Sham Yemul

Managing Director, Intellisoft Computer Consultants Pvt Ltd

This conversation is closed.

Drinking Cow/Buffalo or any animal's Milk is Ethical ?

I feel, we are doing UN-justice to animals getting milk from their for day-today food needs. Right from schools and child-hood, we have been taught to drink milk of animals, specially in India we have cow & buffalo milk.
When I realized that its meant for animals(their new born babies) and not for human beings, we are really doing un-justice. Should not we find an alternative for milk ? should not we teach children that its not ethical to grab milk of new born babies for human beings.
We modern science, and techniques, adding the automation, it has really became a life like living machine for animals

should not be there a right to the animals to refuse giving their milk for human beings for their day-today consumption ?

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: Maybe it's just me LaMar but from reading these comments I get the impression we are not talking to county boys and girls. :)
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/farm-to-fridge.aspx

      Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

      Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

      Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

      http://ageofequilibrium.tumblr.com/post/53818500851/why-vegan-a-comprehensive-rundown
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: A) Vegan means NO animal products, but yeah I realize that some things I do not have consumer control over -- the point is to vote with our dollars as much as possible to do unto others as we would have them do to us were we the powerless ones. The only acceptable parameter is that which is necessary for survival (soo... very few people can claim that).

          B) Plants do not have central nervous systems nor brains, plants do not have the fundamentally identical neurological structures that you share with other vertebrates (and even invertebrates with brains, albeit on a much more rudimentary scale -- but even flies have dopamine for the experience of pleasure, and wasps respond with a fight impulse if you threaten them).

          C) What "crap"? You mean all this "information" that you would rather keep out-of-sight and out-of-mind, pretending you are not financially enabling it? You can never again use the excuse that you did not know. Feels great to be pulled out of your comfort zone and learn something new, doesn't it!! Now that we know better, we can do better :)
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: If you responded to the informational answer I posted with guilt, that is because you understand that it is wrong to use and abuse others merely because they are powerless to you, but you are struggling with habits that have been trained into you. Veganism is the healthiest option, the most eco-friendly option, and the most ethical option. Win-win-win. Those are the benefits! :)
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: Mhm. So if I were a child who had been a vegan for only a week, that would make livestock not responsible for more GHGs than transportation, would make animal products necessary for our health, and would make it perfectly reasonable for YOU to not do unto others as you would have those more powerful than you do to you? Kewl.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: It's not a problem for the cows or Buffaloes. Once their calf is weaned, you just keep milking them to keep it flowing.

    The calves are not deprived of food. I take it you don't get out to the farm much. :)
    • thumb
      Jun 19 2013: "The calves are not deprived of food." , sorry, should we trust all those farmers, dairy owners following this practice ?

      though, its keep milking after the calf is weaned, should we still take milk from animals, are we not using it like a machine ?
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2013: You can trust me. As a teenage I worked in a dairy and Milked cows. :)

        I understand your question about a treating a cow like a milk manufacturing machine. It's already done. Should we continue to do this? I guess that is the question. I don't drink milk. I do eat yogurt. But I am looking into yogurts made from other products like soy milk. The key, of course, to yogurt is the bacteria and the protein products they make out of the milk.

        I see your real question and yes it does make me think.

        In the future when we have mastered the full relm of genetics, we will be able to make any product we can imagine, food, ets. Until them, we need to use the animals because they can do it for us. I don't think we are hurting them.... well maybe the chickens might complain a bit. Pigs too, along with beef cattle.
        • thumb
          Jun 19 2013: right, very much as you said, "I understand your question about a treating a cow like a milk manufacturing machine. It's already done. Should we continue to do this?"

          let us hope genetics science & technology will relieve animals.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Each culture defines what they accept as ethical. Whatever these people find acceptable is acceptable. I know people that only eat vegetables. OK,. This is not an ethical question, it is a question of preference or choice.
    Now, I find it unethical to substitute manufactured food for real food, which is quite common today. That's me.

    If we discuss healthful eating, I have opinion on that matter. Man is an omnivore. He is biologically created to use a variety of foodstuffs. If man restricts his consumption, he could develop negative biological consequences.
    However, man has been able to adapt his nutritional needs based on his environment. Peoples of the far north have survived on a diet of little vegetables and much fatty animal protein. Are they unethical? People of southwest Asia won't eat cloven hoofed animals. I have no ethical question about this, my only question would be... how can one not love bacon?
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Humans evolved to be able to consume animal products when necessary for survival, but that does not make them healthy -- recent literature has started to bring to light the fact that the healthiest option for a human in an entirely plant-based diet (Kaiser now recommends this, and see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any culturally imposed notions that veganism is anything but the healthiest option!).

      As for ethics, if we want those who have power over us to treat us as they would like to be treated in our less powerful position, than we must treat all those fully sentient beings powerless to us as we would have them treat us were we the powerless ones. Which means no blood-and-pus-sucking nipple-clamping machines, no permanent pregnancy, no stealing children away to be hacked up for veal in the first week of their life so that another animal may drink the milk produced for the baby.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: I am not so sure of the vegan life. At the senior center, vegans are pretty much withered old ladies and the rounder jolly ones keep complaining that we don't get enough steak. But, what do I know?
  • thumb

    aj trip

    • +3
    Jun 16 2013: As long as we eat cows, drinking their milk is not too hard to accept. If you think about it, a milk cow is actually taken better care of then a cow raised just for meat. It's certainly weird to be drinking the milk of another animal, but given the population of the world I can see why it's a popular drink. It's cheap, plentiful, and nutritious. I think in the age of bio-engineering, we will see mass outbreaks of cancer, and other diseases due to milk being "engineered".
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: Coconut and almond milks are my favourite substitutes. Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

    Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

    Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

    http://ageofequilibrium.tumblr.com/post/53818500851/why-vegan-a-comprehensive-rundown
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Your points are valid...but...
      I was taught that humans are omnivores, and are biologically designed to consume all sorts of edibles. Further,
      we have a choice in food selections or at least many of us do.
      My concerns of people who decide to limit their diets to one type of food. A nice lady in our neighborhood comes to all the block parties but she is vegan and we all respect that. She is not like the other ladies, who are not vegans, they seem more joyful, more living life. This lady is very thin, looks drawn, quiet and surprisingly so is her husband. He also is a vegan, but I think only when with her. We have gone to ' Boy's nite out" and he's had a burger with the rest of us. But, he is kind of said. I might mention this is a senior's community.
      I am not sure that any of this is relevant to vegan diets, it just that I have never met a warm, jolly vegan.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Re: "Coconut and almond milks are my favourite substitutes."

      I like them too. Do you think, everyone needs to like what we like?
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: According to some estimates, two-thirds of the world's adult population cannot digest lactose; other estimates place that portion at closer to three-fourths.

    But why do some people continue to drink milk into adulthood?

    http://www.livescience.com/37649-why-people-drink-milk-benefits.html
  • Jun 18 2013: No! It's so gross when you think about it.
    Humans claim to be the most superior species but we're the only species that drinks the milk of another animal and we drink milk past infancy...
    i dont see cows and goats knocking each other over to milk us
    EWWW
    • thumb
      Jun 19 2013: It's had to milk when you have hooves.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 19 2013: You are taking this from the sublime to the ridicules. Is that ethical?
          I am still feeling bad or is it unethical about drinking milk. I just use a little in my morning coffee.
          Then there is the ice cream with whipped cream, and banana cream pie,...
          I am just one rotten human being
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 19 2013: Accepted...could I take my tongue from my cheek now?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 19 2013: Did I make this connection? It was not intended. Sometimes when I respond to relies from my email, I forget where I am.... Being my age forgetting where I am is a common occurrence
          I lived in Arabia. Women don't drive usually there. I don't blame them. I didn't drive there either.
          I had a driver. Traffic is absolutely deranged. Think demolition derby. They had all the signs and lights for traffic safety, but as it was explained to me, those stop signs are for the other people. It seems that all drivers held that thought. I understand the king did not allow women to drive there. Good safety choice. It protected future generation of children
          So, if Ms. al-Sharif dared drive in Arabia,.... she's a better man then me.
          .
  • Jun 16 2013: Well, if that's your major problem with the dairy industry, I don't think you have much to worry about, at least in countries where there is a large production. In large production countries, the cows have been bred to produce a lot more milk than the calf needs. Now taking the calf away at an early age may be seen as cruel, but it is actually fed its mothers milk while it's too small to eat other foods, so taking the milk away from the calf and putting it in the mouth of humans isn't exactly how it happens, at least not in areas where large amounts of milk is produced.

    Then you have tribal societies, and other small farms and villages, they don't usually have the 'heavy milk production' cows, and do take milk from the calves, however the amount they are taking compared to industrial scale production isn't usually large enough to have a negative effect on the calves. If they do take too much, they will probably slaughter the cow as well, as it is likely that they have a food source problem, rather than it being the normal status quo between them and their animals. They depend too much on the calves to risk taking too much milk.
  • thumb
    Jul 10 2013: Look it comes down to this: The milk from another mammal's mammary glands was not meant for us (unless you think the image of an adult human sucking on a cow's udder is "natural" (we can't even digest human milk after infancy, much less imagine doing so as adults)); and for us to have it, we have to steal the baby calves from their mother (who was made to be pregnant her entire very short life before becoming a hamburger) so we can drink her milk instead. There is NOTHING ethical about separating an infant from their mother. And not only is it not meant for us, and as such do we not need it, but it is also terribly unhealthy for us (food pyramids that say otherwise were bought by the dairy industry). It is wrong.

    Health:
    http://veganbodybuilding.com/
    http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html
    http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/community/gr8_health/top-5-reasons-to-eat-a-plant-based-diet
    http://pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/vegetarian-diets-for-children-right-from-the-start
    http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/pplate/power-plate
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/25/e197.full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAkEYcmCCCk

    Environment:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
    http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
    http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/index.htm

    Ethics:
    http://www.mercyforanimals.org/farm-to-fridge.aspx
    http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
    https://www.voiceless.org.au/the-issues/animal-sentience
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending
    http://io9.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: I understand i should be feel more guilty or unethical enjoying my milk products, but i am weak and put my carnal pleasures above my ethical responsibilities.. My apologies to all who find my weaknesses pathetic..
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2013: Hi Mike, thanks for expressing the real & true feelings of yours. it needs courage to express so, I appreciate.
  • Jun 23 2013: It's not only ethical, it's delicious. Making cheese and other derivatives. Even better! If we drink a cup of wine with that cheese, it's sublime.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

      Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

      Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

      http://ageofequilibrium.tumblr.com/post/53818500851/why-vegan-a-comprehensive-rundown
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Hi Sham, Kelly, Entrpion., Theodore and every body pl. respond to my question

        It is very interesting to note the views
        varying from strict Vegans at one end
        to people who would not like to give it a damn and will eat what they like.

        It appears except humans no other living creature think before it kills. They eat what they like.

        Please answer my questions....
        So as human wether we should think before we kill or not?
        Are Vegans right and others in the wrong?
        Is there a middle path?
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: As humans we should think before we hurt others as we would hope they would NOT hurt us were we the powerless ones. That's the answer to all three questions.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Kelly is there any middle path?
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: I find this question highly amusing =)
  • Jun 17 2013: Yes, it is ethical indeed.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Coconut and almond milks are my favourite substitutes. Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood along with her milk, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

      Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

      Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

      http://ageofequilibrium.tumblr.com/post/53818500851/why-vegan-a-comprehensive-rundown
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Is domestication harmless for the animals?

    Some people believed by keeping slaves they are actually helping the poor and under privileged.
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: Now I am confused. You are linking the ethical consumption of cow's milk with the much larger question of domestication of animals? Why stop there, Man has domesticated plants, fish and other creations in our environment..
      I read that at the end of the last ice age, there were about 30,000 humans left on earth. It took about 20,000 years before man learned to domesticate animals and some plants. It happened in the valley of the rivers in Iraq,. the golden triangle.
      An area that has been described as the garden of Eden. Which may be true. It was the beginning of human civilization. If this hadn't happened, could you select another time in our history where our civilization could have begun? Are you saying our human civilization is unethical?
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: Hi Mike

        Allow me to confuse you further,

        Can you define what is ethical and what is not-ethical?

        Read Jainism, a sect in India. you will be surprised to note their eating habits. Its Unique, at extreme end of the spectrum. Some of them even cover their mouths so that they may not swallow any living thing accidentally.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Killing for survival is difficult to argue with, but now, with agriculture, we have ZERO REASON to brutalize and slaughter entirely innocent fully sentient other animals.
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: True, and hunting is way down across the country.

          Also, agriculture includes the raising of cattle, hogs, sheep, lots of goats in my part of the country, All destined for the table
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Sham, Are you willing to reframe your question? Should not we ask?

    Is it ethical to domesticate any animal ?
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: sure, I will say thats a major domain and what I asked is a subset !
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: Well, I care more about human beings than I do about cows, so if the human beings are enjoying the milk, I am okay with it.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Perhaps choosing to do no sentient beings harm, regardless of their species designation, would better position us to lead our society out of the discriminations we insist upon within our own species category.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Well, it could cut both ways, Kelly. To me, milk tastes better than plants, and when I'm well-fed with food I enjoy, I probably treat my fellow human beings better. So for me it might be better to drink milk.

        Also, my impression is that plants are somewhat sentient. Haven't they done experiments where, if you hold fire close to a plant, the plant feels something like fear?

        I look forward to your response, no doubt I'll learn something from you.
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: False. It's a taste habit that leaves your tongue in a month. The instant gratification of transient hedonistic pleasure seeking does not contribute to overall human happiness nor to fulfillment. Additionally, since you have yet to explore a wide variety of plant-based foods, you do not know what you will like or dislike. And if we are not doing unto others as we would have those more powerful than us do to us, than we give those to whom we are powerless the right to harm us. If you can find the study you mention, I would be very interested to look it up! But even so, they still do not have the fundamentally identical neurological structures that you share with other vertebrates for the experiences of pain, pleasure, fear, and desire. If you are screaming and crying, it is because you want the pain to stop, you are calling for help -- same with the cows. Additionally, one must eat plants to survive, but one does not have to brutalize and slaughter other likewise (recognizably) sentient beings to survive (beings who also have metabolisms and so consume, for cows, 7-13lbs of grain per pound of meat). You wouldn't force an innocent human or to your dog or your friend's dog to be permanently pregnant and hooked up to a machine that mutilates her, sucking out pus and blood with her milk and stealing away her children so that you could drink her milk instead (which was never meant for you -- think about sucking on a cow's utter for a second) while her babies are made to suffer the same fate or are shoved into immobilizing crates to be hacked up for their soft baby flesh, so why an innocent other fully sentient animal with whom you can empathize as well as you can with another human?
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Well, Kelly, as far as studies on plants go, I haven't looked into them thoroughly. I would think you could google "sentience of plants" or something similar and find much info on what I'm referring to. I did read the wikipedia article on "The Secret Life of Plants," which I believe was a film on this subject (with a soundtrack by Stevie Wonder), and it certainly seemed to maintain that plants are quite sentient.

        As far as milk goes, well, I've written about this before on TED, for the last five years I've been literally living on milk, every day I drink about two gallons of organic skim milk, and I don't eat or drink anything else, 365 days/year. I do it for my health, when I eat solid food, including vegetables, I don't feel as good, I find that the milk is easier for my body to process as it is food already in liquid form. Since I don't think my body is very different from other people's, I believe milk is better for other people as well, for the same reason, that it is very easy to process, but perhaps they aren't as sensitive to the different way that milk makes them feel versus solid food. So that might be a great argument for milk, that you feel better on it, which makes sense, as it is the first food nature provides.

        Beyond that I don't have much of an answer for you. I could say that there are many more cows in the world because we drink milk, in other words many cows get to live life who never would have been born if we didn't farm them. Also, one wonders if cows get any satisfaction out of knowing that some creature is drinking their milk and enjoying it, even if it isn't their own baby.
        These aren't super-powerful arguments.

        I go for organic milk because the cows are raised more humanely than on the factory farms that produce the "conventional" milk.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: "Organic" just means "not pumped with antibiotics or hormones." They are still in small cages; still feed grains that are incompatible with their systems; still raped with metal rods for insemination; still permanently pregnant their very short lives until their utters are exhausted at which time they become hamburgers; still get hooked to mutilating, painful machines; still have their infants stolen from them to suffer the same fate or be shoved into immobilizing crates to be sold for their baby flesh. And no, a COW's milk is NOT the first food nature provides for a human. Would you suck directly on her udder all day (after doing all the things listed above to her yourself, experiencing her writing and screaming yourself)? What you should really be doing is breastfeeding from human females (we could make a farm for these human females, stuffing them into small cages; feeding then wheat all day; raping them with metal rods for insemination in order to force them to be permanently pregnant their very short lives until their breasts are exhausted at which time they could become dog food; hooking to mutilating, painful machines; and stealing their infants from them to suffer the same fate or be shoved into immobilizing crates to be sold for their baby flesh).
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: Additionally, even if you do insist on unproven plant sentience just in case (as frugivores do -- they just eat what is made to fall off the plant) then should the aim not be to do the minimum damage possible for one's own survival? (When you consume one pound of beef, you kill the cow and 7-13lbs of grain).
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: Aaaaaaand we seem to have also forgotten the ecological costs (livestock are responsible for more GHG emissions than transportation, in addition to water and soil pollution, and the use of a full third of our arable land, and incredible water consumption (100x as much water per pound of cow carcass as per pound of wheat) when there are droughts and 1.5 million children dying of starvation every year and the effects of anthropogenically accelerated climate change have already started damaging our world?
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: And more still! Plant-based nutrition is THE healthiest option. Even Kaiser is now pushing for its 17,000 doctors to recommend it to EVERYONE.

          http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAkEYcmCCCk
          http://veganbodybuilding.com
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Well, Kelly, organic I believe means different things in different states. In California, for a farmer to call his milk organic, his cows have to graze on actual grass growing in a pasture at least 75% of the year. I'm not going to say these cows have a great life, but it is better than the "factory farms" where they are corralled rather densely in small corrals (although a corral is not quite as bad as a cage), and fed hay that has already been cut and is dumped in front of their corrals.

        No, a cow's milk is not the same as a human mother's, but it is the closest we can get, it doesn't seem right to ask human mothers to provide milk for fellow adult human beings unrelated to them.

        Again, I hate to say it, but the only way I feel at least moderately good physically is to live on milk. If I eat solid food, I feel bad physically, I think this includes vegetable dishes. Certainly I have it in mind to be as humane as possible, I pay twice as much for organic milk knowing the cows have a better life.

        I hope we'll see more and more movement toward organic and even more radically humane ways to raise cows. What interests me the most is the Masai way of herding cows, where they take them to the plains all day and graze them on naturally growing grass. They are a tribe in Kenya, if you've never read about them, they're pretty interesting.

        I still rank people above cows. If people feel better and perform better on cow milk than plants (which I do, and believe others do although they may not be as tuned in to it), I'm going to let the cows have discomfort rather than short the people.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: "It doesn't seem right to ask human mothers to provide milk for fellow adult human beings unrelated to them" BUT MILK FROM ANOTHER SPECIES IS OKAY? (Again, NEVER meant for you in the first place! Suck on a cow's udder all day if you insist otherwise!)

          So WHY rank the homo sapiens designation "above" other species? (Just as white slave drivers in the 1800s ranked pale-skinned humans over humans with decidedly sufficiently dark pigmentation.)

          "Short the people"? See my comment about the ecological costs (the costs TO PEOPLE) of livestock.

          And see the rest of my comments above.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Well, for me, milk from another species is okay. Honestly, Kelly, I have sympathy for animals, I'm the guy who will rescue a fallen baby bird and take it to an animal rescue, but, well, I don't really know why, to some degree I think it's just because I can, but I'm okay with people dominating animals. As I say, for myself, I believe I perform better on milk than I would on a vegan diet, and I would guess that others do, too, although they may not be as aware of it. Do you think people are more intelligent than animals, because if you agree people are more intelligent, wouldn't it indicate that animals don't suffer as much from being dominated as do humans, since they can't think about their situation as much.

        I tend to think that cow's milk is actually the most cost-effective because it is so cheap. If you were to live on cow's milk, let's say of the conventional variety, you could live on two gallons a day, which would cost you six dollars, and you'd be well-fed and happy. Could you make a really satisfying vegan diet for a man for six dollars a day, when I do check vegetables in the store, they seem pretty costly. That's not even to talk about lost work-days, because I tell you, Kelly, people perform better on milk than they do on vegetables, and can do more work.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: So surely you must be okay with people dominating other homo sapiens who merely happen to be powerless to them then -- you must be "okay" with robbery, rape, and murder. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" makes NO exclusionary clause for those powerless to you, it is entirely the point, because you would want others powerful enough to hurt you to decide not to.

          If I can justify hurting others because I am more intelligent than them... then is it acceptable for me to exploit the 99.9% of the human population who scores lower than myself on an IQ test?

          Again, not cost-effective, not cheap, look at those ecological costs. Beans and rice are cheaper, financially, ecologically, and ethically. And no, no we don't perform better on a pure cow-milk diet (our bodies are not made to digest even HUMAN milk after a couple years, much less the milk of another species), unless of course you have the peer-reiewed evidence to support that claim (I showed you Kaiser's paper on plant-based nutrition). Nutrition has nothing to do with "beliefs" and you cannot possibly know that your health would not improve if you do not TRY (and the scientific literature should give you a solid predictability of how much your health would improve).
      • thumb
        Jul 5 2013: Another advantage of living on milk is that there's so little cleanup, very little washing of dishes, waste of soap and hot water, rarely any food waste or garbage or food packaging to throw away. Every day I just carry a couple of empty plastic milk jugs to the recycling barrel.

        I also think milk tastes better than vegan dishes, and I give human beings the right to eat food that tastes good.

        I also think there is a natural balance where we cannot treat cows too badly or they will die, and we don't want that. Our own selfish interest in keeping cows alive forces us to treat them at least somewhat well.
        • thumb
          Jul 5 2013: False. Even if it's "free-range" and even if your find "grassfed" dairy, the cows are repeatedly raped them with metal rods to inseminate them so that they can be permanently pregnant and hooked to mutilating machines (that suck out blood and pus along with the milk) and life out very short lives before becoming hamburgers anyways and are torn from all of their infants who suffer the same fate or are crammed into immobilizing cages to be sold for their baby flesh all so that humans can drink her milk which was absolutely not meant for us anyways (we can't even digest human milk properly after infancy -- and go suck on a cow's udder) instead. And if not "free-range", she's in an immobilizing cage her whole short life. Literally ZERO of that can be called anything other than cruel, much less "somewhat well". Taste (no use to survival, or health (and detrimental to health, as discussed earlier in several links) and ps that taste habit goes away in a month anyways) =/= justification of violence.
      • thumb
        Jul 5 2013: Well, "rape" might be a slightly strong word, it does not seem to me that a cow is as terrified by being artificially inseminated as a human woman is by being raped. Are cows really permanently pregnant, when I've talked to dairy farmers I believe they suggested the cow keeps giving milk for up to a year after giving birth, so there is no need to immediately get her pregnant again. Are the machines mutilating, as I say we have a real interest in not mutilating valuable livestock. Do the cows mind being torn from their calves, they actually are not torn away immediately, they do nurse for a while, they rarely fight being separated, I don't know how they feel. I don't know about us not being able to digest milk, as I say I've been literally living on skim milk for the last five years and I definitely feel better than when I eat solid food. As far as that goes, I think milk will always taste better to me than vegetables, I've certainly had ample opportunity to compare the two, having been alive 53 years. I don't know, Kelly, I tend to believe that plants also suffer when we harvest them, for example I don't think an orange tree particularly enjoys being denuded of all its oranges in one fell swoop. I suppose all eating involves some exploitation of another creature, I guess we are just an apex predator, I'm okay with it.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: If we could ask the cow how she feels...
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: @adesh, right it is something we should do in a fair treatment.
    • Jun 17 2013: In some places they have automated dairy farms. When the cow feels too heavy it gets into the milk sucking apparatus herself to be freed from the weight. They feel a lot better after that, and I am happy to drink the milk, have some cheese, et cetera.
  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: I do not know very well if something that does not harm the animal, like drinking their milk, can be studied from the ethical point of view or not. I suppose yes. However, many other things can happen that, in different proportions, they are more or less harmful, and about which we do not have much control.

    The parasitic insect that blood drawn to a cow and injects bacteria into her, is better or worse? When one cut flowers (who says that the plants do not feel, how we know it?) to decorate our homes, it is indifferent or is bad? And when we walk a stroll and crush to death dozens of ants or other small insects which we cannot see, perhaps we should be looking better down?

    I do not know it. There are things that happen in a certain way, and what little we can do to change them. And if we could do something, and it spread massively, the world could change, I do not know whether for better or for worse.

    All the questions are interesting, the answers are, because the ideas that underlie, the arguments that move them, teach us something all that possibly had not even thought.

    Sir, yours is a good question, anyway.
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: @Sean , thanks. your other questions of parasitic insect, is good. my problem was we did not feel wrong or unfair drinking milk, but thats probably not the case of parasite insect. they are part of food chain and they are meant to do so. We as human species, can think, try to justice, behave fair and so many... that's why I said un-ethical.
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: Yes, I totally agree with you. What I'd like to remark is that I see as very positive the contemplation of any question or issue from several point of views. That's - I think- what enriches us.
        Thanks again for your question, I consider it very interesting.
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: Sean Hi
      Are you sure that domestication of animals is harmless for them?

      Some people believed by keeping slaves they are actually helping the poor and under privileged.
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: No, Adesh, I never told that, I don't think so, it's difficult to know if it's or not. I respect deeply all the living creatures.
        Greets.
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: It is not difficult to know. http://www.mercyforanimals.org/farm-to-fridge.aspx

          Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

          Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

          Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

          http://ageofequilibrium.tumblr.com/post/53818500851/why-vegan-a-comprehensive-rundown
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2013: Since long our ethical standard has not been changed regarding this , so it's ethical so far. However you are right animal milks are for their babies and human system is not fully aligned to digest animal milk in many cases so there are lot of people who suffers from a medical condition named Milk Intolerance or to be more specific Lactose Intolerance. Technology has created alternative like soya milk .
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: Yoghurt made form cows milk is very much easily digested by the human body. It's pre-digested by bacteria.
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: You are right. Same happens to cheese and also lactose free milk is fine . In all these instances application of human science and technology is necessary but in natural form after collecting it from animal some people can't tolerate milk.

        That being said human being, being omnivorous found its food from varied natural sources of which one is milk .
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2013: There is some substance to your implications. Human try to get protein from animal flesh. The cow gets protein from grass. Interesting no?
  • thumb
    Jul 10 2013: This Mercy for Animals booklet contains some information about the dairy industry as well as the rest of the animal food industry: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/vegkit08web.pdf

    And this video likewise shows much of the industry, including a section on dairy: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/farm-to-fridge.aspx
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2013: @Kelly , the video is really touching, very very bad, cruel methods used killing animals. the painful killing of calves.
      • thumb
        Jul 12 2013: Indeed, it is very sad. Luckily we do not require such violence for our health, as we are optimally healthy on a balanced "plant-based" diet without animal products!! So we do not have to support such brutality! :)
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: It doesn't have to -- we only need plants. My point was that with crops, no one needs to die for us to live, we have enough food.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: Kelly, you seemed to refer to "do unto others" commandment below which comes from Christianity which, in turn, is based on the idea of dying for others to live. Yet, now you say "no one needs to die for us to live".

      Sacrificing others so that we can live is immoral. Sacrificing ourselves so that others can live is the acme of morality.

      Curbing our own needs is moral. Telling others what they need seems to contradict the "do unto others", "do not judge", and many other commandments. Does it not?

      These morality discussions seem to always go in circles. Unless we turn into plants, we inevitably consume living organisms for food. And even plants use products of death and decomposition of other organisms.

      I have posted this story before, but I can't help posting it here:

      "A wise Zen frog was explaining to the younger frogs the balance of nature: "Do you see how that fly eats a gnat? And now (with a bite) I eat the fly. It is all part of the great scheme of things."
      "Isn't it bad to kill in order to live?" asked the thoughtful frog.
      "It depends . . ." answered the wise frog just as a snake swallowed the Zen frog in one chomp before the frog finished his sentence.
      "Depends on what?" shouted the students.
      "Depends on whether you're looking at things from the inside or outside," came the muffled response from inside the snake."
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Telling others to stop hurting others contradicts no moral rule, only repressive Victorian "respect" (which means subservience to authority). The golden rule is about not being a hypocrite, is about not hurting others because if you would want them to not hurt you if they had the ability. Plants are not sentient, they don't kick and struggle and cry and scream when they are being beaten and slaughter, like you and a cow do. We do not live in a pre-agrarian society that involves a "circle of life", we have agriculture, we have enough plants to eat that we do not have to hurt other fully sentient beings as we would NOT have them hurt us were they the ones in our dominant position.
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: The golden rule seems to work only when others like what we like. What if they don't? Listen to Rihanna:

          "Sticks and stones
          May break my bones
          But chains and whips
          Excite me

          Na na na na
          Come on
          Come on
          Come on
          I like it"

          It may be OK for Rihanna to say that she likes whips and chains. It does not seem to be OK for her to whip another person quoting "do unto others" and claiming that the other person must enjoy it. Unfortunately, that's how people often use the golden rule.

          I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the moral reasoning. Morality is based on feelings and emotions - not on reason.

          Reason always finds the way to justify what we like:
          "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
          - David Hume

          "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion."
          - Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

          Another couple of quotes that I posted, perhaps, dozens of times on TED.

          Humane treatment of animals seems to be not about the animals. I don't think, animals have any rights. Animal rights seem to be about how we feel about OURSELVES.

          I don't think, cows have any opinion about being milked. Cows may enjoy being milked http://www.livestrong.com/article/124991-remedies-decreasing-breast-milk-/

          You see how reason can be used whichever way we like.

          It's fairly easy to know who enjoys what. It's not through science and reason as Sam Harris suggests. We have a faculty called empathy which is purely emotional.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2013: Otherwise you are just trying as hard as you can to justify hurting others when you are smart enough to know it is wrong to do so when such violence is not necessary for your survival (much less your health). Animal rights = human responsibility. Just like racial, gender, or sexuality within-the-homo-sapiens-species-designation rights. Look up "Meat Video" or "From Farm to Fridge" or "Earthlings" or just YouTube "dairy farm" and tell me that their screaming and struggling is a sign of how much they love being your slaves. Remember how in the 1800s, rich pale-skinned slave drivers insisted that people with decidedly sufficiently dark pigmentation WANTED to be subservient, even couldn't survive without being slaves to the white folk? When you say "empathy is purely emotional" (in an opposition to reason) it seems you have yet to acknowledge that we evolved empathetic capacities as NECESSARY to our formation of social bonds, which are necessary to our survival as we are social animals (like all the animals we enslave and brutalize ans slaughter for our taste habits).
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: Kelly,

          I know, it's very controversial. And that's my point. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you seem to adopt an extreme point of view. And it's extremism that I oppose - not veganism. Your point about slaves and racism was exactly my point that I tried to make quoting Rihanna's song. But don't you see yourself in your own words? You suggest that everyone else would benefit from your idea of healthy diet and would like to convince people that that's what they need and want.

          To prove your position, you appeal to emotions. Using emotionally charged imagery is a very known technique which has been used for centuries. It was used by Goebbels to portray Jews as filthy and evil people; Soviet propaganda portrayed capitalist countries as greedy war-mongers; images of beheaded people and women with burnt faces are used to portray Muslims as evil; atheists tell stories of Inquisition, witch-burning, and religiously motivated atrocities to "expose" evils of religion; jihadists depict Americans as baby-killers. I'm sorry, but when I see someone holding up bloody pictures to prove their point, it tells me that there is an agenda behind the message. These techniques are often *causing* violence and are used to justify violence rather than prevent it.

          I prefer to judge myself, not others. Not judging others is not the same as approving their actions.

          I agree with what you say and I do see how my own words can be viewed as judgmental. I just want to point out that not everyone shares your viewpoint and that does not mean that people are cruel.
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: Kelly,you almost had me until you lamented about the slave owners. A despicable situation but had some truth.
          It seems in those days when one African tribe attacked their neighbors and won, they would killed the warriors of the defeated tribe and take the women and children as slaves. The rational was dead enemies, no counterattack. It seems that some smart Arab traders figured out they could broker the sale of the defeated tribes into slavery. Out of Africa, out of mind for the victors and some really good trade goods. Of course, those sold for the most part didn't survive the trip and those that did were treated like livestock. Now some did escape, some where treated well, most were just alive.
          So, with that ancestory, you are thinking that people would be overly concerned about where or how their next steak is being prepared for them except with a touch or seasoning
        • thumb
          Jul 2 2013: Kelly, this talk shows very well how images causing fear and disgust are used for not so noble purposes

          http://www.ted.com/talks/david_pizarro_the_strange_politics_of_disgust.html

          The video is one of the reasons I am wary when someone uses them.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Oh, and Rihanna's lyrics about S&M imply CONSENT.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Dude it's really simple: If you want protection and justice against those more powerful than you should they desire to hurt you (if you would hope that someone would save you if you were being stabbed to death or if you would call the police should someone rob you), you must be merciful to those powerless to you. Otherwise for what reason should those more powerful than yourself not exploit you?
    • thumb
      Jul 3 2013: Kelly,

      I wonder, what do you do when you have rats in your house, or a wasp nest under your deck with wasps biting your kids or termites munching your house?

      I am not a great fan of the South Park cynicism, but it does a pretty good job exposing hypocrisy.

      http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e01-rainforest-shmainforest

      Milking cows is, perhaps, not the greatest of the evils in this world. If you ask me, feeding a hungry child with a steak made from a ruthlessly murdered and butchered with a bloody axe helpless cow seems perfectly moral.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: As previously stated, when necessary to survival (and even health), it is hard to argue. For you and I, the consumption of animal products is utterly unnecessary. No one needs to die for us to live. If I had rats in my house, NO FRAKKING WAY would I use arsenic or traps that would hurt them just because their paws threaten my health, because I could find a way to coax them out, probably by leading them somewhere else with a trail of breadcrumbs (or lure them to one spot with food and wait to trap them in a box and then immediately take them outside to the bushes -- basically what I do with spiders). If you want to feed starving children, stop feeding the metabolisms of your carcasses instead. YOU do not need anyone to die for YOU to live, and by continuing to consume animal products, you are redirecting food and water resources that could go to the children you mention, and you are contributing more emissions than transportation (1 cow carcass burger = 20mi + soil erosion and water pollution and ps antibiotic-resistant superbug breeding), AND you are forcing others to live out painful brief lives before they die violently when such brutalization is of ZERO necessity to your safety or even health.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: So all of your animal products are from holistically managed ranches? And even if they are, do the cows still want to be slaughtered for your utterly unnecessary taste habit?

        Easy =/= just. Racists find it easy to reduce people into one of two categories based on their skin colour and hate the one they don'r cram themselves into, that doesn't make the harm they do the other "race" acceptable.

        You are forcing others to die for you "beliefs" (for your utterly unnecessary (and ps unhealthy AND eco-destructive) HABIT). My "belief" is that I should treat those powerless to me as I would have those to whom I am powerless treat me. If I hurt others merely because I feel like it, I must concede that same justification to anyone who tries to rob, rape, or murder me.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: You have a valid point. Historically, moral laws apply to "neighbors" - family, tribe, village, etc. Even now people tend to apply different moral standards towards people they associate with than towards outsiders. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

          As we realize that we are a part of larger communities and systems, our moral beliefs extend to people of different sex, race, religion, nation, etc. But where do we stop? It appears that the natural extension of this process would be to extend moral beliefs to other species and living organisms as well.

          Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to eat a carrot? Does the carrot want to be eaten?

          Here is another Zen story:
          "One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
          "You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves." "You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"

          So, how do you know that the carrot does not mind to be eaten?
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: One more time: A carrot does not respond to pain stimulus like you and a cow do (you and a cow respond to pain stimulus identically (and entirely recognizably as such) because you are both mammals, you are both vertebrates, you both have brains, you both have the same neurological structures for and neurochemical reactions to experiences of pain and pleasure stimuli). When a cow is in pain, unless you are a psychopath, your mirror neurons fire up and your empathetic responses kick in and you know she is in pain, just as you can recognize pain in other humans. If a brainless carrot experiences some form of feeling that we have no way of empathizing with... we can't empathize with it (we have no way of knowing -- the same can ABSOLUTELY NOT be said of another mammal, nor of any other vertebrate, unless you suggest that a fish on a line is writhing and struggling because it enjoys suffocation and mutilation). We draw the line at SENTIENCE.
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: What about predators? Are they evil? Dogs can feel empathy yet, they are carnivores.

          If eating flesh is acceptable for dogs, why is it not acceptable for humans? Our closest relatives in animal world - chimps are known to hunt.

          Is it acceptable to eat eggs? Eggs don't feel pain, do they?

          What about honey?
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Again! Wild carnivores require meat to survive, while you do not, because you have agriculture. (Also, companion dogs can be vegan, it's the healthiest option for them just like it is for us (see V-Dog.com for the best kibble on the market)). Again, you evolved to consume [skinned, cooked] carcasses when necessary for your survival, but now such violence is not, now no one needs to be brutalized and killed for you to live (and it is in the interest of your health to NOT consume animal products and in the interest of ALL EARTHLINGS INCLUDING HUMANS INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR LOVED ONES for you to not consume animal products as they produce more greenhouse gases than transportation (and are RIDICULOUSLY easy to replace with healthier, more ethical, more sustainable alternatives... like vegetables.))

        Eggs come from hens crammed into ages smaller than a piece of typical printer paper, stuffed with hormones to grow so quickly they can't hold themselves up. If "free range organic", they are not pumped with hormones and antibiotics and instead of individual cages, they are crammed into one big dark feces-full cage without enough room to open their wings, and they are STILL debeaked (beaks have nerves) because the conditions are so traumatizing that they become so psychologically disturbed that they begin to peck at one another. Their brothers were sent through grinders or crushed and suffocated in trash cans immediately after hatching.

        To retrieve honey from the nest, bees are inevitably killed in the process, and the handling of farmed honeybees facilitates the spread of diseases, which even we humans cannot afford since they are already dying off at an extremely fast rate (and will take 1/3 of our food variety with them).
        • thumb
          Jul 3 2013: I would say, feeding dogs with vegan food is cruel and unusual treatment. But we are entitled to our own opinions.

          I use all-caps occasionally to emphasize a word which I might say louder in a normal speech. Using all-caps on a whole sentence feels like shouting into my ears. It doesn't have any additional meaning other than "drumming words into my head". So, if you are a fan of "do unto others", you might consider softening your tone. Words like "Again!" and "One more time:" also carry no meaning other than implying that I'm dumb not to get it from the first time. I'm just sharing my perception of what and how you say. I believe, you may have a better chance of persuading people if you take this into account. And, again, you use imagery of those poor chickens treated in a cruel way. How chickens are treated is a different question. You shift the point of discussion. I'm discussing sentience as criterion. I may have my own personal hen and treat it like family. Is it still immoral to eat an egg?

          Back to chimps. This article http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html says that meat diet has impact on survival of chimp's offspring: "William McGrew (1992) has shown that those female Gombe chimps who receive generous shares of meat after a kill have more surviving offspring, indicating a reproductive benefit tied to meat-eating."

          The article also suggests that chimps hunt not only for nutrition and survival, but for social reasons as well - hunting encourages cooperation. Can it be that weaning from a vegetarian diet towards hunting served an evolutionary purpose and, actually, set humans apart from other apes?

          Hunting, fishing, and herding also seems to make human survival possible in environments where they otherwise would not survive (deserts, steppes, far North, many islands). In many areas, people still rely on animals to survive. Are they evil?

          And if you say that for survival eating meat is OK, is cannibalism OK for survival?
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: Based on research, or preconceived societal notions? Opinion has no value here.

        You are not a chimpanzee. Also, you have agriculture. Do your own research on plant-based diets if you don't like my resources (and keep in mind that Kaiser Permanente (a major health insurance company in the States just in case that is not where you are) has advised all of its doctors to recommend plant-based diets to EVERYONE because they are the healthiest option). Evolution =/= justification (rape and murder are in your genetic programming, and even the seeds of racism, yet we do not invoke their evolutionary history to justify hurting others). Again again, survival is one thing, but this is not the case for you. Humans definitely cannibalize when they are desperate. Morality has little place in arguments of self-preservation. So one more time: No one needs to die for YOU to live. Also, again, the ecological costs, the costs to poorer homo sapiens than yourself.
        • thumb
          Jul 4 2013: Kelly,

          With all due respect, when we repeat what already has been said, it means that one of us is not listening. Unless you noticed, I am trying to respond to your arguments, but you switch to new ones instead answering my doubts.

          I'm not against vegetarian diet, and you have a chance to convince me, but not with bloody pictures and appeals to authority like Kaiser Permanente. 200 years ago doctors recommended blood letting to cure many diseases. Dietary recommendations change like fashion. The policy can be written by a vegan administrator and have 0 data behind it. Do you have a reference to original research?

          Your main argument is "no one has to die for me to live" and that it is immoral to hurt sentient beings to satisfy my habits. OK. Eggs are not sentient so, this argument does not work against eating eggs. You switched to cruel conditions in which eggs are produced. But it's a different matter - eggs can be produced in humane conditions. It seems, the "sentient" argument does not stand.

          Yes, I'm not a chimp. And I am not you. Chimps have DNA 98% common with humans. Chimps can survive on fruits. Yet, they hunt. Why? The social and evolutionary reasons I quoted come from a web article by a university researcher quoting other researches who observed chimps in the wild. You are not responding to this either.

          As for the "no one needs to die for me to live" - there are other dogmatic beliefs that can be used, e.g. "Jesus had to die for us so that we may live". These statements cannot be argued - they can only be repeated over and over, just as you do.

          I'm still interested to see references to scientific research showing that excluding meat, eggs, honey, dairy, and all other animal products from the diet has significant health benefits for a wide variety of people regardless of age, race, culture, sex, health condition, life style, etc. Otherwise, I think, we are done.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: (This comment was in response to someone who observed that being vegan means killing insects due to pesticides.)

        Except that every 1lb of beef requires 7-13lbs of grain so that means 7-13x as much insect or rodent death as just eating 1lb of grain in the first place. Also a great reason to go as organic as possible! Just by existing on this planet we due damage in our role in its complex ecosystem, the point is not to deal in absolutes of trash-the-planet or commit-suicide but to do the minimum harm necessary for us to live.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: Hi Sham, Kelly, Entrpion, Theodore and every body pl. respond to my question

    It is very interesting to note the views
    varying from strict Vegans at one end
    to people who would not like to give it a damn and will eat what they like.

    It appears except humans no other living creature think before it kills. They eat what they like.

    Please answer my questions....
    So as human wether we should think before we kill or not?
    Are Vegans right and others in the wrong?
    Is there a middle path?
    • Jul 4 2013: Isn't there a difference between killing an animal and drinking their milk?
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: Ask the cow.

        or

        Apply it to human female and come up with an answer.
  • Jun 26 2013: Yes it is ethical. This is why we domesticate animals for our use. If you are opposed so be it--don't drink milk or eat its by products. I, for one, will continue to enjoy milk, ice cream, and cheese
  • thumb
    Jun 19 2013: Humans are the only animal that consumes milk after infancy. Yet there are stigmas associated with breast feeding children.
    Why do we drink milk at all?
    • thumb
      Jun 22 2013: I can't speak for all or even many.

      I put a little milk in my morning coffee to wash down the buttery flakes of my croissant.

      What could I say about ice cream. My grandfather who was a vintner said once that he knew there was a God because there were grapes to make wine.
      I say it was the miracle inspiration of freezing milk and cream.
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2013: I personally believe in the survival of the fittest and sort of dog-eat-dog mentality between species. Let's use our resources, in this case being the milk of cows. I don't know who/what the milk is originally intended for, but I doubt farmers are watching new born calfs die so we can have some milk.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: I read that originally that milk was collected after young nursed to relieve bloated teats. Milk became yogurt and cheese and was especially prized by herding cultures. I don't think fresh milk was drunk until very recently.
      But this is about ethics. Why is it wrong to drink milk? With all the world in a turmoil, here we are discussing the ethics of drinking milk.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2013: between species designations, but not within the species? not, say, between sexes, or races?
  • Jun 17 2013: They are bread to do this. Milk cattle or also beef cattle do not exist in the wild. This is thier function - Again otherwise they would not exist.
    • thumb
      Jun 17 2013: So bread is a creation of human beings, since its creation of human being, we have right to make it to give milk for us ?
      • Jun 17 2013: Maybe i blew it, but I drink mild and eat meat and eat eggs too. Gandhi went with millk but not eggs.or meat.
        • thumb
          Jun 17 2013: Gandhi went with millk but not eggs.or meat.
          agreed,

          my perception was I am ethical drinking milk, because I have been taught , grown-up with the same, but realization moment felt me shame on me.
      • Jun 18 2013: Exactly I raise beef cattle, and I eat beef. This is what we do in central Texas.
        You are probably in a great deal better company with Gandhi than I am with Bubba.
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2013: I am not sure that this falls to a question of ethics. Humans are biologically omnivores and consume all manner of animals and vegetables. Milk is an animal product and although similar substances can be formulated, they are not milk.. Since the dawn of agriculture, mankind has diligently mixed and formulated all manner of foodstuffs from a variety of basic food sources. In some regions of the world certain foods have roots that go back sometimes thousands of years and hold a culture's spirit in its ingredients.
    Modern foods prepared with artificial this and lo-cal that is the real unethical activity that has been foisted on mankind