Thanks so very much for this thoughtful analysis, Aditya. I think the most important part of it is how you understand and have empathy for why most advocates are so much more passionate about mammals than non-mammals. This is, as you know, even more true for dairy cows, given that we all have mothers (and many of us are mothers). We don't, OTOH, see ourselves in chickens.
Thank you, Matt. It is even more true if you grew up in India (like me), where cows are culturally referred to as mothers ("Go-mata" which literally translates to "cow mother")!
Interesting angle. And thanks for the data. I looked at the USDA milk production chart you cited. I was surprised that one mother cow can produce 24,000 pounds of milk from one pregnancy! That seems like a lot, so I looked up the equivalent for a human mother's milk production. I nursed my son for a year, and Google tells me that I probably produced about 1,000 lbs of milk for his big infancy needs. Wow! More than I thought. I suppose a mother cow produces so much more milk since her baby grows much bigger and much faster. Of course the dairy industry forcefully takes away her baby and then takes all of her milk for their own profit. If I were in her hooves, I would definitely want animal advocates to also speak out for me.
Thanks for sharing Sadie, I agree. Also, same here! I wasn't aware of these numbers until recently (rather, I never bothered to look). The sheer volume of milk obtained from this cruel practice is just so high that even if we want to have a big impact for her, we need to think much bigger.
Insightful! I agree with much of the article, although two comments:
1. I am skeptical about the math here. I think it would make sense if the two situations were: person consumes dairy and person doesn't consume dairy or non-dairy products. But IRL, people who don't drink dairy do consume non-dairy products, which further reduces the suffering of pregnant cows (although I can imagine that computing this is less straightforward). Later you say:
> pushing corporations to drop plant milk surcharges, supporting the development of alternative milk technologies (like plant-based, precision fermentation, or cultivated dairy) to displace huge volumes of milk
Why would corporations drop plant milk surcharges or be incentivized to develop alternate milks if we advocate consumers not to drop dairy? Plant milk advocacy is tractable, and we have seen great wins here compared to, let's say, vegan beef. I have a sense that reversing the messaging on non-dairy products might be negative.
My naive guess would be maybe not much, but one of the core assumptions here is that the goal is reducing animal deaths, rather than suffering reduction.
Thanks for sharing your critiques Akash! I agree with some of them.
For 1, what do you mean by "people who don't drink dairy do consume non-dairy products"? Can you give an example? because I am confused what's the added benefit of consuming oat milk if its not displacing cows milk?.
Corporations like starbucks have actually dropped plant milk surcharge! (partly due to corporate advocacy) My main purpose here was just to highlight that focussing on individual consumption here may not be as high impact as most people think.
I agree with your final point. For context, this is written with many of my all-or-nothing vegan friends in mind! To them the main motivation is usually the number of lives saved, suffering of individuals is usually only secondary to it.
Thanks so very much for this thoughtful analysis, Aditya. I think the most important part of it is how you understand and have empathy for why most advocates are so much more passionate about mammals than non-mammals. This is, as you know, even more true for dairy cows, given that we all have mothers (and many of us are mothers). We don't, OTOH, see ourselves in chickens.
Thank you, Matt. It is even more true if you grew up in India (like me), where cows are culturally referred to as mothers ("Go-mata" which literally translates to "cow mother")!
Interesting angle. And thanks for the data. I looked at the USDA milk production chart you cited. I was surprised that one mother cow can produce 24,000 pounds of milk from one pregnancy! That seems like a lot, so I looked up the equivalent for a human mother's milk production. I nursed my son for a year, and Google tells me that I probably produced about 1,000 lbs of milk for his big infancy needs. Wow! More than I thought. I suppose a mother cow produces so much more milk since her baby grows much bigger and much faster. Of course the dairy industry forcefully takes away her baby and then takes all of her milk for their own profit. If I were in her hooves, I would definitely want animal advocates to also speak out for me.
Thanks for sharing Sadie, I agree. Also, same here! I wasn't aware of these numbers until recently (rather, I never bothered to look). The sheer volume of milk obtained from this cruel practice is just so high that even if we want to have a big impact for her, we need to think much bigger.
Thanks Aditya. I agree that we cannot forget about the chickens. Nor the fishes. Every body!
Insightful! I agree with much of the article, although two comments:
1. I am skeptical about the math here. I think it would make sense if the two situations were: person consumes dairy and person doesn't consume dairy or non-dairy products. But IRL, people who don't drink dairy do consume non-dairy products, which further reduces the suffering of pregnant cows (although I can imagine that computing this is less straightforward). Later you say:
> pushing corporations to drop plant milk surcharges, supporting the development of alternative milk technologies (like plant-based, precision fermentation, or cultivated dairy) to displace huge volumes of milk
Why would corporations drop plant milk surcharges or be incentivized to develop alternate milks if we advocate consumers not to drop dairy? Plant milk advocacy is tractable, and we have seen great wins here compared to, let's say, vegan beef. I have a sense that reversing the messaging on non-dairy products might be negative.
2. Does the math change at all if you quantify the suffering induced rather than animal deaths? (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/C2qiY9hwH3Xuirce3/short-agony-or-long-ache-comparing-sources-of-suffering-that)
My naive guess would be maybe not much, but one of the core assumptions here is that the goal is reducing animal deaths, rather than suffering reduction.
Thanks for sharing your critiques Akash! I agree with some of them.
For 1, what do you mean by "people who don't drink dairy do consume non-dairy products"? Can you give an example? because I am confused what's the added benefit of consuming oat milk if its not displacing cows milk?.
Corporations like starbucks have actually dropped plant milk surcharge! (partly due to corporate advocacy) My main purpose here was just to highlight that focussing on individual consumption here may not be as high impact as most people think.
As for 2, faunalytics apparently already did this a while ago (the last section close to the bottom will answer your question): https://faunalytics.org/animal-product-impact-scales/
I agree with your final point. For context, this is written with many of my all-or-nothing vegan friends in mind! To them the main motivation is usually the number of lives saved, suffering of individuals is usually only secondary to it.