Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 This story has been forwarded to you from http://www.alternet.org by jayelle3 I thought some of y'all might be interested in this. There are some good links, too--including vegan fetish-wear! B*B, Jayelle ---- Vegan, Head to Toe http://www.alternet.org/story/19913 Veganism doesn't just end with the food you eat. A new generation of vegans seeks to make non-leather shoes and clothes more readily available. ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 From jayelle3: > I thought some of y'all might be interested in this. There are some good > links, too--including vegan fetish-wear! > Very cool! -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 Here's something I seriously wonder about: in this article, the people interviewed mention the pollutants used in the tanning process, but they don't mention those used/created in, for instance, the creation of synthetic fabrics. Leather is polluting, mostly due to the huge amount of pollution created by slaughterhouses. However, synthetic fabrics are also very polluting. Nylon, for instance, is a popular microfiber, and the manufacturing process of nylon begins with the production of benzene (a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin) from which is derived phenol (toxic to the kidneys). The two types of nylon created during this process are, respectively, a developmental toxin and a neurotoxin. The manufacture of nylon leads to emmissions of ammonia, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxie, and carbon monoxide. A great deal of water is also polluted during this process, used in emmissions control, cooling, and processing. Also, most microfiber production takes place in poor, developing countries. These nations usually do not have environmental protection laws in place, and the employees are not well paid, and are subjec to toxic exposure on the job as well as in their polluted communities. Polyester was the orginal microfiber material and as we know the production of polyester is a highly polluting one. Many manufacturers in North America are taking steps to reduce the pollution, but most of the manufacturing doesn't take place here. Once you get these fabrics home, very few of them are washable, which means they must be dry cleaned, another highly polluting process. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I am trying to understand why vegans feel comfortable ignoring the pollution (and thus, death and illness caused to animals and humans) that is part of the synthetic fabric industry. _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 , reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote: > > Once you get these fabrics home, very few of them are > washable, which means they must be dry cleaned, > another highly polluting process. Aye. And those you can wash will shed bad fibers into your septic system; fibers that don't decompose for a long, long time and cause trouble down the road. > > I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I am trying to > understand why vegans feel comfortable ignoring the > pollution (and thus, death and illness caused to > animals and humans) that is part of the synthetic > fabric industry. These are good questions. i think they are things we all have to consider when making our ethical choices. It comes down to just doing the research and deciding which way you think is treading most carefully on this planet than the other. That's what i try to do. ~ pt ~ Birds make their nests in circles for theirs is the same religion as ours. ~ Black Elk, Oglala Sioux, (1863 -1950) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 > I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I am trying to > understand why vegans feel comfortable ignoring the > pollution (and thus, death and illness caused to > animals and humans) that is part of the synthetic > fabric industry. Any step towards reducing cruelty is a good one. Which would you rather use, a fabric that causes pollution in its production, or a fabric that causes pollution in its production AND is made from the flesh of dead animals? It's a no-brainer to me. But one point that I think you make very, very well is that the whole clothes issue is very complex and difficult. If I could afford to, I'd buy only 100% vegan, sweatshop-free clothing, like what they offer at Pangea. Unfortunately, I have a very limited budget and try to limit my purchases to clothing from non-animal sources, usually secondhand at thrift stores. I do the best I can. Even only having this discussion is better than nothing. Most people are too ignorant of cruelty or pollution to even try. -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 --- eric <eric wrote: > > > > Any step towards reducing cruelty is a good one. I agree. What I dispute is the idea that using synthetics reduces cruelty. It does not. > Which would you rather use, a > fabric that causes pollution in its production, or a > fabric that causes > pollution in its production AND is made from the > flesh of dead animals? It's a > no-brainer to me. Since pollution causes death, it's not a no-brainer to me. I think you're oversimplifying the issue in this case: " causes pollution " isn't so simple. Pollution leads to slow painful deaths, of both non-humans and humans. It leads to generations of sickness among both non-humans and humans. It leads to eradication. _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 > I agree. What I dispute is the idea that using > synthetics reduces cruelty. It does not. Oh, yes it does. I mean, without a doubt, you don't need to slaughter an animal in order to make synthetics. And as far as energy consumed, the leather industry is up there with the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry! Also, I wish that article went into more about what specifically goes into the tanning process. There are acids and sulfides and lots of crap involved. > Since pollution causes death, it's not a no-brainer to > me. I think you're oversimplifying the issue in this > case: " causes pollution " isn't so simple. Pollution > leads to slow painful deaths, of both non-humans and > humans. It leads to generations of sickness among > both non-humans and humans. It leads to eradication. And if both processes are polluting, yet one of them does not require the death of animals, it's a step in the right direction, and absolutely it reduces cruelty. No, it's not perfect. But being vegan is not about being perfect. It's about doing the best one can to help sustain what's here. Something else that wasn't mentioned in the article is that Pangea has a huge process for ensuring that none of their products or their raw materials were produced in sweatshops. And I could be mistaken, but I swear I've never seen polyester offered on Pangea. Just some thoughts. -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 , eric <eric@n...> wrote: > > > I agree. What I dispute is the idea that using > > synthetics reduces cruelty. It does not. > > Oh, yes it does. I mean, without a doubt, you don't > need to slaughter an animal in order to make synthetics. > And as far as energy consumed, the leather industry is > up there with the petroleum industry. The petroleum > industry! I've been trying to follow this thread and I have a couple of questions. What about pesticides that are used in the growing of cotton? (hm, also wonder about use of gas by farm equipment, pollution in the creation of clothes made of cotton, issues with dyes, etc., etc., etc) What about the cruelty on some sheep ranches in the shearing process? What about silk production, also questionable if you are concerned about cruelty even to insects? What about new gene modified cotton that is now being used in many places? What about dyes and perfumes (and whatever else) that is added to many detergents used at home? I'm sure there is some balance where you get the least cruelty to living beings and can still wear clean clothes but I'm not 100% sure that I know what that point is. I don't wear leather any more, except for an old pair of boots that I bought before becoming a ova lacto vegetarian over 5.5 years ago that I haven't thrown away, Otherwise I don't have any other clothes or belts that are leather or silk. But what about the rest of one's clothes? I have polyester/cotton mix clothes but is only cotton the best way to go? Hm, there's hemp too I guess. Admittedly if you know how the shearing of the sheep is done for wool clothes I guess that's acceptable too or is it not? Of course, if the climate is right you could always, uh, just forget about clothes but I'm not sure everyone else would necessarily appreciate that . . . ;<) And a majority (I think) of people would have some problems in winter or someplace with a lot of insects who don't mind attacking humans, etc. or too much sun (unless you want to slather that sun screen allllllll over yourself). Anyway, a lot of interesting points but I'm not sure a definitive conclusion will be found at this point. Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 Gary, > What about pesticides that are used in the growing > of cotton? Yeah, it's definitely a problem, and that's why there is organic cotton. Still very expensive. > (hm, also wonder about use of gas by > farm equipment, pollution in the creation of clothes > made of cotton, issues with dyes, etc., etc., etc) You have to pick your battles. In the last three years, I've changed how I live substantially, but I haven't gotten to everything yet, nor may I be able to. Is it important to you? There are other factors beyond just animals, too. Are you allergic to dyes? (For instance.) > What about the cruelty on some sheep ranches in the > shearing process? Well, is that important to you? All the vegans I know, including me, don't wear wool. It's up to you to draw the line that you are comfortable with. > What about silk production, also questionable if > you are concerned about cruelty even to insects? I don't use silk for that very reason, though I still have silk ties purchased before I became vegan. I still use the animal products that I happened to procure before becoming vegan as long as they'll last. It's up to you. > What about new gene modified cotton that is now > being used in many places? Again, it's up to you. If you use organic cotton, it will not be GMO. > What about dyes and perfumes (and whatever else) > that is added to many detergents used at home? Personally, my allergies keep me using dye-free and perfume-free detergents. The detergents I use contain surfacants derived from plant sources (coconut oil, I think, but I can't remember off the top of my head). > I'm sure there is some balance where you get > the least cruelty to living beings and can > still wear clean clothes but I'm not 100% > sure that I know what that point is. The point is to reduce suffering and increase sustainability. There are many paths to doing that. You need to decide for yourself what you are comfortable doing. > I don't > wear leather any more, except for an old pair > of boots that I bought before becoming a > ova lacto vegetarian over 5.5 years ago > that I haven't thrown away, Otherwise > I don't have any other clothes or > belts that are leather or silk. But what > about the rest of one's clothes? I have > polyester/cotton mix clothes but is only > cotton the best way to go? Hm, there's > hemp too I guess. My closet has a lot of cotton and some hemp in it. There's also a few of the faux materials that we've discussed in other posts in there too. I don't really know what else, but I'm not near my closet right now. > Admittedly if you know > how the shearing of the sheep is done for > wool clothes I guess that's acceptable too > or is it not? Again, I personally don't wear wool and it's generally accepted among vegans to not wear it, but everyone makes their own decisions and is entitled to do their own thing. For instance, I've seen some products made from " recycled wool " . I'm not particularly sure what that entails, but on the surface, it sounds like something that some people may feel helps. > Of course, if the climate is right you > could always, uh, just forget about clothes > but I'm not sure everyone else would necessarily > appreciate that . . . ;<) And a majority (I > think) of people would have some problems > in winter or someplace with a lot of insects > who don't mind attacking humans, etc. or > too much sun (unless you want to slather > that sun screen allllllll over yourself). Yeah, um, I'm not doing that. But, uh, go for it. :-P > Anyway, a lot of interesting points but I'm > not sure a definitive conclusion will be > found at this point. Probably not. But it's all very interesting. -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 --- eric <eric wrote: > > Oh, yes it does. I mean, without a doubt, you don't > need to slaughter an animal > in order to make synthetics. But they still get slaughtered. > And as far as energy > consumed, the leather > industry is up there with the petroleum industry. > The petroleum industry! You mean, the industry that makes polyester? > Also, I wish that article went into more about what > specifically goes into the > tanning process. There are acids and sulfides and > lots of crap involved. If you want to be horrified and grossed out, I can tell you. It involves the bodily remains of murdered cows- the chemicals used in the tanning process are natural. > And if both processes are polluting, yet one of them > does not require the death > of animals, it's a step in the right direction, and > absolutely it reduces > cruelty. You are stil overlooking the fact that pollution equals death. The manufacture of microfiber requires waste water, chemicals, etc. Therefore, it requires the death of living creatures. > No, it's not perfect. But being vegan is > not about being perfect. Wow, you're the first vegan I've ever heard say that I want to reiterate that I'm not attacking veganism- I was vegan myself for quite some time. What I don't understand is why many vegans will wear very polluting fabrics, whose manufacture causes the deaths of many creatures, and ignore that. They proclaim those items to be " cruelty free " when they are not. I think that any kind of consumption in the western world is eventually about compromise- we all have to decide how we can best serve the environment as a whole. _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 --- Gary <gsmattingly wrote: > I've been trying to follow this thread and I have > a couple of questions. > > What about pesticides that are used in the growing > of cotton? (hm, also wonder about use of gas by > farm equipment, pollution in the creation of clothes > made of cotton, issues with dyes, etc., etc., etc) I'm not ignoring those. It's basically impossible to be a consumer in the western world and not be contributing to SOME sort of pollution. For that matter, it's impossible to be alive, anywhere on the planet, and not pollute. I agree with PT- we each must do research and decide how we can each make the least environmental impact. > What about the cruelty on some sheep ranches in the > shearing process? It's terrible, which is why I do not use wool. I don't live in a super-cold place, though. > What about new gene modified cotton that is now > being used in many places? What about it? I'm opposed to food sources being genetically modified. Cotton is a food source- the oil is used for humans and the seeds are usually fed to cattle Of course, I think that if you eat a cow that has eaten GM cotton seed, and you get sick because of that, you rather deserve what you get. > What about dyes and perfumes (and whatever else) > that is added to many detergents used at home? This is another area in which we have options- we can use the least polluting products that we can find. Once again, though, it's impossible to exist without making some form of pollution. Many detergents are easily biodegraded, and true soaps biodegrade easily. You just have to be an aware consumer. > Of course, if the climate is right you > could always, uh, just forget about clothes > but I'm not sure everyone else would necessarily > appreciate that . . . ;<) We do that a lot down here in Texas, actually. >(unless you want to slather > that sun screen allllllll over yourself). I do that every day anyway. Another way I'm polluting- but if it's my health versus pollution, I choose my health. A long time ago, I toured with a group called " YES " - " Youth for Environmental Sanity. " One of the things I learned in YES is that " the environment " isn't just the forest or the ocean, it's also the world that each of us lives in- our cities, our houses, our lives, our bodies, our relations with other people. Keeping that in mind has been a big help to me. Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 --- eric <eric wrote: > Again, it's up to you. If you use organic cotton, > it will not be GMO. Not necessarily. There is not, to my knowledge, yet a law prohibiting GMO crops from bieng labelled " organic " . _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 , eric <eric@n...> wrote: > The point is to reduce suffering and increase sustainability. There are many > paths to doing that. You need to decide for yourself what you are comfortable > doing. ~Well said; we do indeed. > > Anyway, a lot of interesting points but I'm > > not sure a definitive conclusion will be > > found at this point. > > Probably not. But it's all very interesting. ~ Yes, it certainly is. i know i am learning some things from reading this exchange. Thanks. ~ pt ~ Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception. ~ Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 > > Oh, yes it does. I mean, without a doubt, you don't > > need to slaughter an animal > > in order to make synthetics. > > But they still get slaughtered. Not to make synthetics. > > And as far as energy > > consumed, the leather > > industry is up there with the petroleum industry. > > The petroleum industry! > > You mean, the industry that makes polyester? You're still ignoring the fact that the leather industry is wholly more damaging than the synthetics industry. > If you want to be horrified and grossed out, I can > tell you. It involves the bodily remains of murdered > cows- the chemicals used in the tanning process are > natural. Yet the cow still dies to give you leather. > You are stil overlooking the fact that pollution > equals death. The manufacture of microfiber requires > waste water, chemicals, etc. Therefore, it requires > the death of living creatures. I'm not overlooking that. You're overlooking the fact that the leather industry is causing way more pollution than anything in the synthetic world. > > No, it's not perfect. But being vegan is > > not about being perfect. > > Wow, you're the first vegan I've ever heard say that > You don't know many vegans, or you have a prejudice against them. > I want to reiterate that I'm not attacking veganism- I > was vegan myself for quite some time. What I don't > understand is why many vegans will wear very polluting > fabrics, whose manufacture causes the deaths of many > creatures, and ignore that. They proclaim those items > to be " cruelty free " when they are not. Yes, you are attacking veganism, and obviously you couldn't cut it being vegan so you need to attack vegans in order to make yourself feel better. > I think that any kind of consumption in the western > world is eventually about compromise- we all have to > decide how we can best serve the environment as a whole. That's exactly my point. But, contrary to your statement, you have adopted an " all or nothing " attitude that says that if creating synthetics causes pollution, why not go ahead and wear the skin of dead animals. That's faulty logic. -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 > > Again, it's up to you. If you use organic cotton, > > it will not be GMO. > > Not necessarily. There is not, to my knowledge, yet a > law prohibiting GMO crops from bieng labelled > " organic " . I didn't get into the labelling, which is definitely an issue, especially with the current administration's policies. However, any conscious consumer can contact a manufacturer and get the details. If they're not willing to pony up, obviously one's money would be better spent elsewhere. -e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 --- eric <eric wrote: > > But they still get slaughtered. > > Not to make synthetics. Yes, they do. > You're still ignoring the fact that the leather > industry is wholly more damaging > than the synthetics industry. I'm not ignoring anything. I do not think that your opinion has been established as " fact. " > Yet the cow still dies to give you leather. They don't die to give ME leather. (Here, and elsewhere in this email, you make assumptions. If you can't have a conversation without insults and assumptions, you should get off the internet.) And in fact, cows don't die to give anyone leather- leather is a byproduct of the beef industry. The whole fashion spin on leather was created in order to create a market for what would otherwise be a waste product. Yes, people used leather before, but not to the extent that they do today. > You're overlooking the > fact that the leather industry > is causing way more pollution than anything in the > synthetic world. You have not established that so-called " fact. " > You don't know many vegans, or you have a prejudice > against them. The winking emoticon made it obvious that my remark was one intended to intriduce some humor & lighten the mood. I can only assume you are choosing to ignore *that*, in order to be even more rude, attacking, and insulting in the rest of this email than you have been in the beginning. > Yes, you are attacking veganism, and obviously you > couldn't cut it being vegan > so you need to attack vegans in order to make > yourself feel better. Here's an example of what I mentioned earlier: you are making assumptions, you are speaking from your ignorance in order to be insulting. I don't think that's acceptable. I have not insulted you, nor have I made any snide comments about your motivations. If you can't hold up your side of a discussion without resorting to insults, then you display the weakness of your argument. > That's exactly my point. But, contrary to your > statement, you have adopted an > " all or nothing " attitude that says that if creating > synthetics causes > pollution, why not go ahead and wear the skin of > dead animals. Once again, you are making an ignorant assumption. This doesn't say much for either you or your argument. Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.