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.)
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.
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.
Posts
