/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11272624
Both ideas are revolting and unhealthy.

>>11272624
Because we don't (and can't without comical ethical violations) farm women for breastmilk, so it's not a food product like cow milk is. The only way to obtain it is locally, directly from a breast.
It's the "11 year old boy sucking his mom's tit" part that's not socially accepted.

>>11272624
1. Because mothers don't produce infinite milk. Where do you get it from, if almost all mothers use their milk to breastfeed their own offspring?

2. Because it's cheap to produce, creates huge revenue and we've already been brainwashed by marketing into thinking its the healthiest thing ever.

>>11272640
>Because we don't (and can't without comical ethical violations)

Or cows.

>>11272663
This is your (hippie) opinion, unlike the human case which is a clear-cut 100% consensus across the entire society.

>>11272686
I love appeal to popularity fallacies.
Fact remains, farming cows is unethical. Tie yourself in knots justifying the enslavement of other sentient beings or admit you’re a sociopath, it makes no difference to me.

>>11272705
It's not an appeal to popularity; I'm not trying to use the fact that everyone agrees human farming is unethical to justify that it is. I would hope that is an obvious fact.
The point is that when something is not blatantly obvious (i.e. not widely agreed upon), you need to provide an argument why it's unethical beyond muh feefees.
Calling it "enslavement" is nice and scary sounding but you are abusing words, first since slavery explicitly refers to humans (which is why it sounds nice and evil when you use it) and second because it requires the "enslaved" party be forced to work against their will. Cows don't have abstract will, and even if they did their actions generally suggest that they're not particularly upset at being milked a couple times a day.

>>11272726
> you need to provide an argument why it's unethical beyond muh feefees.

There is no argument why anything is ethical or unethical that isn’t “muh feefees”. Moral convictions are from emotional intuition, and have no relation to reason. You’d be aware of this if you weren’t a pseud.

>>11272726
>Cows don't have abstract will

Prove it.

>>11272731
>There is no argument why anything is ethical or unethical that isn’t “muh feefees”.
You shouldn't call your opinions "facts" if you think that all ethics is subjective personal feelings.

>>11272624
Children should be breastfed until age 5 for best brain and body development.

>>11272741
>You shouldn't call your opinions "facts"

It is a fact that enslaving cows is wrong to me. I can assert this until I am dead.

>if you think that all ethics is subjective personal feelings.

I know that all ethics are subjective personal feelings. Read Hume.

>>11272726
Cows objectively suffer. Suffering is bad. Inducing suffering is unethical.

>>11272624
>nooo stop drinking the tit juice of the cow every sip makes it SUFFER

>>11272808
>cows are okay with having their offspring abducted
>cows are okay with living on a few square meters
>cows don't mind being raped

>>11272663
>>11272705
>>11272731
>>11272751
>mfw vegans think ethics apply to animals

>>11272624
Because the original mutants who could suck cow titties for a lifetime left behind many more offspring, lactose tolerance is one of the biggest boons to survival and reproduction of our species. Women can't be farmed en masse so it's a scalability issue.

>>11272814
They're fucking COWS. Of course they don't mind

>>11272822
They imply to anyone and anything depending on what anyone’s particular ethics are. You’re an idiot.

>>11272731
Something can be objectively ethical or unethical from the perspective of any specific consistent and well defined moral framework. This shifts the problem to instead deciding what the axioms of your moral framework are, which is a more important and fundamental question than if some specific thing is moral or not.

TLDR: While you can't have generally objective morality, you can have objective morality from a specific perspective.

>>11272857
>Of course they don't mind

Prove it.

>>11272624
Its the reason why armies were able to conquer by easy access to protein and become physically larger with the fat helping brain growth, Vikings and Scandinavians were able to sail around and conquer around the world because of their milk diets. Whey from milk is very beneficial for muscle growth even for today it prevents doms. Also great for building good gut flora.

Dairy and milk is a genetic diet now for Europeans because of the continued use by being able to break down lactose. Its also very cheap to produce. The added hormones in modern milk and sugar do need to be addressed. Whole milk > every other milk.

>>11272857
>I've never seen a cow in my life before
>screaming cows aren't suffering
You're a special kind of retarded.

>>11272864
> Something can be objectively ethical or unethical from the perspective of any specific consistent and well defined moral framework.

Falsehood. That something follows from arbitrary axioms doesn’t mean it’s “objective” or “true”. It can follow from axioms that you ought or ought not do something but there’s no reason we ought to accept any particular axioms or use a “moral framework” at all. It’s a waste of time when you can instead use your intuition.

>>11272857
>Of course they don't mind
They actually genuinely get upset at having their babies taken away.
Now whether you want to say "That's not REAL emotion, that's just a sequence of non-productive behaviors in which an entity is unable to act in the way that its pre-programmed directives dictate due to the barriers in its way due to the environment its in (i.e. literal artificial barriers made of metal)" then I'd say "Well prove you're any better"

>>11272624
Humans are a bitch to keep disease free since they generally insist on leading lives.

>>11272628
That the latter is more revolting than the former (not commercialized, I don't see why people here are suggesting that) yet normalized, is the point.

>>11272737
>re-imagine animal brains as iPhones
"abstract will" requires a iPhone 8 or up
cow brains are like an iPhone 1 while human brains are the latest iPhones with powerful hardware/software

>>11272624
I'll milk you, faggot.

>>11272624
>Why is a diet for humans past toddlerhood consisting of human milk not socially accepted?
Because that isn't healthy, lel. One woman's squishy soft titties have enough calories for an infant or two, not a grown adult, and past toddlerhood you need way more protein than you'll get from tit milk.
>Why is a diet for humans past infant-hood consisting of nonhuman milk socially accepted?
Because we live in a capitalist society and capitalism seeks out and reinforces profitability. Often times, this ends up meaning practices that used to be profitable, because capitalism reinforced them through it's tremendous culture influence, will continue to be done even when they're no longer the most profitable option.
We need an expert-driven, democratically controlled, planned economy.

>>11272624
>getting a cow disease
>1 in 10 billion
>getting a human disease
>1 in 1

>>11275837
>Use a nonsensical analogy for no reason
>Believe what I say for no reason

>>11272705
Simply, your virtue is artificial. Animals live to eat, some eat meat, some like veggies, some both. All are to serve the survival of animals. Humanity is mentally better than animals, but still animals, and we need to eat (meat and vegetables). Just because you are empathetic with the suffering of animals, doesn't mean it is unethical for people to kill animals as ethic is man-made.
Even a fully vegan diet is somewhat made of suffering of animals that you don't have to observe, why bother to care?
Medicine is also a great field that experimented on a great range of species. It helps us creating vaccines and other medical things for humanity, should we abandon it to justify your virtue?

>>11272906
>They actually genuinely get upset at having their babies taken away.

No, they actually genuinely get upset at having their babies taken away too soon
Also a cow produces more milk than what a calf needs

>>11272647
Either you lift or you dont. And i can tell you dont

>>11276832
>Ethics aren't real because we're just animals and even if they were real, the inability to completely remove suffering means any degree of suffering is ethically equivalent
Why are meatcucks so retarded? Is it the hormones in livestock?

>>11276856
WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED TO CARE FOR OTHER ANIMALS? YOUR FEELINGS? YOUR VIRTUE?
You did not read my words properly. I said artificial, not "aren't real". So why do you think humanity is responsible for other species feelings? Because your argument is all based on the feelings of animals. If we break it down, it is just a moving chunk of meat with chemicals that induce "feelings", so why does it matter to you?
As you said, remove suffering, should we drug the shit out of animals to let them feel happily milked all the time?
What I mean that we are superior to them over some degrees, and we are able to domesticate and kill them.
IF YOU EVER TRY TO FIGHT ME WITH THAT "HUMAN AND ANIMALS ARE THE SAME" START TELLING LIONS NOT TO KILL.

>>11276891
Your entire argument revolves around your belief that ethics aren't real, so it's a non-starter. Also, you aren't a lion. You're capable of making ethical decisions, you just choose to take some retard-level scientistic "dude we're just chemicals lol" cop-out non-argument to avoid having to think about your actions. You choose to be less than conscious by refusing to analyze your actions, and that's pathetic.

>>11276856
you are so retarded that you think you are morally superior over meat eaters. Simply, I can say that you are just a pathetic faggot who can not contain yourself seeing the killing of animals. Just because other have different perspective does not mean they are stupid. that's why you are here

>>11272624
nothing weird about drinking cow milk you dumb nigger

>>11276856
NAH FUCK YOU, YOU DID NOT CAREFULLY READ IT, AND DISREGARD IT. I READ YOURS, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, BECAUSE I WAS LIKE YOU BEFORE, BUT HOLY FUCK, ARE YOU THIS RETARDED ?

>>11272624
cows die if they aren't milked,

>>11276845
>a cow produces more milk than what a calf needs
>>11276964
>cows die if they aren't milked
That sounds unnatural.

>>11272624
>Not being a genetically superior mutant that can process lactose
wew lad

>>11276855
Wrong.

>>11276856
Yes, plus they're scared if having their lifestyle challenged.

>>11276891
Let's take a look at earth from an alien perspective. They come here, see that we roundup other life forms into small cages, treat them badly, feed them supplements, restrict their movement, then slaughter them without proper care (mostly) and eat their disgusting cadavers.

>>11272647
>Because mothers don't produce infinite milk.
we've solved this problem with cows

>>11276964
so lets allow the calves to enjoy their mothers milk and not humans eh?

>>11278950
eat their TASTY and NUTRITIOUS cadavers you mean

cows are dinner wrapped in shoes prove me wrong

>>11278963
And? That doesn't answer OP's question.

>>11278971
If you're a hunter eating game, sure. The meat you buy in supermarkets, hell no. Unless diseases and antibiotics are nutritious to you.

>>11279027 it refuses anon's answer

>>11279027
It refutes anon's answer

>>11279036
>why isn't drinking HUMAN milk accepted?
>because HUMANS don't produce infinite milk
>well then drink COW milk
You're a special kind of stupid.

>>11278578
cows were selectively bred for certain traits over millenia
so, no, it's not natural

>>11272624
It's unnecessary to use human milk for past-infancy, since the net gain is negative.
Pastoral societies have been relying on dairy as a staple nutrient, because cows convert inedible plants into something humans can consume. Eating the cows is less economical in these societies, if you kill one you'll have to wait for new ones to mature.
Some tribes choose to drink the cow's blood for the same nutrients, as milk is essentially just filtered blood and original cattle didn't produce as much milk.
Socially accepted is essentially what's useful.

>>11272624
Gee, I don't know anon. Seems perfectly reasonable to just start breeding women for a human farm so they can be milked and create a world supply of human dairy products. You're very clever, thank you for this brilliant idea.

>>11279240
thanks i thought hard about it i will admit. don't know about the legal implications about it tho. in times like this you wish there were a legal advise board

>>11278964
>so lets allow the calves to enjoy their mothers milk and not humans eh?
What problem do you have with people using cattle for dairy products you retard? Saying "lets not do it" isn't a reason. And arguing it's for cattle to consume and not people is a doorway to a whole pile of further retardation where you try to claim bread and beer aren't for humans because fermentation is for microorganisms and we're just hijacking its waste byproducts "unnaturally."

>>11279049
What do you not understand about what I wrote? I'm not saying 'drink cow milk instead'. Cows don't produce infinite milk either, they are being constantly impregnated to keep the milk flowing.