• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they’re a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.

    ok…

    It’s a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But

    no, it’s not.

    dairy production itself isn’t necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I’m alluding to.

    my first comment was acknowledging that it’s just an example.

    • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s absolutely necessary to kill cattle for meat in the dairy industry. It would not be financially viable otherwise, and small-scale farms that try to avoid this practice can’t provide enough dairy to feed the human population if they’re consuming dairy; and they still involve other unavoidable cruelties inherent in taking the milk designed for calves, separating them and selectively breeding cows to overproduce milk, docking and debudding them, etc etc.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        milk isn’t designed except by humans through selective breeding, and that is designed for human use

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel.

                    I disagree this is cruel.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                calves need it

                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.

                • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    they certainly want to be.

                    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.

                • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    , a cow makes milk

                    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.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would not be financially viable otherwise, and small-scale farms that try to avoid this practice can’t provide enough dairy to feed the human population

        but if you disregard this arbitrary goal, then any particular dairy operation could, in fact, operate apart from the meat industry.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don’t need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it’s a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn’t necessary.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            it is arbitrary: there is no reason to believe any particular dairy operation couldn’t keep it’s calves out of the veal industry.

            • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn’t make a difference to the fact that they’re cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal.

                this is not inherently unethical. i can’t think of a single ethical system that would say this is immoral.