I wish we had cows in New York

I am a vegetarian, and honestly, the reason is because I like cows. For all the overgrazing of land and methane cows fart and burp into the atmosphere, the real reason I don’t support the beef industry is that I think cows are just too damn cool to eat. I know that people argue that having sharp teeth proves we are evolutionarily intended to eat flesh. I don’t care. I like cows.

I know, too, that there is an argument for veganism—no eggs or cheese or animal products of any kind—as an environmental choice. And I respect it. But I like too much the idea of having a symbiotic relationship with animals. Even just having Frankie the little dog helps connect me and my family to the planet. I’ve perceived a similar but much stronger connection at small farms that keep animals and treat them with kindness and respect.

When I was at Hawthorne Valley Farm, I got up at 4:00 in the morning and helped bring the herd in for milking. The sky was still the color of blackberries and, coincidentally, milk. The cows stood on hill in black silhouette. Henry, the bull, shook his head and rang his bell.

The seventy-strong herd slowly sauntered over to the gate and followed us back to the cow shed. Centuries of breeding meant that, with their udders swelled with so much more milk than their calves could drink, they looked forward to milking. They depend on their being milked as much as we do.

So we get them back and milk them and feed them and eventually they are all lying down in their stalls, regurgitating their cud and chewing it. One of the farm hands I’m talking to is sitting on one of the cows, who doesn’t seem to mind at all. My feet are tired so I decide to do the same.

Before you know it, I’m lying on my tummy along the full length of a cow’s back, casually scratching her between her ears, and I can tell she likes it (mostly because a farm hand tells me so). I like it too. I really like it. She is warm and alive. And so calm, so incredibly calm.

A few weeks earlier, I had been talking to Ronny, who owns Ronnybrook Farm. He was telling me about the financial difficulties that come with dairy farming. I asked him why he sticks with it. He said, “Because I love the cows.”

Now, I’m lying on the back of this one cow, and you know what I realize? I love cows, too. And you know what I think? I think that the relationship that the farmers at Hawthorne Valley and at Ronnybrook have with their cows is kind of wonderful. It connects us to the planet.

Don’t get me wrong. I intensely dislike the factory farming of animals, and I believe that as a culture, we farm way more cows than the planet can support. But on small farms, where people and animals are working together in kind and respectful relationship, like at Hawthorne Valley and Ronnybrook, I think there is something special going on.

PS If I've got you all excited about cows, read about their emotional lives here.

PPS The picture above comes courtesy of Compassion in World Farming, whose vision "is a world where farm animals are treated with compassion and respect and where cruel factory farming practices end."

Comments

[lane]

I don't know about you, but my teeth aren't very sharp anyway. Long live cows (and chicken and pigs and fish and and and...)!

[Scott McArthur]

I think you might be a little weird but I love the sentiment and your outlook on life! I'm off to find a cow!

Great blog!

[Greenpa]

lol! Boy you really have a talent for raising topics that need a book to deal with! Were you a Philosophy major or something?

:-)

"I know that people argue that having sharp teeth proves we are evolutionarily intended to eat flesh."

While I'm pretty sure you know that's an oversimplifcation, lots of your readers won't, so for their benefit: it's not just "sharp teeth", but the whole set of teeth in your head; and the structure of your guts. Teeth, and guts, in total; are most similar to: pigs and bears- animals that make their living eating everything they run into; hence omnivore. Yeah, flesh is part of that.

"I don’t care. I like cows."

lol! So, you have to despise food in order to eat it? Do you hate pigeons? They're tasty! Primates eat LOTS of bugs... Do you dislike your carrots? They're alive too, you know. :-)

I'm kidding around here, as I hope you know. One of the reasons this topic needs a book is that it gets SO emotional; SO fast. Logic is usually out the window after the first exchange. Some people "love life" so much- they think that has to mean they should hate death. Maybe they just fear it...

Certainly not going to pretend to straighten all this out here; but I want to add to a point you raised- symbiosis.

Something that gets left out of this discussion, because of the emotion: our entire "civilization" was BUILT by our animal partners/symbionts. We would not be here, in cities, without the meat, milk, eggs, and muscles of our domesticated animals- we would still be hunter gatherers. (never mind for the moment whether that would be "better"!)

Agriculture built civilization? Oxen and horses pulled the plows; for thousands of years. And yes; we always ate them, too, when it was time. We even ate our dogs, when we had to- and that SAVED OUR LIVES. Over and over. I'm really grateful.

These animals are our partners; our symbionts. It's no surprise that we can feel close emotional attachments to them. They are our friends- from the ancient past.

One of the outcomes of the vegan push would be- their disappearance. No place for them in "our" world anymore.

Think about that, a little harder. Philosophically- is it sound to prevent animal abuse by- eradicating the animals?

And why is it ok for a cat to eat meat- but not us? When that is in fact what primates ALL do, in the "natural world"?

I think it might be considered highly ungrateful of us; as a species- to generate Holsteins, Guernseys, Angus, Leghorns, Chester Whites, and Quarter Horses- only to become so morally elevated that we leave them all behind.

"Sorry- we're done with you. Thanks for the civilization, but we can't afford to associate with you, anymore. You're dismissed. We know you'll be MUCH happier.. extinct."

Just add that to the considerations, please. :-)

[Garnet]

Hello Colin,
Glad to se you put in the factory farms vs. small farms. It is a giant world of difference.

You realize you would not have been able to touch, much less stretch out on the back of a cow in a huge dairy farm, right? The cow would NOT have enjoyed any kind of new, or unusual human contact.

Dairy cows on small farms live to be in service 10-12 years. They can have long productive lives on the small farms.

Dairy cows on the mega big farms live 3-5 years, before they are sold off.

Folks on small dairy farms tend to have much more environmentally friendly breeds of cows, like Jersey, Shorthorns, Belted Galloway, Dexter's, ect.

The mega big dairy farms have the Holstiens. They are not environmentally friendly. They require enourmous imputs of grains, protiens, hormones, ect to keep them producing the mega quantities of millk.

Being a small farmer myself, I'm pretty passionate about suporting small farms. Like you, I love animals. However, unlike you I am still a meat eater. I've also learned to make peace with the notion that some of my goats are for food.

I agree with the owner of Ronnybrook Farm, there are financial difficulties to being a small farmer. I stick with it, because I love the animals, and I love the farm life.

~Garnet

[Yazmin]

You made me miss my cow. And I haven't missed her in over 20 years... *sigh*

[Mary]

My Rule is:

I don't eat anyone who knew their mother.
(and who's mother knew them - it's just rude to eat someome else's child.)

Cream, and milk, and cheese, and butter,
A cow is friend like no utter,
We love cows!

[hyz]

I love cows too, which is why I can't personally participate in any practice that ultimately leads to their untimely deaths after years of faithful service, or the deaths of their offspring year after year. I don't know about Hawthorne Valley or Ronnybrook, but I'd be curious to find out what happens to their aged dairy cows, and the male calves that are born each year. If these farms are staying in business, I'd have to guess that they aren't running any retirement homes for elderly cows, or keeping the boys as pasture ornaments. It's just an economic and biological reality, generally speaking. I can truly appreciate the symbiosis between human and animal, and I certainly support small farms as being *worlds* better than big agriculture in terms of both animal welfare and the environment--but, in waxing rhapsodic about your love of cows, please don't forget that these animals you love will almost certainly be killed before their natural hour, and have their babies taken from them to suffer the same fate. I support small farming as a practical matter, but it is not my love of cows that leads me to do so.

[Lorena]

"One of the outcomes of the vegan push would be- their disappearance. No place for them in "our" world anymore.

Think about that, a little harder. Philosophically- is it sound to prevent animal abuse by- eradicating the animals?"

Sorry, but I don't think vegans promote the eradication of any animals...there is a big difference between eradication and simply not breeding them for meat/dairy factory farming.

[P~]

Symbiosis; Isn't that what so many of our solutions depend on? Think about it, we need a relationship with the world around us that is reciprocal. Whether or not one decides to eat meat is to me irrelevant. It's the relationship to the food that matters. For instance, I hunt, I know that drives many of you crazy to think of, but I don't do it for trophies and I don't do it to drink beer and shoot things. I enjoy the connection with what I eat, and moreover I like the feeling that I am indeed connected to the food chain in a more direct way. Greenpa made the point that as with all omnivores we are designed to eat meat as a part of out diet, I don't think there is a debate there, but in the "natural world" omnivores don't run out and pick up some meat when they feel like having it. My main point as I said is that we need to get more in touch with the world around us and maybe even work a little harder to get what we take from it by trying to give something back.

Hyz~ As per your argument about what happens to the male cows; it is valid and I'm sure we both know they are eaten. This is in fact where I hope to get my small amount of beef in the future. I have found local dairies where I will be getting my milk products, and have learned that at least one of them also provides grass fed, hormone free beef. Granted, it is sad at an emotional level to know that these animals were essentially born to be eaten, but isn't it also good to know that they are treated well and fed healthfully until that time.
food for thought, (pun intended)
P~

[Paul T]

hyz- I'm going to go out on a limb here- please know that I am in sympathy with your feelings- and I do not find folks with your views offensive. I'm really hoping you will not find my attempt to qualify your statment offensive- it's really not meant that way. I'm hoping you will just think about it.

"but, in waxing rhapsodic about your love of cows, please don't forget that these animals you love will almost certainly be killed before their natural hour, and have their babies taken from them to suffer the same fate."

What IS their "natural hour"?

That's a pretty important question I think, for any attempt to put this on a sound philosphical basis.

The fact is- the "natural hour" for any WILD cow-type creature is- usually less than one year. I'm a biologist; populations are something I know about; and you're welcome to look it up. IF a calf lives more than one full year, it can be expected to live 2- or 3 more. 5 years total is the max, except for the one in a million that may make it to 7. Domestic milk cows often live past 10. Which is the better life? Not easy.

That's the natural time scale. Wild bovines will have their calves "taken from them" - usually in the first year. It's like 80% of the time. And the takers are- wolves, lions, leopards- or spears if people are allowed to part of nature too. Don't watch any of the films of lions or wolves killing prey- really. Nobody needs to see that.

It's complex. It is, and should be a matter of personal choice.

But we really shouldn't fool ourselves about what happens in the natural world- it's very harsh indeed. And life on a farm- for all history- has included the same end. Maybe that's natural too. Not pretty, no. But nature up close sometimes isn't. And I DO believe humans are natural creatures.

Weird and disgusting sometimes! But still part of nature, with the same rights that cats, and hawks, and bears have.

[Greenpa]

Lorena- "Sorry, but I don't think vegans promote the eradication of any animals...there is a big difference between eradication and simply not breeding them for meat/dairy factory farming."

weeeeel. We must be talking to different vegans. I've lived with 6; had lots and lots of discussions. So far-

No vegan I've ever known is opposed to factory farmed animals. They are opposed to ALL farmed animals- they don't give a rat's patoot if the egg comes from Joel Salatin- it's immoral to take advantage of a chicken that way.

And- every vegan I've met wanted me- and everyone else- to be a vegan also. Because they're right, and all food from animals is wrong. Sure, most of them are not in your face about it all the time- they know better. But ask them.

Therefore- in the ultimate vegan world- nobody would breed any animals for anything anywhere. They would be gone. What's the difference between um- extinction; and extinction?

It takes a LOT of discussion to get to this point with a vegan, because they're not comfortable about it. But ultimately, this is where it goes; a world with no animals- and the suggestion that the ANIMALS - would be better off this way.

The scariest one I ever talked with eventually admitted that her perfect world would be one not only without domestic animals of any kind- but without humans, too. She wasn't comfortable with it- but was honest about it.

Gotta say, I think there's a philosophical screw loose, there.

[Eric]

In this as well as your previous article, "It takes all sorts", you discussed vegetarian vs. vegan vs. eating meat.

Here are my reasons for being a vegetarian:

Aside from being born a 3rd generation vegetarian and this diet is what I'm use to, I also do so for religious/health reasons although I am also opposed to the overcrowded farming conditions & the cruel treatment of animals.

We believe that God created human beings (the original example being Adam and Eve in the the garden of Eden) to eat fruits, nuts & grains -- not meat. Plus today's modern meat farming practices create an unhealthy environment allowing for more disease, drugs, unnatural hormones and contamination. Mad Cow disease is just one of many health related issues associated with today's meats.

I hear people regularly say how they can't get enough protein without eating meat, especially with the recent Atkin's Diet craze which promotes eating LOTS of meat. My family and millions of others like us (Research) have been living exceptionally healthfully for generations without eating meat. A balanced diet of fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, beans will keep your cholesterol & fat levels down, and will provide all the energy you need.

In summary, I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat meat, just explaining why I don't. :)

Like you said, "There are many ways to be kind to the planet. In other words, it takes all sorts."

[Andrew Keese]

I totally love your blog and your mission, but you really gloss over one of the primary issues dealing with dairy cows. The way they keep them milking is to keep them pregnant. Farmers must then figure out what to do with the calves. Does your farmer at least let the calves actually have some of their mother's milk? Probably not, since it would cut into his profit. Does he send any of the male calves to be tortured before being turned into veal (which is the norm of the industry)? Does your farmer let the cows continue to live after their milking years are over? Probably not. Drinking milk is supporting the killing and exploitation of cows and calves.

[Greenpa]

Eric- I like your philosophy just fine. I like Thoreau's, too- one of my favorite observations from him, in Walden, is on exactly your point. Can't quote him; but he cites conversations he's had with farmers, in their fields - about the necessity or not of meat in the diet. It goes something like "They claim you can't be healthy without eating meat; that you can't get the calcium you need for strong bones, just eating vegetables. And they say this, standing behind their team of oxen, hitched to the plow- oxen with massive, vegetable-built bones that put their own to shame."
I love it!

[KE]

Have you read Omnivore's Dilemma? Excellent read, and pertains to this particular post.

[anonymous]

Vegans do not want animals to disappear. None of us would survive very long if we didn't continue to have this very fragile web of interdependence we've got going here. Domesticated pigs that have gotten out into the wild go feral, as do cats and dogs for that matter. I don't understand the argument that these animals (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, rabbits...) would disappear if it weren't for humans. Quite frankly, I think it would be the other way around.
The bottom line, I think, is that the way that meat, eggs, and dairy are processed these days is abusive and wasteful, and as omnivores living in a world where we can "choose" to get our protein from a lot of other sources, why would we "choose" to obtain it at the expense of another organism's well-being? Animals that live in Confined Animal Feeding Operations are not happy creatures, they're pumped up with antibiotics because the food they're eating isn't natural to them (corn in most cases, cows are ruminants and weren't built to be able to digest corn) and makes them sick. They don't get to move around freely, and often live all of their very short lives in their own excrement, depressed and listless, in overcrowded conditions before they're taken to slaughter where, hopefully, and this is not very often the case, they are killed quickly. There are lots of books on this stuff, movies, videos online.
And if you knew how wasteful CAFO's are with regard to the environment--talk about huge carbon footprints (bloody ones at that).
Anyway, too, if you haven't heard of the sixth great extinction (also known as the Holocene extinction event) that humans are currently experiencing, it might be worth your time to check out some information about it. It might also help with putting the consumption of animal products into a larger perspective. Again, we don't need animal protein to survive, so why do we continue to eat animals? And it's only symbiosis if the other party (the cow, pig, turkey.. in this case) has a say in it. Right now they don't. Personally, I think if they did, they'd probably want the same opportunity to express their complete animal natures as we have, no? They don't get to do that on farms, and certainly not in CAFO's.

[hyz]

P~ -- I just wanted to say that I respect your point of view here. What triggered my reaction to Colin's post today was the glossing-over of the cold, hard fact that killing and death go hand-in-hand with that serene vision of cuddling up with a cute dairy cow. You generally can't have one without the other, and saying "I eat dairy because I love cows" seemed to be conveniently cutting out a big part of the story. When people can face the fact that the consumption of animal products is dependent upon the death of a feeling, thinking creature (and especially if they can face it by doing the killing themselves), then they are truly making an informed consumption decision, and I respect their efforts to carry out their beliefs in the most compassionate way possible. This world would be a better place if more people would do that.

Paul--I take your point that nature is none too kind to cows, and perhaps "natural hour" was a poor choice of words. I'm not glorifying nature, and I'm certainly not implying that dairy cows on small farms would be better off if they were turned out to the wild. What I meant was that, by consuming commercial dairy products, one is almost certainly participating in the killing of these animals at the hands of man. If one "loves" these animals, that's somthing they may want to address in any explanation of their decision to eat dairy products. Yes, man is a part of nature, but we are also (probably) the species that needs to consider the distinction between "can" and "should" most strongly. As a human, I *can* get my nourishment through the deaths of other sentient creatures, but *should* I? Each person has to answer that for themselves, hopefully after some careful consideration--I don't pretend there's one clear answer. My personal answer is that, as long as I can be adequately nourished without causing death or suffering to animals, I will strive to do so.

[Brian M]

Can you be adequately nourished without causing death or suffering to animals?

If you give up meat and switch to dairy or eggs the death and suffering are less direct, but as you point out still there. The calves are killed, and the dairy cows kept perpetually pregnant, etc. So suppose you switch to all plant matter. Are the fields of corn displacing the habitats of wild animals? Yup. Do the combines kill small rodents living in fields? Yup. Does industrial agriculture rely on an economic system which leads to exploitation, death and suffering on many humans and other animals? Yup. Do the vegans of America share some blame for the death and suffering of animals caused by the pesticides used to grow the crops they eat? Yup. So suppose you go one further, to an all agrarian, local, organic plant only diet. Now are you causing the death and suffering of animals? What's you carbon footprint? Do you pay taxes? How do you deal with pests? What do you do for traction? What happens to your refuse? I know many people who strive hard to minimize the death and suffering they cause to others, but I've yet to meet anyone who has managed to avoid causing death and suffering. No one has clean hands on this issue, even vegans. Everyone makes a series of compromises. It is not possible to survive in America without causing death and suffering to others. Maybe veganism is a better compromise than some of the other options, but it is a compromise; an attempt to mimimize causing death and suffering, not a strategy for actually avoiding it.
-Brian M.

[hyz]

Brian--your points well-taken. Please note that I said I "strive" to get my nourishment without causing death or suffering. Anyone who pays taxes in this country participates in all sorts of things they disagree with, not to mention the other issues you bring up. I'm not willing to go to jail to avoid harming animals by paying taxes. I'm not willing to move to a hut in the woods and try to subsist on nuts and berries so that I don't rely on any cultivated land that robs animals of habitats, etc. But to the extent I can in my daily life, I *strive* to avoid causing death and suffering. I work to lower my carbon footprint in many ways, more and more all the time, and I am especially working to grow an increasingly large percentage of our food in our small city lot, and working with neighbors to help them do the same. Our gardens create more habitat than our little lawns and patches of concrete ever did.

I don't see the inability in modern society to succeed in living a *completely* cruelty-free life as an excuse not to do my best to minimize my own cruelty. This is one area where I think personal politics really makes sense. We hear a lot of people arguing against cutting their carbon footprint because "the world's doomed anyway, so why should I be the one to put myself out and suffer for no good reason--it won't make any difference in the long run." Well, in the case of animals, I believe that each one matters. To any animal that wasn't killed or made to suffer on my behalf, it makes all the difference. If an animal was never bred and born and raised and slaughtered for the purpose of me eating a hamburger or some ice cream, I think that's a good thing in and of itself.

[Sean]

Glad to see hyz point out the substantial missing element to Colin's otherwise egalitarian picture: the fate of the newborn male calves who are most certainly sent to slaughter as veal and the old dairy cows who no longer are able to produce milk.

PaulT:
Let me preface this response by saying that it represents a fairly narrow philosophical view that is not utilitarian or faith based. I expect certain people will disagree but I also believe that this argument is defensible and is how I frame my attitude towards animals.

Whether domesticated animals would have died earlier in the wild seems to be irrelevant when confronting the question of how or if we should use them. One might argue that if we were to protect animals such that they lived under domestication longer than they did in the wild, it would be a "fair" trade to then use their milk, for instance, for our purposes. However in any such transaction between humans, there is an element of informed consent by both parties. A cow, goat, or honeybee is unable to provide such consent and is powerless when compared to their human owners.

In similiar cases among humans when one party can not provide consent, contemporary ethical practice demands that the best interests of the party in question be considered. Is it in the cow's best interests to be milked? If the answer is no, it doesn't matter if we might believe that the shortened domesticated life of a dairy cow is better than that of a cow in the wild; unethical means (domestication) don't justify what a utilitarian might argue are better ends (protection from the dangers of predators for instance). With this argument in mind, it is hard to see what interest the cow has in being milked. Under normal circumstances the cow will only produce as milk as is required for her calves. That we have bred some species to overproduce doesn't mean that we are somehow now entitled to that milk and our milking of those species does not provide any direct benefit to them. However in order to milk the cows, the cows must be lactating which requires them to be pregnant. I find it hard to envision how keeping a cow continually pregnant is in the animal's best interest. On balance then, domestication for the purpose of milk production is not in the animal's best interest and we should stop the practice.

Ultimately this kind of argument prohibits animal exploitation or domestication in practically any circumstances. The alternative is to simply let the animals live and die as dictated by the natural environments they once inhabited and should to the extent possible be returned to them. This is foreseeable as the widespread adoption of a vegan diet would allow a large amount of land currently given over to agriculture to return to its original state.

In the meantime, I don't oppose farms like the one Colin visited. These small scale operations are infinitely better then the CAFOs that provide upwards of 95% of the meat and dairy we consume. However the nicer treatment animals receive on these farms should not obscure the same fundamental power dynamic between humans and the animals that we consider property.

[Rhett (Greentime)]

I feel a very paradoxical relationship with animals, which feels borne out in the "vegan except one meal a week" diet that Amy and I chose when we did Episode #2 of Greentime. On one hand, I am like you, Colin, in that I love animals, even cows. They have lives of their own. I even go as far as a lot of the more extreme vegans in believing that domestication of cows for milk might violate that sense of the cow having its own life. I won't take Sean's point of view, as I don't believe we can extend systems of ethics designed for interpersonal interactions and extend them to animals quite so casually, but I tend to like animals alive and happy and having their lives.

On the other hand, I really don't have a huge problem eating meat and don't have a problem with collecting meat for myself. In fact, I feel very connected with my position in the food chain when I fish or gather shellfish. Given that most people eat meat at least twice a day, I'm eating 1/14th the meat meals of another person, a level that I consider likely on par with the meat availability of my family just two generations ago (when chicken on Sunday was the big meal). Our choice over at Greentime to go "near vegan" is party motivated by our sense of sympathy with animals, but is in reality a scaling back to a meat consumption level we feel we could produce small-scale and before the factory farming "revolution".

Actually, one of the projects I had proposed early on was a closed-loop fish farm that we could run on the balcony. There's good information on DIY catfish farms, and I was raised knowing how to handle fish. Amy put the kibosh to this when she said she'd give all the fish names and be sad to eat them. I also looked into a small-scale snail farm, and she said the same thing. So, we pared our meat and animal products to a bare minimum instead. Personally, I went to school with farmer's children who had cows they named "meat" and "sirloin", and who considered them great companions who'd be eventual food sources, so this doesn't seem contradictory to me.

Our choice to not consume dairy is dietary, incidentally. We don't have room in our diets for the calorie content in milkfat.

[Jen from Brooklyn]

Hyz, I'm curious if you believe everyone should be vegan.

If you don't, then I think I take what you're saying to be very much in line with what I'm trying to do - I put as much energy as I reasonably can (then hopefully a little more) into thinking about the impact of what I do, and then reduce my impact to the extent that it's possible. I go through that cycle regularly, and what is possible now is less than what I hope will be possible next month, year, etc. (I think) you choose to put most of that energy into veganism, because it satisfies your value system in several ways (not just in terms of carbon footprint.) Others allocate this energy and decision-making according to other values, but we're all together in trying hard to live more conscious, responsible lives.

If you see veganism as an imperitive for all, regardless of other factors, then I have a large number of arguments for you on several levels that would take us off the topic of this blog. But I was curious to hear that answer from you, rather than from Greenpa's assumption based on his experiences.

[Brian M]

Is a vegan who tries to live a cruelty-free life and fails, as any attempt to be cruelty-free is bound to fail, really that different from an ethical omnivore who tries to live a cruelty-low life by focusing on supporting farms which try be be agrarian instead of industrial and to treat their animals well? I don't think so. Once you have given up hope for being cruelty-free, and shifted the goal to cruelty-low I think that vegans and ethical omnivores are really very similar in goals, outlook, etc. Same basic values, but two slightly different strategies for trying to lower overall cruelty and live cruelty-low.

I have alway liked (vegan chef) Isachandra's argument that vegans often actually do eat entirely vegan, whereas ethical omnivores are often are trying to move to an ethical omnivore diet, but aren't there yet. (As, for example, my family is trying to move there but isn't there yet). In my experience, vegans can be a little more self-righteous than ethical omnivores especially when they are still hoping for cruelty-free lives; and ethical omnivores can be a little more lax and slow to reform especially when they are willing to cut corners, but that both share significant and difficult goals such as ending the factory farming system, and thus make natural allies. Except of course that we are all so philosophical we bicker about the theoretical details at least as much as we actually work together, ah well.
-Brian M.

[Scott]

I am a plant-based eater. Some may call me a vegan but I shy away from the term because it sometimes is associated with "wild eyed radicals that turn over chicken cages and release cows onto the freeway". There are a few like that but it is not most. I have never done any of those things myself and I have no plans. It's not my place to judge another's decisions regarding milk, meat etc. Although, I do attempt to educate if someone wants to hear.

I eat the vegan style diet mostly for my health. That is not to say I don't love animals. I do love animals. That is not to say that I don't loathe factory farming. It disgusts me. In my analysis those that view animals as meat, egg or milk factories and not living breathing beings are guilty of crimes against human decency.

I do agree with you that small scale farms work more in harmony with the natural order of things. And there are certainly some wonderful people operating these small scale operations. However, it would be more in harmony with the natural order of things if it were a baby calf drinking the milk from the mama cow instead of us humans.

The composition of cows milk is not designed for the human body. It is way too rich. It is intended to put a lot of weight on a baby calf in a short period of time.

Human breast milk has 1.2 grams of protein per 100 milliliters. It takes 180 days for a human baby to double their birth weight. Cows milk has 3.3 grams of protein per 100 milliliters. This is intended to double the calf's weight every 47 days. If stores suddenly started marketing dog's milk as an alternative would we all rush out and buy it? No...however it is an excellent source of protein with 7.1 grams of protein per 100 milliliters.

We are all admonished, women especially, to "drink our milk to have strong bones". Hogwash. The countries that consume the least amount of milk have the least amount of osteoporosis.

There is a ton of information on this subject if one goes looking. A good place to start is

http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_calcium.html

Dr. McDougall's site references all of the literature and medical studies if you want to examine the actual findings.

Colin, I love cows,and I love the milk cows produce because it feeds little calves that are as cute as buttons. But start putting cows milk in humans and well...

Cows do not naturally produce the milk for us to drink. They have to be bred over and over to keep the milk flowing. Just like humans that only produce milk as an adjunct to birthing a baby so goes the bovine world as well. But after the birth of the baby calf we steal the milk. Where do the male calves go after these births? They are not milk producers so they are worthless to a dairy. It would be good to find out.

True confession: Until just a few years ago Colin, I made all the same arguments you are making about milk. I used to joke about being the dairy family of the year because I loved ice cream and we ate tons of the stuff. Milk, cheese, sour cream, butter.... Someone opened the blinds a bit one day though just a touch and I saw the dark side of dairy and what putting this stuff in my body was doing to me. Cows milk was made for baby cows not me. I started doing research on the facts and found the evidence overwhelming against consuming milk. Colin, love all the cows you want but also check out the facts on the consumption of cows milk too. The facts may surprise you.

[hyz]

Jen--I clearly feel rather torn about it, because I believe what I believe because I believe it's right (say that 5 times fast--ha!), and therefore would obviously like to see other people agree with me. On the other hand, I recognize that my morals about killing animals are based largely on my feelings about death in general, which is that it is scary and bad and to be avoided at all costs--if I wouldn't want someone to inflict death on me because I think it would be the ultimate violation of my person and my being, then I should try very hard not to inflict death on anyone else who might conceivably feel similarly (which I believe includes most animals, with their innate survival instincts). Golden rule, and all that. Other people are more comfortable with life/death cycles, or have other beliefs about what it means to kill an animal, and they would naturally not share my deep aversion to it. I don't think that makes them bad people, and I can understand those points on an intellectual level--I just happen to personally disagree. I DO think there are a lot of illogical and counterfactual justifications for eating meat that are frequently thrown around because people have a vested interest in the outcome of the argument--i.e. they want to keep eating animal products and they don't want to feel bad about it--but I would NOT say that there are NO good arguments for eating animal products.

Also, I believe that there are innumerable things in this world that are righteous and true, and we can't as individuals focus on all of them, or our heads would explode. There are children dying of preventable disease and starvation right now all over the world, but do I send all my money to them so that they may live, because I know that each dollar would mean everything to one child? No. Would it be good and right to do so? Possibly. Should I do more than I do now for starving children? Almost certainly. But I think the main thing is to stay aware, to think compassionately about the world's issues, and then to really *care* about *something* and do what you can about the thing(s) that matter most to you. You do what you can for other causes, but some degree of specialization isn't a bad thing here, I think. I appreciate and respect anyone who's looking at the world and trying to do what they can to make it a better place.

As a side point, I actually don't put "most of [my] energy into veganism", because that comes easily to me--it doesn't take too much energy, at least when it comes to daily choices about what to eat, wear, etc. I put more of my "energy" into reducing my carbon footprint, because to me it means doing things that I don't always find pleasant or easy, just because I think it is the *right* thing to do.

Hope that helps--I appreciate the question--it's so much better than assumptions. :o)

And Brian--again, I agree with you--mostly ;o) I see one key difference, though, between an omnivore of any stripe and a vegan diet. Take the example you gave of animals being killed in the field as corn is harvested. I see the killing of that animal as an accident--an accident that is statistically certain to occur, but an accident nonetheless. It's like driving cars--we *know*, to a statistical certainty, that innocent humans will be killed each year on the roads due to car accidents. However, we as a society deem this to be a "risk" we are willing to take, because there aren't currently a lot of other great options for traversing this big country of ours. By participating in driving, by paying taxes to fund roads, etc., we are participating in a system that will inevitably kill some people. But is it our intent to kill people? Is it our intent that they die? No. We hope that they *don't* die, and we take some measures to protect them and ourselves, like having speed limits, requiring safety belts, outlawing drunk driving, etc. Should we say, "well, since I know I participate in this system that inevitably kills people, and I recognize that there's not much I can do to change that, then it's also ok to hire a hit man to kill a few people for me, since it's all the same anyway?" Obviously not. Our intent makes a difference in the morality of an act. Similarly, I know that by paying taxes, eating commercially farmed grains, etc., some animals will die as a result of my actions. But it is not my intent that they die--in fact, I hope very much that they *don't*. Alternatively, I don't think many ethical omnivores sit around hoping that the cow doesn't die sometime before it gets to their dinner plate. The intent is to cause death, and benefit from the killing. I think the intent makes a difference.

I don't mean to pick on ethical omnivores--I really and deeply appreciate the movement, I agree with your point that attempting to live a "cruelty-low" life is a materially good thing, and that vegans don't have clean hands either, and that many of the goals, methods, etc. are the same. Just trying to explain what I see as the difference, which is why I make the choices I do. I'm comfortable with saying "to each his own," but I also do enjoy a good theoretical discussion now and again. ;o)