Animals Make Us Human

[jetcitywoman]

I just finished reading Animals Make us Human by Temple Grandin, and really recommend it for all you animal lovers out there. Temple Grandin is autistic and went on to have an incredible career as professor, researcher, animal communicator, and meat industry consultant. She feels that her autism has given her a special insight into the way animals think, and after reading the book, I'm inclined to agree with her. Like animals, she thinks in pictures, sounds, colors, smells. She made a comment midway through the book that she speculates that language skills cause the brain to become very adept at abstraction, but less able to remember details. This could be why prey animals spook at the slightest changes to their habitats, and it's so hard for people (for example, zookeepers) to figure out what the problem is. I think this bears more research because it's a fascinating idea.

 

Temple begins the book by writing a chapter about each species: dogs, cats, cattle, horses, chickens, and pigs. She then writes a chapter about wild animals and a chapter on zoos. In the dogs chapter, she speculates that Cesar Milan has perhaps a not quite accurate idea of how dogs think (she states how Alpha theory has been debunked), but that he innately understands pack behavior based on his childhood experiences. But she says his ideas about pack behavior only work for wild/feral dog packs and not household pets who aren't allowed to socialize freely. She quotes Patricia McConnell several times favorably, so the two animal behaviorists seem to agree about dog behavior and training.

 

Her conversational style of writing keeps you turning pages, but she is able to relay a lot of information and thought-provoking ideas. She doesn't mention clicker training until the chapter on horses, but she comments in the zoo chapter that even zoo animals can be clicker trained. She talks about training methods that are cruel (throwing things at a tied-up horse to try to desensitize it) and training methods that work better and are humane.

 

The chapters on cattle, pigs and chickens are a little hard to read, but I got through them and came away with a huge amount of respect for her. She says she's often asked why she works with the meat industry instead of working to close them down. She says that it's our responsibility as humans to provide safe, clean and humane lives for animals and in return we can eat them as long as we make their deaths quick and painless. It's a trade off. She mentions how after horse slaughterhouses were shut down in America, horses were then shipped down to Mexico where they are worked to death. The trade off she's clearly thinking of is sort of a universal one. "Which is worse: I kill an animal quickly and humanely, or ignore the fact that someone else is killing that animal brutally?" She talks about how she invented devices to allow cattle to walk up the chute in a slaughterhouse without being scared by it's surroundings, and taught feedlot managers to remove spooky things like shiny bits of metal. She works very hard on meat industry management to train their people not to be cruel. She comments that when people see a lot of cruelty on a daily basis, they become desensitized to it and it starts to seem normal to them. She's worked with McDonalds and Wendy's to bring pressure to bear on the meat industry to improve their handling of the cattle.

 

If you have a squeamish stomach, you might want to skip the chapter on chickens. She's working on that, but comments that the egg and chicken (meat) industries don't have big buyers like McDonalds and Wendy's that can bring the same amount of pressure as they were able to do with meat. (Fast food sells a lot more burgers than chicken.) There is still a lot of brutality in the egg and broiler hen industry.

 

Throughout the whole book, she discusses how the animal's thinking processes affect their behavior. For example, predator animals primarily require stimulation in their "seeking" emotions. "Seeking" encompasses curiousity, play and hunting. She says that prey animals are driven by their "fear" emotion, they need places to hide or space to run in order to feel safe. She says that stimulating the "seeking" sense in any animal suppresses the "fear" sense. This allows people who work with animals to do a better job once they understand this. For example, you can chase a herd of cattle into another pasture, but that's stressful and can lead to sickness and death. Or you can learn what makes cattle curious, and they will move on their own into the new pasture and be completely unafraid. This reminded me mostly of the "horse whisperer" story. People used to literally break horses spirits by beating them into submission before they could be ridden. Then someone noticed that if you stand quietly facing away from a wild horse, it will come to investigate you. If you are patient and let the animal examine and get used to novel things in it's own time, it is much easier to introduce it to being touched, harnessed, saddled, ridden. And it doesn't take as long as you'd think.

She also talks about how stimulating an animal's sense of "seeking" in order to get food makes them happier. Whether the animal is a deer in a zoo or a pet dog, animals love to work for their food. It's surprised zookeepers that the big cats were bored when they were fed on a schedule, but then blossomed when they had to hunt for their food, even when it was the same pre-killed meat they got before. The simple act of having to search for the food made the cats happy.

 

I'm going to ponder this book for a while, thinking about how I can stimulate my greyhound's sense of "seeking" in order to keep her happy. It's a great book!

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Great review. I am definitely interested in the book. I will have my wife look for it at her work (Borders).

 

Chad

[Guest IHeartDogs]

I read it last year and enjoyed it. I'm glad you did too!

[Guest budsmom]

I loved this book and her other one, Animals in Translation, too. She is fascinating and has some excellent insights into how animals think and behave. I would highly recommend both books.

[Guest BooBooMama]

I am reading Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know by Alexandra Horowitz

I highly recommend reading it.

Here is a review:

From Publishers Weekly

Psychology professor and dog person Horowitz was studying the ethology (the science of animal behavior) of white rhinos and bonobos at the San Diego Zoo when she realized that her research techniques could just as easily apply to dogs at the local dog park; there, she began to see "snapshots of the minds of the dogs" in their play. Over eight years of study, she's found that, though humans bond with their dogs closely, they're clueless when it comes to understanding what dogs perceive-leading her to the not-inconsequential notion that dogs know us better than we know them. Horowitz begins by inviting readers into a dog's umwelt-his worldview-by imagining themselves living 18 inches or so above the ground, with incredible olfactory senses comparable to the human capacity for detailed sight in three dimensions (though dogs' sight, in combination with their sense of smell, may result in a more complex perception of "color" than humans can imagine). Social and communications skills are also explored, as well as the practicalities of dog owning (Horowitz disagrees with the "pack" approach to dog training).

[MerlinsMum]

Can't STAND the woman. If she really cares about animals, why is she putting all of her energy into making it easier for them to be needlessly killed? I think what she does is absolutely disgraceful. As Jeffrey Moussaief Masson (author of "When Elephants Weep") put it,

 

She can never take the next step to questioning what she does. Dr. Grandin never asks the only relevant question here: Is it right to do this at all? Does she not recognize that all animals, humans included, have as their very first concern the preservation and integrity of their body? Somebody who wants to kill you is not your friend, and if you know that someone is trying to do so, you are in a state of terror, and all you can think about is escape

 

From Temple Grandin: Savant or Professional Killer?:

 

It seems odd that someone could become such a prominent ethicist without being able to grasp that question. It also seems odd that someone who loves animals and feels they can empathetically relate to the animal mind wouldn’t try to help them live and instead, ironically, designs their deaths for a living. The cows, pigs and chickens that meet their end in a slaughterhouse don’t want to die any more than we do. They probably didn’t want to live that “good” life on a CAFO either.

 

Is Big Ag just using Grandin as a pawn to assuage consumer guilt over something that’s quickly making its way into the ethically questionable spotlight? Are people just using oxymoronic terms like “humane slaughter,” “compassionate carnivore” and “ethical meat eater” to ease their conscience and stifle their tears as quickly as Grandin?

 

Of course they are.

[jetcitywoman]

I don't want to start a war, but Merlinsmom, are you a vegetarian?

[PrairieProf]

Yes, I read the book and found it very interesting as well.

[MerlinsMum]

I don't want to start a war, but Merlinsmom, are you a vegetarian?

 

No. I'm an ethical vegan.

[jetcitywoman]

The other thing I found intriguing in the book was how she talked about novelty. Prey animals tend to not like novelty as much, it's scary and they need time to get used to the strange thing. But since predators are more driven by their "seeker" emotion, they're more likely to explore strange new things. She used an example of a small herd of deer in a zoo. Most of the time they would move down an alley from their nighttime shed into the pasture, but occasionally for no reason the zookeepers could figure out, they freaked out and refused to leave the shed. When Temple went to the zoo to try to help, she found that there was a sign that was supposed to be screwed into the fence. Most of the time it was leaned against the fence, but occasionally it would fall over. When the deer came out of the shed to see the sign laying on the ground, that was odd enough to scare them. (The backside of the sign was yellow, so the color helped make sure they saw it, too.)

 

It made me wonder about the spooky greyhounds we occasionally get off the track. How interesting is it that a predator species occasionally acts like a prey animal! I've never had a spook, but I wonder if treating them like a deer would help them overcome their fears. Also, we occasionally get someone posting a thread about how their dog freezes as soon as they step out of the house. I wonder if you stopped, took a deep breath, examined the dog's posture and what he was looking at, examined the surroundings to see if there was anything odd or out of place... For those of you who read the book, if you had a spook, did it help you understand and fix whatever scared the dog?

[Guest GreyFan09]

Sounds like an interesting book. Thanks for the review.

[kronckew]

why do people hate other people who do not agree with them? i feel vegans have a right to their views and there should be no limits on their right to not eat meat or use animal products. i have no qualms about associating with vegans, was married to one for eight years, but she did not try to convert me or our dogs, left our son to make up his own mind and did not express any disgust for others who did not agree with her ways. when it was her turn to cook, she had no problem cooking meat for us, just like i had no problem cooking veggy dishes for her to her specs.

 

i look at it that those of us who do eat meat have a duty to ensure our prey animals have good treatment and care during their lives, and end it quickly and cleanly with as little suffering as possible. i expect to be treated similarly myself. i am not anti-anything, i am pro-a lot of things. i also am not anti-hunting, don't hunt myself at the moment, but would if i needed to, don't see anything wrong with someone enjoying it either. i do object to those who unilaterally decide for me that i can't. i however do not wish to convert you or anyone on either side. make up your own minds.

 

i personally see a lot of good in Temple Grandin's ideas as expressed by the original poster.

[jetcitywoman]

I agree, if you have to eat an animal, you should care properly for that animal, respect it and give it a quick death with as little pain as possible. I do understand Merlinsmum's stance, though. There are people who feel strongly that there is no such thing as a painless death. I'm not sure about that, but... well we could argue all day long about that. And I'm sure there are vegans who feel that humans DON'T need to eat meat, if you watch your proteins very carefully you can have a healthy vegan diet. I think it's one of those things people will argue about for eons.

 

I think Temple's point is that there are too many cruel and vicious humans in the world and so far we've failed miserably at containing/controlling them. Sure, we should find a way to get rid of people who stomp on chickens for fun and people who run mass murder campaigns on other people. But until we can find a way to do that, the best we can do is to keep the vulnerable out of their hands as much as we possibly can. If a feedlot has horrible brutal practices, they need to be audited and corrected, and if that fails then they need to be shut down and move their business to a feedlot that makes every effort to try to not cause deliberate pain, fear and suffering.

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

I'll throw my hat into this ring, before this thread gets closed,

 

If you are religious, you will know the passages in the bible that state how animals were put here for us (humans), this includes the consumption of said animals. I am an animal lover and conservationist. Not only do I volunteer my time with 3 different greyhound groups, I also volunteer at Brookfield Zoo. I am opposed to any animal needlessly suffering, that said, I do consume animals, and do not see the ethical problem with eating said animals. Yes I know that the way our animals are slaughtered is less than humane, I do what I can to not eat/purchase commercial beef/chicken. Heck, my wife is a vegetarian. I don't feel that animals are my piers or equals, they were put here for me, as such, they are all under my charge, and I shall treat them with dignity and respect. This does not preclude me from eating them though.

[MerlinsMum]

First of all, please let me correct you, Kronckew... I don't hate anyone, and I certainly don't hate Temple Grandin. I think she is very misguided, I strenuously disagree with what she's done and is doing, and I am sorry that she is using her knowledge to kill more animals more efficiently instead of helping animals to live the lives they are entitled to live and free them from exploitation. It's very sad. However, I do not hate her, of course. Hate is a very strong word. Nor do I hate people who consume animal products and/or disagree with me. That would be silly and pointless. Hate is toxic, I would never endorse it as a solution or to make myself feel better about my opinions.

 

However, I do reserve the right to speak up for the voiceless, and take it upon myself to do so on a daily basis, because this issue doesn't simply come down to choice, as you put it.. You state,

 

I have no qualms about associating with vegans, was married to one for eight years, but she did not try to convert me or our dogs, left our son to make up his own mind and did not express any disgust for others who did not agree with her ways. when it was her turn to cook, she had no problem cooking meat for us, just like i had no problem cooking veggy dishes for her to her specs.

 

Imagine for a second that you had said the following:

 

I have no qualms about associating with blacks, was married to one for eight years, but she did not try to make me believe that we were equal or anything, left our son to make up his own mind and did not express any disgust for racist people. When it was her turn to socialize, she had no problem hanging out with racists, just like i had no problem spending time with blacks for her sake.

 

Please understand, I am not using this analogy to make it appear as if vegans are a persecuted minority, that would be nonsense. I am simply trying to explain that being vegan versus non-vegan is not about choice in the same way that buying different shoes or having very different tastes in music is a choice. It is a "choice" that is incumbent on me because killing other sentient beings for our pleasure or convenience is completely unnecessary. And using violence when it is not necessary (and their lives and deaths are violent) is unethical. We do not need to eat animal flesh or their secretions to live happy, healthy lives. The evidence that a plant-based diet is healthier than one based on animal products is growing all the time; the devastation of animal agriculture on the planet is universally acknowledged as an environmental catastrophe; and most importantly, non-human animals feel pain and suffering just as we do, and have an interest in continuing to live as much as we do. They are entitled to live free of exploitation, just as we are, instead of being treated like nothing more than our slaves. Instead we enslave them on a massive scale and it doesn't matter how quick their deaths are (and they are not always quick by any means), they are living miserable lives (yes, even on "happy meat" farms) as our slaves. It is the same principle that causes us to enslave or discriminate against others (black people, other minorities, women, disabled people, gay people) because they are "different". Different shouldn't mean inferior.

 

For me, eating animal products is as offensive as racism, homophobia and sexism. I never allow guests to bring animal products into my house in the same way that I would not allow a gay-hater, a racist or a misogynist to come into my house... not because I am "intolerant" of others, but because I am intolerant of violence and discrimination in all its forms.

 

You say you are not "anti" anything. Neither am I, and you are wrong if you think of veganism as being "anti". If being vegan means anything at all, it means to be FOR life, FOR compassion, FOR non-violence. It is a very joyful thing to be able to provide sustenance for oneself every day in the knowledge that no living being has suffered at your expense.

 

jetcitywoman - I appreciate what you are trying to say . But here's the thing... the whole system of animal exploitation is ITSELF very violent. It is the violent taking of lives on a daily basis, at the rate of 10 billion a year in this country alone (and that only includes land animals). How can we be surprised that it breeds sadism in the industry? There is a reason that the turnover in the industry is what it is. You cannot work in a place of death, panic, and suffering day in, day out without suffering psychological scarring or desensitization to violence.

 

As Gary L. Francione put it, All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. Never believe that such a place can ever be described as “humane”. I highly recommend reading this article and watching the video (there are no beatings or scenes of slaughter in it) and ask yourself if I am wrong.

 

Greyt_dog_lover - the bible also praises incest, rape, slavery and murder. Consequently, and in light of the fact that I abhor violence, I could never adopt it as a moral compass or guide for ethical living.

Edited May 13, 2010 by MerlinsMum

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Merlin,

You speak very eloquently. I do see your side, and you have stated it very well. I only have one question:

 

"For me, eating animal products is as offensive as racism, homophobia and sexism. I never allow guests to bring animal products into my house in the same way that I would not allow a gay-hater, a racist or a misogynist to come into my house... not because I am "intolerant" of others, but because I am intolerant of violence and discrimination in all its forms."

 

How are you typing this? If you do fully follow this above quote, then you would not have a computer, you do know that there are animal byproducts in plastic, right?

 

Chad

[jetcitywoman]

The thing I don't understand fully about Merlinsmum's position is how it would work. Humans would never kill anything no matter what? While nature is actually quite brutal, animals eat each other and predators don't care about causing their prey pain or fear. So if a coyote gets hold of a calf and rips holes in it but the calf somehow gets away to suffer and die slowly, if the farmer finds it he can't euthanize it? (This was an anecdote that Temple mentioned in the book: a farmer discovered that one of his calves got the hide ripped off his side by a coyote, and he had to shoot it.) Or it's okay to kill an animal that you find is suffering, just not to kill it for the purpose of eating it?

 

There is also the idea right now that some animals aren't able to understand that they're about to die. We know now that apes, elephants, dolphins, and the higher monkeys like chimpanzees understand death, mourn and even feel a sense of mortality. But cattle don't seem to have a sense of mortality, so as long as you don't scare/startle them as they walk into the slaughter chute they never "see it coming". This is what animal scientists think now, but I hope they're right. The more we learn about animals, the more we discover how wrong we USED to be about them.

[MerlinsMum]

Chad, what are you referring to specifically? Could you elaborate? Thanks.

 

Of course, our society has become so utterly dependent on animal products that they are found in a multitude of products. In the 14 years I've been a vegan, I have not met a fellow vegan who bought no plastic at all - but I would not be surprised to discover that certain plastics were made with sealants of animal origin. I avoid plastic as much as possible anyway on a daily basis, for other reasons, I made a conscious decision to shop at thrift stores for most of the items I purchase so anytime I can, I buy used. I also accept that I need to use a car to get to work every day, as it's too far for me to cycle or walk there - and car tires are made with fatty acids of animal origin. Again, I do hope to be car-free one day in the not -too-distant future, and not just for that reason but for environmental and sound pollution reasons.

 

I think it is virtually impossible these days to live 100% ethically -- especially in our age of technology, given that computers are such an environmental no-no, and especially in the West since so many of the products we buy are cheaply produced in sweatshops -- but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to do my very best to be consistent, to make choices over which I DO have control and not make excuses ("it's inconvenient, it's too hard", etc) Especially since vegans don't even have to sacrifice flavor - it's incredibly easy to make the switch these days. I also recognize that I wasn't vegan once, and also that being vegan doesn't make me better person per se. I've known plenty of good people and horrible people, and some of them were vegans, some of them were non-vegans.

 

Jetcitywoman - Yes, of course, if an animal is suffering, we should help her to get better, but if she is suffering AND terminal, euthanasia is the right thing to do IMO. However, this is very different from bringing animals to life specifically for the purpose of killing them and making them into (inefficient) food. They are not things, like a painting or a chair - nor are they plant matter, which is devoid of a nervous system. They are living, sentient creatures with a (often highly evolved) nervous system, who can suffer, feel pain, feel fear, care about their offspring, and have an interest in continuing to live. As for cattle not having a sense of impending death, I am stumped that you might watch that video and say that, to be honest... Can you not see the panic in her demeanor, the desperate desire to escape, the desire to not come to harm? And if that made us somehow unsure -although, again, I don't see how - isn't it the ethical thing to do to err on the side of the prevention of suffering? Especially since the infliction of pain and death on these cows is completely unnecessary.

 

Besides, I don't really see why the cow's exact thought process is so important. Surely sentience is the ONLY relevant factor here. To make a distinction purely on the basis of species difference is absurd. Intelligence is not a valid basis for treating others with respect. A mentally retarded human, or say a child with a particular form of amnesia, may not have a sense of the future, or the mental ability to plan her life. Does that make her ethically less entitled to continue to live? Should we accord greater ethical consideration to her than we would to a brilliant mathematician? Of course not. We respect that they are both feeling, perceptually aware living beings with a nervous system, and thus the ability to suffer -living beings who deserve better than to be treated as a mere resource belonging to someone else.

[Guest Jubilee251]

I would push a baby over a bridge for some Danish bacon. Yummmmm.

[Guest GreyFan09]

I would push a baby over a bridge for some Danish bacon. Yummmmm.

 

 

[Guest jamesjr934]

MerlinsMum,

 

You do realize the plant material you eat is produced with animal byproducts, from fertilizers to pesticides (including so called "organic" products) ext.? If you eat, which you do, you contribute to the raising and death of animals one way or another. Part of the natural world is life and death and it's not always pretty, in fact in most cases it's far from. I commend you for doing your best to reduce the pain and suffering of animals, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're making a significant difference, by what you eat or don't eat. Now when it comes to rescuing animals such as your greyhounds, that's where you make a real impact.

[jetcitywoman]

I think we all do what we each feel is best to reduce pain and suffering of the world's animals. It IS hard to stop it completely because the world is just a brutal place. But we can definitely do what we can, whether it's being an ethical Vegan like Merlinsmum, or trying to stop blatant sadism in our food chain like Temple Grandin.

[MerlinsMum]

MerlinsMum,

 

You do realize the plant material you eat is produced with animal byproducts, from fertilizers to pesticides (including so called "organic" products) ext.? If you eat, which you do, you contribute to the raising and death of animals one way or another. Part of the natural world is life and death and it's not always pretty, in fact in most cases it's far from. I commend you for doing your best to reduce the pain and suffering of animals, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're making a significant difference, by what you eat or don't eat. Now when it comes to rescuing animals such as your greyhounds, that's where you make a real impact.

 

My point is that veganism is not the most we can do to respect other sentient beings. It is the very LEAST we can do.

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Merlin,

Do you feed your hounds a vegetarian diet, a meat diet, or a mix?

[MerlinsMum]

I have tried to introduce them to a vegan diet, although the current brand is not working very well for Merlin (who has a very sensitive stomach - it took us two years to find a food that produced good poops) so I have mostly taken him off it (he just gets half a cup of it per meal). Sagan is doing quite well on it, he is still getting a mix for now but if all goes well he should be on an exclusively vegan diet by the end of next week.

 

I'll try a different brand for Merlin. I will keep trying, but if nothing works, he will go back to eating only the low-quality meat-based kibble he's been on for the last year or so (Pro Plan Sensitive Stomach), since it's the only one that's worked for him so far. I have to balance the need to live consistently and respect all sentient beings with the knowledge that I am my dogs' guardian and as such I have a responsibility to do what's in their best interest as well.

 

Many dogs thrive on a vegan diet. They are not obligate carnivores like cats. It's a bit harder for some greyhounds, though, because they are prone to gastric distress. So if it doesn't work out, at least I will have tried my best.

Edited May 14, 2010 by MerlinsMum