists, politicians and philosophers. These debates often expose human-centric biases: the assumption that human lives and concerns are more important than animal lives and concerns.
Some researchers argue animals have the right to their native habitat, akin to property rights – and humans have a responsibility to recognise those rights.
It becomes more complicated when we have to prioritise one species over another in terms of essential needs.
The glade animals accept species may have conflicting goals when it comes to survival. Prey species like beavers and fish must avoid being eaten, while carnivores need to eat. What does that mean for their right to a safe home?
Hoppers’ focus on an infrastructure project with trivial benefits for humans (shorter commutes) avoids diving into the very sticky issue of who has rights to the glade if it comes down to life or death.
Primates are rapidly losing habitat, often to growing demands for agriculture. Primates then raid the food-rich crops of their former home, and are considered pests. Farmers attempt to deter primates by trapping or killing them.
Anthropologists debate the ethics of animals versus human needs, ultimately concluding we need conservation that meets the needs of all species. In this crop-raiding example, human livelihoods are directly in conflict with animal livelihoods. Who deserves to eat?
Hoppers touches on the issue of habitat rights without asking the bigger questions about what would happen to the glade if it came down to human vs animal survival.
Animals and technology
While we can’t communicate directly with animals by placing our brains in animatronic beavers, scientists have used technology to make animal worlds accessible.
Researchers use GPS collars to monitor elephant ranging patterns; eye-tracking of primates to assess social cognition; and artificial intelligence analysis of vocalisations to decipher animal communication.
Scientists have used animatronic robotic animals to interact with other species. An infant gorilla robot was used to gain trust with a gorilla group. This enabled it to record gorillas’ singing and farting while eating for the first time.
Scientists are also exploring human-animal linguistic communication through technology. From recordings of wild dolphins, we have learnt individuals have specific whistles akin to names.
Apes can learn language using touch screens, with analysis revealing semantic and grammatical patterns. Computers can also translate English into the closest equivalent in the apes’ pictorial vocabulary, acting like the human-to-robot-to-animal earpiece in Hoppers.
Animal resistance
Hoppers taps into a trope that reoccurs in popular media: humans create a techno-scientific invention that inadvertently empowers animals to resist or retaliate against humans – often by turning humans’ own technology back on themselves.
Mabel uses the animatronic beaver to bring the animals together for collective action. Torturous ultrasonic sounds are used against the animals. The animals seek revenge by embodying an avatar of the mayor and attempting to turn the ultrasonic sounds on the people of Beaverton. The human-created technology leads to an animal revolution and a real threat to humanity.
Disney/Pixar
In the Planet of the Apes (1968–2024) and Deep Blue Sea (1999), biomedical testing on animals leads to hyperintelligence and desire for revenge. The apes use human weapons against humans, ultimately subjugating them.
In The Zoo (2015–17), mutagenic animal feed leads to animals having a hivemind-level of communication and sense of solidarity – and an awareness of how to manipulate human technology to systematically kill humans.
In Sweet Tooth (2021–24), research into pandemics led to human-animal hybrids, which then raised questions of ethics and rights of these hybrids: can they be caged, hunted and experimented on?
Humans use animals to test pharmaceuticals, animal food is genetically modified, and there have been very real debates about the legal and moral place of animal-human hybrids.
This recurring cinematic trope addresses our anxieties about the role of technology in our interactions with animals. Will the very source of our greatness and species-defining trait – our technology – also be the source of our downfall?
Become a part of something big
Mabel struggles to maintain her motivation in standing up for animals in the face of apathetic and greedy people.
Fortunately, Mabel’s grandmother teaches her that when she feels angry at injustice, she can always retreat to the forest glade to calm herself.
Disney/Pixar
By stopping, looking and listening, Mabel can start to feel a deep sense of connection to the natural world. It is a lesson we can all learn from.
If you – like me – left this film feeling like the world is unjust, might I pass forward Mabel’s lesson: “It’s hard to be mad when you feel like you’re part of something big”.