BookTalk.org

If I recall correctly, one of Temple Grandin's books -- "Animals Make Us Human" -- was up for consideration a while back. HBO is producing a movie about her and should be out this month. As a vegetarian who doesn't eat dairy or eggs, I'm partially in agreement with Grandin on some key points about animal welfare. I find some of her insights into animal needs fascinating. Most of the reviews of her books are very positive and I am interested in reading them; however, there's a few things I don't think she's been adequately challenged on. Her assertion that her autism has given her a special understanding of animal psychology, which may be true but it seems to be accepted so readily. Why? Because she says so? I'm certainly no expert on autism, but I think her autism clouds other people's critical thinking on her "activism." She's done consulting for Wendy's and McDonalds and praised them for putting pressure on their suppliers for more humane conditions. Forgive me if I raise an eyebrow at someone getting a paycheck from the meat, dairy and egg industry telling me everything's fine and I don't have to feel bad about eating a Big Mac. In regards to her own meat consumption, I took this from a New York Times review:

Ms. Grandin has designed humane and stress-free slaughter systems that are used now to process about half of all the cattle in the United States and Canada. There is some cognitive dissonance here. She is often asked, she tells us, “How can you care about animals when you design slaughter plants?”

Her reply is that “some people think death is the most terrible thing that can happen to an animal.” She argues that “the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life.”

Yeah.... so? That argument could almost be used to say we shouldn't care about animal welfare because it would be cruel to prematurely end the life of a happy cow. Better the sick and miserable one be dispatched and eaten, but no one wants to think about eating sick and miserable animals. Temple Grandin, though I think she has made some improvements to animal welfare, is the feel-good face of an industry that will always see animals as time and money. She serves to smooth over unpleasant realities and make the public feel like they aren't participating in those realities.

Have read Grandin's books. Reading her is like passing by a car accident where you turn your head to look but don't want to see anything.
Her chosen career is odd, getting down and kneeling in a slaughter house shute to see what scares cow, ugh.
Hope the HBO production comes with a warning for sensitive viewers. As for me, I,ve become vegetarian after reading her works.

Which is why I don't understand her justification for eating meat. I would agree that long term suffering is worse than a quick, euthanized death, but even standard factory farm practice no matter how humane we want to make it, is essentially cruel. If you care for something, believe it has feelings, and deserves rights, why would you kill it? I would have more respect for her if she were honest and said she just doesn't care enough to give up her steak.

Oh, wow! I do not get HBO, so will not be able to watch. I really enjoyed Grandin's book and found many of her ideas very interesting.

Trish wrote: If you care for something, believe it has feelings, and deserves rights, why would you kill it? I would have more respect for her if she were honest and said she just doesn't care enough to give up her steak.

Don't forget, she is autistic. One of the characteristics is difficulty with empathy.

Lets try to be just a little realistic. Steak, McDonalds, Wendy's and the millions of human meat eaters are not going away. People eat chickens and pigs and cows. These animals are killled by the thousands to be consumed, this is not going to change. Temple Grandin strives for the comfort of these animals, strives to prevent fear in animals that yes, will be slaughtered.

Saffron wrote:Don't forget, she is autistic. One of the characteristics is difficulty with empathy.

I have to say, I'm a bit suprised by this statement. Humans with terminal illnesses are treated with comfort, why should animals be treated in a lesser manner? Temple Grandin does have empathy, she tries to protect animals from deplorable conditions. She wants the basic instincts and needs of animals to be respected and she strives for the best quality of life possible before these animals are killed. These animals are alive before they are dead. It's a very polyanna view to say, "she needs to put down her steak knife" and have empathy. Wake up and face reality, vegetarians are a minority in this country. These animals that are condemned to death need an advacate, and Temple Grandin has the empathy needed to tackle the job.

Suzanne wrote:

Saffron wrote:Don't forget, she is autistic. One of the characteristics is difficulty with empathy.

I have to say, I'm a bit suprised by this statement.

Ooops, my comment was meant tongue in cheek.

Suppose there was a Temple Grandin book put in every McDonalds and Wendys---kind of like the bible in every hotel room. Am being sarcastic.
Have worked with Asperger children (not adults) and degree of empathy seems to have a correlation with how high functioning they are. Obviously she's focused, but it just turns me off.

Suzanne wrote:Lets try to be just a little realistic. Steak, McDonalds, Wendy's and the millions of human meat eaters are not going away. People eat chickens and pigs and cows. These animals are killled by the thousands to be consumed, this is not going to change.

It's a far larger number than that, actually, slaughtered every year in the USA alone. Realism. I don't believe that factory farming is a sustainable system. So, trying to be realistic, I will contend that steak, McDonalds, meat eaters etc, as we know them, will actually be going away. It's too wasteful of resources, too environmentally destructive, and too conducive to the promotion and spreading of diseases - among plant crops as well as animal ones - for me to see that realism should be summoned to its side.

On the more narrow issue of whether it's better for the animals to be less rather than more terrified at the time of their slaughter - yes, of course it is. This does not at all address the conditions prior to the time of slaughter. I am not sure of Gradin's scope.

Thanks Kevin. I haven't been able to log on in a few days, but I agree with what you said completely. I believe the estimates are 10 billion animals are used for human consumption per year for roughly 350 million people in the U.S. This is not a sustainable rate as it takes about 10 pounds of grain to raise 1 pound of beef. With the rise of the middle class in China and India, I have read it would take 3.5 planet Earths to sustain the rate if they ate animal products as we do. We're paying for these insatiable desires with global warming,famine, pollution, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, etc. I know it's not likely the world will all become vegans, but meat, meat, meat in every meal with cheese, butter, and milk is soooooooo not necessary and horrible for your health. I am a vegan, but being realistic I lean towards the Michael Pollan mantra "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."