Saturday, February 21, 2009

Human/Non-Human Behavior, Part 2

Stephen, in a comment on my original post about the work of Dr. Temple Grandin, rightly raised the issue of her participation in the animal slaughter industry as a consultant and designer of animal-handling systems. (She has been roundly criticized, compared to a pedophile who constructs a way to sexually abuse children by first rendering them unconscious so they don't experience the trauma.) I offered a brief response to his query in a follow-up comment (see Comments), and added an addendum to the original post clarifying the apparent contradiction between her appreciation for and study of animals and her participation in a system that devalues them.

As I continued to read Animals in Transition, I came across a passage in which she discusses why she is not a vegetarian even though she would prefer to be. I'll cite that passage here to allow Dr. Grandin to speak for herself on the issue of consuming animals as food vis-a-vis the pain animals experience. This is a complex issue made more simple for me based on using the Bible to shape my worldview. But for those with different worldviews (e.g., an evolutionary worldview, to which Dr. Grandin seems to subscribe), the issue is more complex.

The following section is in a chapter that discusses "pain and suffering:" (Words inserted in brackets are mine, to explain something she has covered in earlier sections of the book.)

If I had my druthers humans would have evolved to be plant eaters, so we wouldn't have to kill other animals for food. But we didn't, and I don't see the human race converting to vegetarianism anytime soon. I've tried to eat vegetarian myself, and I haven't been able to manage it physically. I get the same feeling you get with hypoglycemia; I get dizzy and light-headed, and I can't think straight. My mother is exactly the same way, and a lot of people with processing problems [e.g., autism] have told me they have this reaction, too, so I've always wondered if there's a connection. If there's something different about your sensory processing, is there something different about your metabolism, too?
There could be. It's possible that a brain difference could also involve a metabolic difference, because the same genes can do different things in different parts of the body. A gene that contributed to autism might contribute to a metabolic difference, or any other kind of difference. Parents have always said that their autistic children have lots of physical problems, too, usually involving the gut, and mainstream researchers haven't paid a lot of attention to this.
So until someone proves otherwise I'm operating from the hypothesis that at least some people are genetically built so that they have to have meat to function. Even if that's not so, the fact that humans evolved as both plant and meat eaters means that the vast majority of human beings are going to continue to eat both. Humans are animals, too, and we do what our animal natures tell us to do.
That means we're going to continue to have feedlots and slaughterhouses, so the question is: what should a humane feedlot and slaughterhouse be like?
Everyone concerned with animal welfare has the basic answer to that: the animal shouldn't suffer. He should feel as little pain as possible, and he should die as quicklyl as possible.
But although the principle is obvious, putting it into operation isn't, because it's hard to know how much pain an animal feels. It's hard to know how much pain a person feels when you get right down to it, but at least a person can tell you in plain language that he feels horrible. An animal can't do that. (Animals in Translation, pp. 179-180)

She continues with a fascinating overview of research on the difference between pain and suffering in both humans and non-human animals.

The thoughts I had after reading this section:

1. Her feeling that she "needs" meat based on her body type is common. The "eat according to your body type" school of thought is not new, saying that some people have to have animal protein to be healthy. My worldview says that's not true—that God designed the human body constitutionally to exist on plant-based food (Genesis 1:29). I think many people who have negative physical reactions to getting off animal foods are experiencing cleansing reactions that would disappear in time if they would stick with a gradual transition long enough. (Let me say, however, that I cannot compete with Dr. Grandin on the connection between sensory and metabolic processes that she mentions. She is the scientist, not me. My convictions are based purely on what I believe God designed to be normal for every person.)

2. Her views and practices are purely evolutionary: Man is an animal who evolved to eat both plants and animals, therefore we should continue in that pattern. She doesn't address the negative health implications of eating animal foods, only the evolutionary ones.

3. I have always been confused about why evolutionists have moral compunctions about pain and suffering. If the "ought" and "ought not" factors are purely evolutionary, then there is no higher moral authority to answer to when it comes to inflicting pain. Therefore, why should we care whether the animals we have evolved to eat suffer in the process or not? Lions don't seek out kindler and gentler ways to dispatch zebras before eating them. They just eat them without a thought for the zebra's pain and suffering. The fact that Dr. Grandin cares about making death less painful for animals is confusing to me and evidence that she recognizes an "ought" factor in her life that she can't really explain. (I also don't understand why it's not okay for evolutionist humans who eat animals to eat other humans. If we are no different from other predators, why can't we eat whomever we choose?) I'm assuming that evolutionists such as Dr. Grandin would cite evolving community norms as the source of what we "ought" and "ought not" do with regard to anything regarding human and non-human animals. (Daniel, from your philosophy studies perhaps you can offer a comment on the presence of the "ought" factor and how philosophers have defined its source in an evolutionary worldview.)

4. As a biblicist, I have to be willing to own all the implications of my convictions. My plant-based diet, my moral compunctions about mitigating pain, my respect for animal life—they all are rooted in Scripture. Dr. Grandin is totally transparent about her evolutionary position. She would like to be a vegetarian but doesn't believe her evolutionary views (and the way the body has evolved) require it. I respect the honest wrestling she has done to work out a consistent worldview. I'm not sure Christians have been as diligent in applying their professed adherence to Scripture with the way they live vis-a-vis animals.

So -- I'll stop there. I felt it necessary to allow Dr. Grandin to speak for herself on the matter of vegetarianism and why she does what she does. But her view also presents some complications (contradictions?) that I have noted. Your comments are welcome.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Ride It Like You Stole It

A common saying among bike racers is, "Ride it like you stole it." When Lance Armstrong's time trial bike was stolen at the Tour of California, then recovered and returned, the Astana and Trek mechanics rebuilt it with a new message for the rider:

The "new" TT Bike on TwitPic

In case you can't read it, the message on the chain stay says, "Lance—Ride This One Like YOU Stole It." Signed, The Trek ProjectOne Team.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Understanding Human and Non-Human Behavior


Dr. Temple Grandin (PhD in Animal Science) is autistic. Because of her autism she has become a leading authority in helping those who raise and work with animals understand how animals think since autistic humans and animals think so much alike—in pictures rather than words. The author of a half-dozen books, she is also a leading authority on helping autistic children and adults live productively in the "normal" world. Like many autistic people, she is obviously brilliant and sees the world (and especially animals) in ways that "normal" people can't.

I have been captivated by Animals in Translation—Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. She (along with her co-author Catherine Johnson, PhD in neuropsychiatry) present page after page of fascinating research and insights into the human-animal relationship.

I had to stop and share the following short section from Animals in Translation. She has been talking about "hormones of love"—the familiar ones like testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, and another less familiar one called oxytocin, more prominent in female animals and humans, but in males as well. Remember when reading this quote: oxytocin is a "hormone of love"—of relational warmth. She says,
A dog's oxytocin levels rise when his owner pets him, and petting his dog raises the owner's oxytocin, too. I'm sure that's one reason why so many people have dogs in the first place. I don't think anyone has researched this yet, but I expect we'll find that dogs make humans into nicer people and better parents. Oxytocin is definitely important in humans. When women have babies their oxytocin levels shoot up right before the birth, and research shows that those high levels spark maternal warmth and care. Oxytocin produces caring "maternal" behavior in men, too. So for parents, owning and petting a dog is probably like getting a "good parent" shot every day. Dogs are probably good for marriages for the same reason.
Science as well as the practical implications. Fascinating stuff. This interestes me because of the consideration I've given of late to the lack of a "theology of animals" among those who were given responsibility by God for caring for them—primarily those who profess to know God. The secular community has done a much better job trying to describe and implement a "theology" (a science) of animals than Christendom has done, and to define the mutually-beneficial relationship that should exist between humans and non-human animals.

I also have (and love the title of) her latest book dealing with animals: Animals Make Us Human—Creating the Best Life for Animals. I was caused to think recently that perhaps one of the primary purposes of animals in creation is to help humans discover who they are. Just as we discover much about ourselves as we measure how others react to us, so maybe we discover things about ourselves as we relate to animals that we would otherwise never know. I don't know what she is going to say about how "animals make us human" but I'm looking forward to finding out.

On the page for this book at Amazon there is a short video of Dr. Grandin talking about this book and some of her views on animals. She is a totally unique person in light of her autism—"normal" yet so different. You'll enjoy watching the video.

ADDENDUM: Someone raised a question about my support for the work of someone who has designed animal-handling systems for the meat packing industry. I should have clarified Temple Grandin's work in this area. She is a scientist who is regularly employed as a consultant to the animal packinghouse industry, designing handling systems that result in better treatment for animals and more efficient operation. Even though her work contributes to the death of countless animals who are killed for human consumption, they are at least treated better because of her expertise. I am not reading her books in support of how she applies her knowledge of animals and humans, but because of how I can (hopefully) apply it. Sorry for not including this information in the original post.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Dance Like No One's Watching

Thanks to Dave for sending this hilarious link.

Check out this guy at a break at a Celtics basketball game -- a Bon Jovi song starts playing over the P.A. system and when he realizes he's on the Jumbotron screen (I take that back -- I don't know if he realizes he's on the Jumbo or not; if not, all the better -- he's dancin' for the sheer pleasure of it!), he breaks into full-on Bon Jovi. Then the crowd gets into it and the camera stays on him throughout the whole song. Unbelievable. Somewhere along the way, this guy lost all inhibitions that the rest of us labor under daily. More power to him. (P.S. -- Anybody remember the Prayer for Cleansing days when young Dave displayed a similar amount of stage presence? No wonder he liked this video. Probably an expression of his great-grandfather Blackburn's stage genes, no?)