MODULE X: ANIMAL ETHICS AND TECHNOLOGY

 11.23 Shriver's Proposal

Part of Shriver's argument:

1. If we're going to keep eating meat, and if we're going to keep raising animals in ways that are bad for them, then we should modify them so they suffer less.
2. We are going to keep eating meat, and we are going to keep raising animals in ways that are bad for them.  THEREFORE,
3. We should modify them so they suffer less.

Modifications that might make make animals suffer less

1. Use GE to create hornless cattle (so they don't have to be painfully dehorned)
• would it be better to use traditional breeding?
2. Use GE to create tailless pigs (so they don't have to be painfully docked)
• would it be better to use traditional breeding?
3. Sperm sorting to create 90% female dairy herds (fewer male calves that become beef or veal)
4. Shriver: knock out the gene for the ACC, so they still feel pain but don't care about it (don't suffer)
• good for animals in very limited environments (they may be impaired in more complex environments)
• examples: dairy cows, veal calves, pigs
• Modified dairy cows might suffer less (1) from mastitis, (2) when separated from calves

Why Shriver's proposal seems especially disturbing

1. Mind modification, not body modification
2. Genetic engineering involved

Objections Shriver discusses (how does he respond?)

1. Temple Grandin says the modified animals would have more bruises, which makes worse meat
2. Modifications are not needed because we're moving toward veganism
3. People won't consume GMOs 
• Note: since he wrote this, GMO salmon has been approved by FDA)
4. GMOs are risky
• here could be environmental problems
• people might use the technology for modifications that are bad for animals (one student gave the example of rapid weight gain)
• "negative affect knockouts could encourage people to be more careless or cruel in their interactions with the animals" (p. 122)
5. This won't make eating meat any more defensible because the problem with it is the violation of animal rights.  Analogy: you know that death row is full of wrongfully convicted prisoners, and you're working on making executions less painful.  
6. Not natural

Objection made by NYT letter-writers after Shriver published an op-ed in the NYT making the same argument

1. Don't change the animals...
2. Change the conditions...
3. Change us...use GE to create humans who don't like meat....how about a pill that makes you prefer tofurkey to turkey?  (Note: there are better alternatives to turkey!)