Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing implies the other, as it's impossible to produce enough dairy for so many people using the methods you mention, that is why most dairy people consume comes from factory farms in the first place. Dairy price would sky-rocket and become a luxury item, and few people would be able to afford it several times a day every day, as its so common today.
> One thing implies the other, as it's impossible to produce enough dairy for so many people using the methods you mention, that is why most dairy people consume comes from factory farms in the first place. This is simply not true. What you probably mean is it is not possible to achieve the same results while not caring how it is done (ie. going about our lives). Throughout the history people relied on dairy way more…
> people choose the cheapest product the cows be damned.
When vfc1 says "One thing implies the other", the charitable interpretation of that statement is likely "given the way our society is structured at this time, it's inevitable that this result will obtain".
When taking care of cows means spending more money on their welfare than some competitor, and when people are willingly disinterested in the welfare of the cows whose milk they consume, we have a good-old-race-to-the-bottom.
The most powerful work I've read on the topic is the 1975 classic "Animal Liberation" by a philosopher Peter Singer. In it he uses excerpts from literature written by the industry (presumably the most-rosy picture you can find of the conditions of animals in the factory farms) to show how horrible the conditions are (and to make an argument why we ought to abstain from consuming and why we ought to try to dismantle the system).