Have you tried beyond burgers they taste just like the real thing and so humanity can skip the cruelty of lining cows in a narrow chute and slaughtering them unceremoniously.
Well meat farms produce a lot of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, so reducing any kind of demand from a ranch is probably better than nothing. That said, I thought the leather used for iPhones weren’t from animals we’d traditionally use for eating. Moleskin or something?
Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly
I’m curious how many animals are killed to make leather. I would think that the animal is killed for food and the byproduct is leather. If we’re still raising feed cattle and just wasting the leather, wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?
You’re tight, but I couldn’t think of a better term for it. I suspect leather is made with material that is generated not for leather making but as a consequence of the meat industry. And since when is “using the whole animal” a bad thing? Unless I’m wrong and there are animals killed specifically for their leather, that would be pretty fucked up.
Right, when we make things out of wood sure it’s killing trees, but it’s a sustainable resource that is better than mining for other materials that don’t biodegrade. Of course in leathers case it is literally a byproduct so there is very little environmental concers. Garentee faux leather is much more environmentally unfriendly
Like almost everything, this announcement sounds more like green washing.
For your wood example, wood is actually a great green resource. It’s not like they’re cutting down the old growth trees anymore. They selectively cut and they have tree farms. Trees are also not as good of a carbon sync as people tend to think they are. Yes, they absorb carbon over their lifetime, but when they die, they rot and release it back into the atmosphere. The carbon we’re worried about is the stuff that came out of the ground that was there for millions of years, which is far longer than a tree lifespan.
Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.
But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.
Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?
What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?
I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.
I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.
LOL, animals have no rights. OK, maybe the right to be tasty.
Apple claimed this was for environmental reasons, not animal rights reasons.
deleted by creator
Tanning is very polluting. Even throwing away the hides is better for the environment than tanning them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It makes perfect sense as a PR or cost-cutting move.
PR
But the bigger issue is the amount of environmental destruction beef farming has on the planet. Why don’t we stop that instead?
deleted by creator
But it does reduce the profitability of beef. Thus reducing operations and preventing more carbon.
deleted by creator
Less people would buy beef if the prices increased thus the supply will follow :)
deleted by creator
Apple doesn’t have much control of that.
Anyone that buys cow products has control of it
But then, if it depends on customers to collectively stop buying something, we’re doomed already.
One less animal product consumer prevents the deaths of many animals. You’re using the all or nothing fallacy.
deleted by creator
Have you tried beyond burgers they taste just like the real thing and so humanity can skip the cruelty of lining cows in a narrow chute and slaughtering them unceremoniously.
deleted by creator
Research says red meat isn’t for your heart health
deleted by creator
Ever heard of plants?
deleted by creator
Well vegans do it, so it must be available enough
soylent would like to have a word.
deleted by creator
Not a waste product, they rely on the profits of everything, it’s a product just as much as meat is and slowling demand for it is good.
Well meat farms produce a lot of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, so reducing any kind of demand from a ranch is probably better than nothing. That said, I thought the leather used for iPhones weren’t from animals we’d traditionally use for eating. Moleskin or something?
It reduces the profitability of the meat industry
It’s more enshittification. Making it cheaper and worse and telling everyone it’s an upgrade.
OP is editorializing that it’s for vegan ethics.
Why is it worse?
Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly
I’m curious how many animals are killed to make leather. I would think that the animal is killed for food and the byproduct is leather. If we’re still raising feed cattle and just wasting the leather, wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?
If you pay for it, it’s not a byproduct
You’re tight, but I couldn’t think of a better term for it. I suspect leather is made with material that is generated not for leather making but as a consequence of the meat industry. And since when is “using the whole animal” a bad thing? Unless I’m wrong and there are animals killed specifically for their leather, that would be pretty fucked up.
Right, when we make things out of wood sure it’s killing trees, but it’s a sustainable resource that is better than mining for other materials that don’t biodegrade. Of course in leathers case it is literally a byproduct so there is very little environmental concers. Garentee faux leather is much more environmentally unfriendly
Like almost everything, this announcement sounds more like green washing.
For your wood example, wood is actually a great green resource. It’s not like they’re cutting down the old growth trees anymore. They selectively cut and they have tree farms. Trees are also not as good of a carbon sync as people tend to think they are. Yes, they absorb carbon over their lifetime, but when they die, they rot and release it back into the atmosphere. The carbon we’re worried about is the stuff that came out of the ground that was there for millions of years, which is far longer than a tree lifespan.
“Yes I am causing pain and suffering ring but lol idc” is a totally normal thing to say.
Can you name another place where it’s ethical to willingly cause harm to another?
Animals aren’t people and have no rights.
Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.
But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.
Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?
What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?
—OP
Animal rights do not exist.
Kinda weird that you are only saying the same thing over and over whole ignoring questions. But allright, you do you.
Human rights don’t exist either. These are legal and philosophical concepts that we decide on, not fundamental constants.
Then why is animal abuse a crime?
There are many victimless “crimes against society”
You’re alright with dog fighting?
Bestiality?
Are you?
I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.
I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.
Cool, youve got no rights
Animals have rights in almost every country in the world.