Editing Ape mother

One way to evaluate the [[w:goodness|moral goodness]] of '''ape mother''' behaviour objectively is by weaning times, and perserverance against the civilization, or lack thereof.  Mothers who have lots of support from fellow apes and who wean their children quickly to be rid of them and get back into the workplace, can be seen as poorer mothers than those that have less or no support, and who protect their children until a much more advanced age.

For example, it is normal in developed nations for mothers to wean children before the age of two years.  While in developing nations children may breast feed until as late as five or even seven.  Chimpanzees almost always nurse to a similarly late age, suggesting that this is in fact the natural trend of hominids.  Orang-utan mothers are possibly the most heroic, typically nursing children the longest, up to ten years in some cases, and since Orangs are quite solitary and have less culture around them (one theory is that humans destroyed the orang culture making them all into hairy homeless people effectively) this is almost entirely the duty of the single mother herself, with no help at all.

The fact that voiceless ape mothers who happen to be somewhat hairier and more polite than the human kind are given no rights or degraded "[[animal rights]]", while someone who provably makes life more difficult or impossible for real mothers of any ape species get "[[human rights]]", e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] who hires "hunters" to kill ape mothers for "loggers" to eat, enrages [[trolls]], who want these so-called "people" dead, or in such pain as to beg for death.

To head off the more violent default solutions to this type of problem, one way [[Consumerium]] can help is to establish [[well-being]] of '''ape mother'''s in general as a criteria for the [[Consumerium buying signal]].  This seems to be one of several [[moral cognition]] factors that could be reasonably "objective", despite the "subjective" hate brutalizers and torturers of such mothers evoke.  Surely we can agree about the badness of the oppression even if we cannot agree about the goodness of ways to deal with the oppression?