Almond Milk vs. Cow's Milk

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

All mammals will consume milk, regardless of source, if presented with the opportunity.

Also, no food was "meant' for human consumption; that's not how dietary adaptation works.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

I come from a dairy farming family. I've seen my grandparents, great-grandparents, and older relatives rock and roll into their late 80s to mid-90s like a bunch of badasses. All of them drank milk and buttermilk daily throughout their lives. I don't know about the journal articles either way, but my experience tells me that dairy isn't going to hurt you (barring some genetic intolerance).

That being said, these people also exclusively ate homegrown veggies, wild berries, wild game (mostly deer, but also rabbit, some turtle, and squirrel). They ate very little processed food as it was too expensive. Farm work is hard, so of course they were active.

I'm not sure you could separate all of these variables, but high amounts of dairy sure didn't hurt them.

I have researched a lot - how can you say neither is true?

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

1. I didn't bring up science to support any moral position. I was asking why a person might think you can't use science to support your position, even if ultimately your position is based on a moral stance. (You can't use science to justify your moral position? How does that even make sense? Of course you can, as per my environmental decision example.)

2. I still never said milk isn't meant for human consumption, I said milk is specifically designed for babies of each species. Those babies are the ones who will get the most benefit from it. Can others consume it? Yes, as I said, people do. And prehistoric vs current consumption of milk probably varied wildly - so "on a massive scale" may not be at all accurate. But neither of us can prove that.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

1. I didn't bring up science to support any moral position. I was asking why a person might think you can't use science to support your position, even if ultimately your position is based on a moral stance. (You can't use science to justify your moral position? How does that even make sense? Of course you can, as per my environmental decision example.)

2. I still never said milk isn't meant for human consumption, I said milk is specifically designed for babies of each species. Those babies are the ones who will get the most benefit from it. Can others consume it? Yes, as I said, people do. And prehistoric vs current consumption of milk probably varied wildly - so "on a massive scale" may not be at all accurate. But neither of us can prove that.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/4/1524.short
Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080806-prehistoric-dairy.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41492363?uid=3738016&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21103721262527

There are actually quite a few references of prehistoric widespread use of milk and milk products.

On the issue of taste alone: Myself and my family found almond/soy/etc milk to be absolutely disgusting. We hated it. I greatly prefer our 2% cow's milk and will continue to drink it on a regular basis, daily basis.

I prefer the taste of almond milk, and it is nutritionally similar. You can make up for whatever it doesn't have with food or supplements.

It is not nutritionally similar.
Milk has 300% more protein, just as a start.

I was just wondering if there's a benefit if you change from drinking cow's milk to almond milk.....?

Have you got your answer yet? Lol