This comment was written by Julia Marie Bell Julia Marie Bell from Australia in response to the comments of Simpson on my blog Happy Camel vs the Sad Cow.
She writes as “My argument leading on from my earlier statements, regarding why Simpson’s conclusion which explicitly implies “do not drink camel’s milk” is unsound is twofold. Firstly from a philosophical perspective and secondly from a scientific perspective.
It is well documented the symbiotic relationship between humans and the non-human world. The necessity, joy, physical and psychological health benefits. This is not new; it is ancient wisdom which is still traveling the world. It is not the “keeping” of non-human animals, be it for food or pleasure but MORE significant how the creatures are kept and how they are killed! My argument for free range and so forth. Furthermore, if one cannot kill an animal, one should therefore not eat the animal. This is ethical and puts one in a special relationship to such animal.
I ask you, Simpson, do you eat meat or any products from an animal? Do you wear leather or wool? By virtue of being “human “, we have all crossed this boundary.
I agree that the killing for killing’s sake, and using the non-human world for human greed, sexual exploitation and money is evil.
My position comes from “Deep Ecology” and an environmental ethic. So it is not wrong to drink any form of milk! It is the way the milk is collected. There is this western MYTH that infiltrated our psyche claiming that milk is unhealthy and causing cruelty in the production. Firstly, it is the pasteurization and homogenization that is killing us and creating allergies and gut problems. You can Google evidence for my claims. Secondly, I agree that many animals are kept in cruel conditions for milking and have their calves taken. This is too general a statement. That inductive reasoning is fallacious.
Camels milk is produced quite differently. I have visited many camel farms that produce milk and they are free range, stress-free, and the calves are only taken for short periods, if at all.
An important environmental point is that “soft hooved” animals (camels) are far more environmentally sustainable than “hard hooved” animals.
It is well documented the medicinal properties of camel’s milk! Please research. It is this symbiotic, beautiful relationship that I am talking about. There does not have to be cruelty. Understand through Science what the non-human world, the sentient and non-sentient world has to offer is magnificent and awe-inspiring. Many of our medical discoveries and medicines have been achieved this way. That is why we need to embrace and nurture, not have “dominion over”.
I am, for the most part, a vegetarian. I only eat what I can kill. Chicken and fish. I drink camel’s milk straight from the camel. I try and reduce and be aware of my carbon footprint. I do this as I am responsible for my health and well being and try not to consume too much of the health dollar. I am extremely healthy and strong in comparison to many of similar age. Food is medicine and we ought to understand this.
Finally, Simpson your opinion (and that is all it is) is fraught with paradoxes and smacks of “yuppie” ideology, giving very little understanding not only of poor countries that are kept alive on camels milk but furthermore the wonderful life-enhancing gifts that the beloved camel has to offer.”
3 thoughts on “Happy Camels Provide Healthier Milk: A comprehensive Response from Julia.”
Pingback: Happy Camels vs the Sad Cow: A comprehensive Response from Julia. | Qamar Mehdi
I appreciate the time taken to explain your position. I’m surprised I have to yet again reiterate that those kept alive through the use of animals are not part of my reasoning. To answer your questions, no, I do not consume any animal products, I do not wear wool, leather, silk, and I do not use products that contain lanolin, or any other animal derived products. I do not give money to establishments that use animals as entertainment or for labour. I do not approve or horse racing, exploitative zoos, bull fighting, or anything similar. I do not use cosmetics that have been tested on animals or that contain any products derived from animals. This is all for the simple reason that we humans have no right to believe that we ‘own’ another living creature. We can look after them and we can feed and house them, but we own objects, not lives. Our positions differ here as you believe it is possible to own another animal, and that is how you choose to live- but I reserve the right to question that thinking, just as you have the right to question mine. I agree with you entirely that one must only consume what they have killed and that they should take responsibility for taking a life. I commend you on this position, and I wish you no ill will. However, this is not the reality for the majority of those in the west.
It is the thinking of these people that is drowned in hypocrisy. I would like for you to point out the paradoxes in my own argumentation, to better develop my understanding, and if you would do this it would be well received.
Again, I truly appreciate your stance and the time you have taken to write a response, and I apologise if you feel insulted by what I have said.
Reblogged this on Animal Genetic Resources, the Camel, Food Security and the Climate Change.