Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Milk is actually made by cows for their calves, when they fall pregnant to one. Humans are exploiting the milk intended for the calves, by definition. And as a result, we forcefully impregnate those cows, too.
it's not made by cows for anything. they dont have any volition in the process.
Biologically they produce it for their calves, the intended recipient. Just like a human woman produces milk for their babies. All mammals do the same thing. The only difference is humans take the milk from cows when their calves need it, not just for nutrition but for the nurturing as they naturally gravitate to their mother's udders. Calves are separated from their mothers by humans to stop them doing that and steal the milk from another species. There's nothing normal or acceptable about it
any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey, and there are species of bird and reptile who will consume the milk of mammals. it's absolutely normal and acceptable.
No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.
Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.
what predators avoid mammaries?
A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they're eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It's a very rare practice ("milking" another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow's milk made for calves. My point being it wasn't previously normal for humans either. It's an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.
you're splitting hairs.
It's really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You're trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That's a false equivalency.
this is a bandwagon fallacy.
i think it's absolutely no different ethically, but what differences exist make our practices more humane: we don't murder a cow every time we drink milk.
I disagree this is cruel.
That's pretty messed up. Of course it's cruel. Only a person who lacks empathy for animals would say that causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily isn't cruel.
there is some question about whether it's justified, sure, but it's not inherently cruel. the suffering isn't the point of the practice, it's incidental.
the cows don't intend to make milk, and they certainly don't intend a recipient.
And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.
after becoming pregnant. there is no volition so cows don't make it for anything any more than they may saliva or urine for something.
A pregnancy which we force upon them, sexually violating them, yes. But that doesn't mean they don't care for their children. They want to nurture and protect them, and naturally develop a maternal bond. Biologically the milk is made for their calves to drink, and allowing them to, not stealing them away and killing them, is in the best interests of both parties involved (the cow and the calf).
because they become pregnant. not for any purpose.
for some definitions of need. but almost all calves manage to survive until their planned slaughter date, so the application of "need" here seems unwise.
I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.
you can't be certain about this: all of the research has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support the understanding of personal mortality in non-human animals. they don't want to be alive any more than they want to die, since they don't understand the choice.
They don't wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there's no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they're about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.
Even ignoring this, it's obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.
where is your peer reviewed article?
then it should be a simple matter to find an animal cognitive behaviorist to support this position. it's not, though, because behavior does not entail cognition.
Are you now trying to claim that animals don't have cognition despite the fact they're sentient and intelligent beings?
i'm saying they are not cognizant of their personal mortality. if you can get me a cognitive-behavior paper that undercuts this, i'd love to read it.