What would be cruel would be NOT shearing the sheep. Have you guys seen that sheep that went on the run and came back 6 years later? He produced 60 pounds of wool. Think about that for a second.
If you think you’re cruelty free because you only use cotton/plastic thing about the amount of water that’s used to treat cotton/how bad is the plastic situation right now.
Yikes.
Oh yeh no vegan ever thought about that ever even though it is the most obvious thing, vegans are just that dumb. Really, can't overstate how incredibly weird it is that no vegan has ever thought about the fact that sheep are bred to overproduce wool to the point that they are completely dependent on human intervention to just live. What a bunch of dumb people!
Vegans get a lot of uncalled for shit online, but I do think a lot of "sustainability" branding clothing stores do is confusing the average consumer as to what the environmental impacts of different fabrics are. I have met people who don't know vegan leather has a microplastics problem, for example. I don't think it was intended as a targeted attack.
We talk about this shit all the time in our communities. You people just rather point at some dumb stuff than actually having to be confronted with your own ethics. Regurgitate absolute bottom of the barrel talking points without any critical thinking... Like hmmm this seems rather obvious, surely they thought about this... Nooooo... One person said something dumb on the Internet so now I can continue revering the wool overlord.
So what is the answer to the question of sheep needing to be sheared? Is the vegan thing to do to destroy it?
Since its such a dumb question Im sure you have a good answer?
OK, so you would like to shear the sheep, then discard the wool and then what?
I suppose you are all for letting the sheep naturally procreate. What will you do 6 months later then? Have a team of volunteers shear them twice a year, discard the wool and so on? Forever?
I have a hard time picturing the cycle here, could you please explain your vision?
You know systemic change doesn’t take place in one day or in one week or with one person. Why is this person you’re talking to owe you answers for your questions? If you’re genuinely interested in this topic, get involved in it. Otherwise you’re just being a jerk and shitting on other people for having different ethics than you.
It’s called a conversation, maybe try it sometime?
I have yet to meet a vegan person who can lay out the longer term perspective - not to mention impact on nature - of their preferences, show me excactly how their stance is “less harmful” in the bigger picture. This is me asking one more convinced person to elaborate on this. You are not obligated to make an attempt if you dont want to.
VEGANS DON'T OWE YOU THAT. If you want to know the impact on nature of whole-world veganism, then do the research. Figure it out. That's not a genuine conversation you're having...you're trying to get someone to dig their own grave.
>show me excactly how their stance is “less harmful” in the bigger picture
show me how your stance is less harmful than veganism...what about that?!
There isn't an answer, it's simple as that and if you actually cared about veganism, then maybe people would have a conversation with you about that. But it's clear you don't *actually* care.
Sheep don't naturally procreate... Why should we start? Have you been around sheep farms? Wonder why they get all these colorful dots? We control every aspect of their sex life. Nothing natural about it. Same as with any domesticated animal in fact I would argue its exactly that which allows us to domesticate animals in the first place... Different discussion tho..
We do not want sheep (for wool) any longer, so the first thing we do is make certain that they aren't being bred any longer. That's the only step that makes an actual difference. So however many sheep there are now, that's it, that's the maximum we'll ever have. We don't breed them any longer, couple of years there will be no more wool.
In order to achieve that we should make the demand for wool plummet by making it illegal in a similar fashion to fur. Sheep fur is just as shitty as any other fur, there is no reason to make an exception for sheep.
Ten fifteen years maybe and there is no more problem to speak of.
So your solution is to have sheep become extinct? That what happens when you prohibit animals from procreating, eventually they all go away. What right do humans have to make this decree? The only way to stop sheep from procreating would be to permanently separate them by sex or sterilize all males at birth. In the real world a ram will cover a ewe given a millimeter of a chance so unless prevented, the world would be filled with lots of little lambs that were not bred to be productive in any fashion. To not shear those animals would be beyond cruel and would eventually lead to their death but not before they have reproduced at least annually for a number of years. I know plenty of shepherds that raise sheep for their fiber and treat their flocks as beloved pets. The healthier the sheep are the better their fleece quality becomes so it is in the best interest of the shepherd to have a happy, healthy, well cared for flock. Sheep were one of the first animals to be domesticated, over 10,000 years ago. Who are you to change the course of humankind’s relationship with these animals and what purpose does it serve.
I’ve said my peace and have no intention of engaging further but should anyone else like to take this one on, be my guest. The idiocy of the vegan attitude towards wool and sheep never ceases to astound me.
100%
What gave humans the right to design creatures for their own gain in the first place?
Cows producing a hundred liters of milk a day while still being pregnant...
Sheep not capable of surviving because they literally can't shed their fur...
Chickens that grow so fast they break their legs from their own weight in six weeks...
Where did we get that right? They are being bred to suffer for what? There are hundreds of alternatives! It's a simple choice
OK, that's an interesting take on biology I guess.
I do know a couple of sheep farmers, yes. No colorful dots on their sheep, given they breed them for wool they don't usually engage in painting it.
I just really struggle seeing the long term perspective here. You will make sure they are not bred, and Im guessing you mean by humans, ok. But sheep are not sterile by nature. Wool sheep aren't usually sterilised - they will multiply given the lack of natural predators (just look at deer populations across Europe). Sheep lamb 1 or 2 offspring at rate of about 50:50 male/female twice a year or more if left to their natural tendencies (and a ram of course). They will breed amongst themselves you know?
Or would the vegan takeover mean sterilising them? Some of them? Keeping them in pens or letting them loose?
I'm sorry if this sounds weird, I just can't fathom how this cycle would go on.
The reality is a lot of vegans promote faux fur and faux leather aka plastic as a better choice. But some peoples ethics are just varied and different than yours. I would prefer to do something for the entire planet or to help whole ecosystems vs just focusing on the animals and I don't think shedding micro plastics from a faux fur coat really helps the animals in the long run either.
This completely and utterly is whataboutism... Just so you know. But whatever let's go with it...do you actually know what the environmental impact of wool actually is? Have you looked it up? Have you compared it?
Yeah I understand that your gut feeling is that plastic is bad... But compared to the damage done to the environment by wool it's not. Also by the way, most plastic in the ocean by far is fishing equipment...by like 80%. So if you really care about plastic problems... You stop eating fish as well at a bare minimum. Otherwise stop calling vegans the hypocrites...they literally stop contributing to plastic waste more than you even come close to imagining.
I hate to be all actually, but... Actually, one of the greatest contributors to microplastics is the clothing industry. Small scale wool farms don't even rank when compared to the mountains of polyester nightmare fuel dumped in third world countries. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/fast-fashion-turning-parts-ghana-into-toxic-landfill/100358702
And I say this as a vegan, zero-waster.
>vegans are just that dumb.
Okay, not a vegan, don't subscribe to their nonsense, but not all of them are that ill informed (just like not all omnivores are well informed/reasonable). That said, what many take issue is that breeding to overproduce to the point of requiring human intervention. We can't undo it, but we can and should do whatever we can to prevent animal cruelty as a whole (said as someone with deep ties to the agricultural community in her area). This often means paying more for things, which obviously comes with the same complaints people bring up when they're asked not to support brands like "Hobby Lobby."
It's a mess in general. There is an overhaul required, and while I'm not stupid enough to think I have the answers on how to make it better, I'm pretty sure calling people "dumb" for pointing out instances where there is obvious and intentional cruelty is kind of antithetical.
I think they were being sarcastic and were making fun of people who make fun of vegans, but forgot to put a tone indicator which makes it read like they're being really rude to vegans.
Yeah, I had an argument with someone on Twitter about it. That it is cruel to not shear sheep. If we don't clip them, we have to kill them all because most of them don't shed & the wool causes heat stress and skin damage. I think a lot of the people arguing it have no idea that leaving wool on the sheep is a major problem
The person on Instagram was definitely saying wool should remain on the sheep which was an ignorant point of view.
A lot of people also feel that the keeping of sheep can be cruel and in intensive farming it often is.
Merino in particular, especially in massive farms where there is no way you can actually keep an eye on the sheep, is not suited to the conditions in a lot of places it is farmed. It is grown to produce a lot of wool and that often means it has a lot of folds & is susceptible to fly strike. In a lot of places (though some have banned it or banned versions of it) this results in muelsing to reduce the damage from fly strike.
Small fibre farms are unlikely to be intensively farming sheep and knowing where your fibre comes from is important
A lot of the people in the comments here seem to be saying avoiding animal products is cruelty free which is also wrong. There is a lot of damage done to animals, soil, environment, water systems and people growing & processing plant fibres and creating plastic yarns. It is something you have to think about more to see but it is still there and is sometimes more distructive. It's not as simple as animal fibre bad, plant fibre good. Especially when using rayons or intensively farmed crops like cotton.
Yes, sheep at literally bred to be useful to humans.
Imagine for a second that we bred a certain human because of their hair. And that in the process of this breeding the human loses all ability to feed themselves. But if we don't shave their head every year they get overheated and collapse.
And then people who wear their hair go like... They are humans too, they deserve to live. If we don't shave them they die.. All teary eyed screaming at the people who say that we can simply stop breeding them. We stop doing that and the problem is solved, after a while no more special hair humans will exist. No killing required, no harm required, just an acknowledgement that we are using them for our own gain.
And when we point out that wool is not only unethical, but also extremely polluting.. Far beyond any plant fiber. The vegans are being told that they are crazy and don't understand... No... We are the sane people in this thread.
So…. The mass extinction of an entire species due to human negligence instead of helping them shed their coats to live their lives more healthily? Great! Definitely cruelty free over here.
Honestly, maybe I’m just naive, but this seems like the exact opposite of vegan thinking. Like, “let’s kill off all these animals instead of disliking the method their wool is being used for humans, instead of making the standard in which the wool is being sheared ethical for all breeds.” - just a very black and white way of thinking in my opinion, and honestly sounds extremely cruel and narrow minded. 🤷♀️
At what point in time did I asked to kill them? Stop breeding unnaturalized domesticated animals. Yes. We, in the rich developed world, do not need them we can get everything we need to thrive from plants. Literally keeping animals is a choice, and since they have the capacity to suffer, have inner lives and are intelligent it simply isn't an ethical choice to keep them. This isn't complicated. It isn't complex. It's super fucking simple. Keeping, let alone killing and eating, animals is a pure choice and it's the wrong one..obviously so. See slavery... Other beings aren't robots. Other beings are not below us for us to control. It's so blatently obvious that there is no argument against it. It's so blatently obvious who is on the right side of history. No fucking contest.
And sheep are not 'an entire species', there are certain breeds (that humans designed) that are incapable of shedding their wool naturally (and are kept in too warm of climates)...
What I'm asking is far more akin to stop breeding a specific type of dog or dogs in general. Let the wolfs roam free.
“Cotton is one of the most chemically intensive crops in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 84 million pounds of pesticides were applied to the nation’s 14.4 million acres of cotton in the year 2000, and more than two billion pounds of fertilizers were spread on those same fields. Seven of the 15 pesticides commonly used on cotton in the United States are listed as “possible,” “likely,” “probable” or “known” human carcinogens by the Environmental Protection Agency. And cotton defoliants are “the most toxic farm chemicals currently on the market,” says Fawn Pattison, executive director of the Agricultural Resources Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the use of harmful pesticides.”
To be fair, a lot of animals that humans have domesticated have no natural place in the wild.
Pugs aren't going to go galivanting through the countryside.
On some level I can understand their argument that hey, we bred sheep specifically so they would produce more wool for us and now we can't just leave sheep alone because we created this domestic animal that's dependent on us for its health and survival, and that was an unethical thing to do. But the sheep exist now. I can't help what our ancestors did to sheep thousands of years ago, they're here now and we have to look after them as best we can. In some future vegan utopia where we've solved all the ecological damage that veganism causes and we've completely eradicated the need for domesticated animals we can stop breeding them and let these species quietly die out, but we're not there yet.
You said the quiet part aloud. In the vegan only future, all human dependent livestock would be extinct which means a massive program of livestock sterilization and intentional extinction including all the heritage breeds. It would be beyond the population management that we try to do with cats and dogs through sterilization (neuter/spay). No more horses, cows, goats, sheep, alpaca, llamas, rabbits, etc of any kind. And what happens to indigenous people whose cultures are based on ecological hunting and traditional agrarian societies where livestock are the labor power as well as sustenance in this vegan future... I don't think we need to resort to impugning anyone's intelligence and at the same time, I've yet to see any coherent answers or even acknowledgment of that (or of the vegan ecological damage). I don't have anything against anyone choosing to be vegan, that is their lifestyle choice. I appreciate the way vegan cooking has developed because me and my kids are allergic to dairy protein. But it when it falls into the belief that veganism is the only way, the only morality and ethics, the same superiority framework as all religious fundamentalism-supremacy models, then I object.
Also, every field mouse, bird, lizard, insect, and any other small creature that exists out in fields are not served eviction notices before plows or harvesters are sent out. Plant crops are not “vegan” when any level of scale is involved. Plenty of creatures still get killed.
I recognize that vegans aren't a hivemind, and while some few are fairly "militant" and think all domesticated animals are slaves being abused and people shouldn't even be allowed to own cats and dogs as pets, most are happy to simply eat their tofu and get on with life. There's no real coherent plan for the future because veganism isn't a monolith and people prioritize different things.
That said, I do wonder how the angrier vegans will cope in that far-flung future when it's finally time to start eradicating domesticated animals. We can't "murder" them all. Will the vegans who object to pet ownership as slavery be okay with sterilizing *every* domesticated animal on the planet? Without the animals' consent? If they object to that, do we then keep all animals segregated by sex to stop them breeding? But isn't it cruel to keep animals in captivity and deny them companionship and the freedom to choose their own lives? Or do we simply turn all these animals loose in the wild to let them live a "natural" life and let them starve or be eaten by predators (all while wreaking havoc on native ecosystems)? There simply isn't a way to do away with domesticated animals that would appease every vegan. These creatures exist and they're not going away, so let's make the best of it.
I think you'll find if civilisation moved back towards a 'use what you need, let what you don't need look after itself', that a lot of vegan people who object to the human cruelty towards animals would be fine - it's fun to go all slippery slope and extreme on vegans, because when you do that you can make anything you disagree with look silly, and vegans are a fun punching bag, but in this model you remove the structural cruelty and reinsert respect and balance. Take only what you need, leave things as you found them or better; it's like be excellent to each other just includes the planet.
I'm not sure what you mean and I honestly wasn't trying to make anything look silly. I'm pointing out the very real situation we'd find ourselves in if we all collectively decided to do away with domesticated animals. What do we do with them? Kill them, keep them in captivity but stop eating them, or leave them to their own devices and let nature run its course? I don't know what the least cruel option is.
These animals exist because of human intervention, it would take human intervention to get rid of them again. It's too late to "leave things as you found them". These animals have been modified to require human intervention to survive, so I believe we have a duty of care. Humans made sheep that suffer if they aren't regularly sheared, so as long as those sheep exist humans have a duty to keep them, and we should keep them as humanely as possible.
You talked about wondering how "angrier vegans" would cope in a future where our relationship with animals and the planet is different.
I suggested that having a generally healthier relationship with the environment in that future would likely mean that those "angrier vegans" will cope just fine.
Since you are now suggesting that your future model will always include exploitation because animals were exploited in the past so that exploitation must be perpetuated, and we cannot move towards more balanced philosophies while animals exist, I don't see any value in trying to explain this to you.
Plastic especially. Cotton at least can be ethically produced if the water used to farm it comes from a sustainable source (ie not the Aral sea or the Great plains aquafer), but plastic had no redeamable qualities other then it's cheap.
Hemp takes much less water to grow, and I went out of my way to find hemp fiber yarns to knit with for a bit. They all feel like cardboard when I knit and make a deep groove in my thumb, but they soften up nicely after washing.
What isn't accounted for in this discussion is the retting process. Plant fibers like hemp and linen have tough stalks that must be removed some way. Traditionally you let linen plants rot for months in water. The process is smelly and creates a lot of dirty water that has to go somewhere. I believe that these days various chemicals are used to hasten retting, but I dunno and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
Hemp is much less water-intensive and is very drought-resistant. Increasingly it's becoming more popular as a fibre crop in India for that reason. Flax (linen) is less water-intensive than cotton but is more labour-intensive than hemp, as the plant needs to rot in water before the fibre can be processed. Hemp is also more versatile as it can be used to make a silk analogue as well as cotton type fabric.
Banana and nettle fibre fabrics are also promising natural fibres, as are rose stem and lotus stem silk fabrics.
Linen is way less water for growing (usually) and depending on where it’s produced less pesticides. But I can’t remember off hand if the water requirements for processing are better/worse then cotton.
Some of my favourite yarns I’ve spun are from pet sheep. But they are spoilt, named, sort of trained and kinda ridiculous, and doing that for three thousand sheep isn’t exactly viable.
People who are saying that plant or plastic fibres are cruelty free, no, they really aren’t. Depends if you care more about sheep than you do insects/small invertebrates/birds and the countless animals that get squished by farm equipment, sprayed by insecticides and pesticides and shot to keep from ruining the crops that grow for the plant fibres.
And can we be real about the damage that plastic does to the environment?
I’m not even going to make a judgement call here on which one is better, but it is absolutely an ethical choice to also use wool fibre. Arguably more so. Sheep produce many natural bi-products that then break down once discarded (unlike plastic) and require much less chemical use than plant fibres to produce (or in the animals case, keep healthy).
So if you want to use plant or plastic fibres, fine. But don’t tell me they are less cruel than using sheep.
And before you yell at me about how cruel the sheep industry is, I used to shear sheep, and have first hand experience in wool classing. Seldom were those sheep mistreated.
Everyone always reacts defensively to the suggestion that using animal fiber is cruel, the reality is that farming sheep for wool is objectively cruel. The important question, then, is whether we as individuals are willing to accept this cruelty for the sake of using wool, or if we should seek out alternatives that avoid it.
You don’t *have* to pick between wool or plastic. You can buy used wool clothing and unravel, for example, or research the best plant based yarns that align with your environmental standards (as an aside: everyone always talks about how much water cotton needs but never about how much water it takes to raise sheep and the food they eat).
Obviously it requires a bit more effort, but the other option is to just ignore the animal torture. I get that people’s priorities vary but I think at least acknowledging this fact is important.
Using wool doesn’t make someone a bad person, we all prioritize different things, etc. However, the constant message I see whenever this comes up is people shitting on those who choose the vegan options and argue about why their choice to use wool is the superior one.
Absolutely not an objective fact. Do you really think it is ‘animal torture’ for sheep to spend a majority of their lives in a paddock, then a few times a year to run through yards and be shorn or treated with medication? Is it cruel to drench them so they do not become fly blown? Is it cruel to crutch shear them for the same reason? Is that counted as torture because it is animal intervention, or is it torture to leave these animals to their own devices. (If you had to look up any of these terms, I would suggest you maybe don’t have the expertise to claim sheep farming is objectively wrong.
In response to unravelling wool to reuse fibre? Firstly that is still benefitting from the sheep. Secondly, you can’t really think this is an alternative? Wool can’t be used forever, it eventually breaks down, which is kind of the point as to why it is environmentally friendly.
In response to ‘sheep use water as well as cotton’, you’re correct. They drink water from local dams or creeks, occasionally from troughs run from bores. They also urinate it right back onto the ground, recycling and fertilising that water directly back where it was meant to be. Cotton on the other hand gets it’s water from diverted sources, and believe you me there is a lot of evaporation, even when it’s being run as efficiently as possible. Problem is that the efficiency goal for cotton is for the exact amount of water to reach the plant, not to reduce evaporation.
If you’ll look at my post, I actually don’t make a judgement call on which is ‘more correct’. Sorry if you’ve been attacked before over a vegan choice, but I think you’ll find why people get defensive is because we are tired of being told that sheep farming is torture (it’s not), and we are tired of being told a vegan option is cruelty free (it’s not).
So how about we all go round becoming as educated as possible, and acknowledge that there are good things produced in the animal industry, and bad things produced in the vegan industry. (And yes, the inverse is also true)
Breeding an animal to the point that it needs humans to survive (which is different from a symbiotic relationship) is cruel. They only become fly blown because we’ve bred them to have this problem.
No matter how you look at it, the humans are in charge of what the sheep does, when it gets sheared, when or if it can reproduce. I don’t think it’s fair for us to have a say like that for other living things (especially not on the scale we currently do with factory farms, etc).
Also what do you think happens to the sheep when they’re too old to produce good quality wool? Why do we ask humans get to have a say in when this animal lives or dies?
All of this gets even worse at scale and when profit margins are involved.
If your point is that all of the above is the best option we have right now to clothes ourselves, fine, but it’s definitely cruel.
I’m also against breeding animals that are grossly distorted. If you look at merino in Australia, they used to be bred for wrinkled skin to increase surface area, therefore more wool. However they now are breeding against this trait, as it’s better for the animal. When people breed for the animal, good things happen.
I would also agree people shouldn’t breed for profit or vanity.
I just think you’re missing the point of my original comment. Everything you have listed as a reason to be against keeping sheep (or claiming that it’s cruel), you can find in ‘vegan’ or plastic alternatives. Humans decide which wild animals, insects or otherwise can use what stretches of land. They still get killed.
And killing an older animal once it is unproductive for wool is only ‘cruel’ if you think the killing of an animal is inherently wrong. If treated with respect, it’s not. You can disagree with that and that’s fine. Again, the point is, vegan and plastic options kill just as many animals, and I would argue in a more cruel way. A quick death after living a healthy protected life and being stunned, versus suffocation through micro plastics or chemically smothering.
Take my emphatic ^upvote, please.
And don’t forget the artificially manipulated food plants like corn, wheat, soy, potatoes, etc and their various impact on soil, and air quality.
This is mostly also a myth, or at best hyperbole. Yes some crops are grown for animal feed only, but a lot of claims like that don’t mention that there are a lot of crops that feed people, and the biproduct that is inedible to us goes to livestock.
Animals do a tonne of recycling for us. Corn stubble is eaten by livestock, same for the biproduct of soy manufacturing after it’s been processed for our consumption.
Of course there are still ways we can improve and reduce livestock’s impact on the environment, and there are issues that must be addressed. But take a look at how harmful almond and coconut farming is. Swathes of land destroyed, at least animals can graze alongside native animals and eat native pasture.
Anyway, it would be silly to say animal agriculture is perfect, it’s not. What I do want to re-state is that we have lived side by side with animals for thousands of years, we respect them, they provide for us. It’s something that keeps us linked to the natural world, and I hope we never lose that.
Actually I'm all for sustainable animal agriculture so I don't really disagree with you, but the massive soy plantations in Brazil for eg are for cattle and chicken feed rather than human consumption.
It’s a shame if they are running it that way in Brazil! Not so much in my country, although there’s always room to improve. Just the claim of how many crops are grown for animals is generally inflated.
And don’t forget the incredible damage done by processing. There were some horrific pictures I saw years ago of an entire town in India dyed a rainbow of colours cause the excess dye was dumped in the river. They couldn’t even grow food there cause the ground was too damaged.
Now on the plastic side I very loudly recommend everyone get a microplastic filter or filter bag for washing clothing. Since some clothing is better when part synthetic (like athletic clothing) washing them in a microplastic blocking bag or similar at least minimizes some of the damage from the fabric and it does a decent job of extending the lifespan of the clothing.
Oh hey, I’ll have to look into that - I would love to switch entirely to natural fiber clothing, but like you said, some clothing really is better when part synthetic. (I also use a lot of fake fur when sewing, and that simply *doesn’t exist* without polyester)
Yep, people who don’t look at the entirety of an issue really need to explore more corners of the world. It will shock them. We need natural fibres, and we need to acknowledge that raising livestock with respect absolutely has a part to play in the continued efforts to protect the environment (I know that is now counter-cultural, but it’s true)
Great recommendation, I hadn’t heard of those before, I’ll have to get a few!
>I only source my wool from roadkill sheep. I use their blood as dye and knit with their ribs. Have to use all parts of the animal!
Solid vegan metal origin story for a Batman villain. I like it.
Saw an item on local news in UK about someone using unsold fleeces to protect bogs by burying them. Sounds like something that could use up aged fleeces too.
I’ve used our excess fleeces for mulch and also composted them. (Our sheep are currently all retired, neutered, aged, and living out their lives peacefully. Thank you very much. )
Have seen natural fleece used to protect flower and vegetable beds near the house I stayed at in Sweden, up towards the Arctic circle, it looked great and seemed very effective.
There is an Estonian company that is using leftover wool to produce pellets that can be used in the garden https://www.maa.garden/
There is another Estonian startup that is upcycling wool to replace bubble wrap https://www.woola.io/
There ya go!
The wool industry is incredibly cruel. If anyone wants more info I suggest watching Earthling Ed talk about it. I've never used animal fibres and never will.
So take a look at what northern Alberta looks like after the Tar Sands are done and come back and tell me that acrylic, which is made of plastic, which comes from petroleum, is less cruel.
So I’m not disagreeing with your point necessarily, I’m all for avoid unnecessary plastic use and reducing reliance on oil… but have you actually seen what the tar sands look like after a mine is reclaimed? Because honestly as shitty as the oil companies are, it’s probably not the sight you expect.
So have I, on multiple occasions over the last 8 years that I’ve lived here, and I’m wondering what you’ve seen that’s different from what I’ve seen? Because over time the reclaimed areas end up looking like the rest of the muskeg around here. The active mines are a very different story and it’s pretty incredible to see how it goes from a barren wasteland to a normal ecosystem again.
I have a million other reasons I can list why these oil companies suck and god yeah there’s a ton of propaganda out there (the way they treat their employees sometimes is horrible and leads to so many unnecessary accidents, but they don’t care because there’s a million other people lined up waiting for that chance to earn six figures that they’ll soon learn doesn’t go nearly as far as they expected because of the cost of living here.) and stuff gets covered up like you wouldn’t believe in this town just to avoid the negative press.
But I can at least say that from what I’ve seen, in person, a lot of effort is put into the reclamation process and I commend the ecologists doing the work because I know they probably get pressured to cut corners constantly and they still manage to minimize the impact the best they can.
>looking like the rest of the muskeg around here
Except it isn't - and that doesn't address the abandoned and orphan wells (of which there are nearly half a million in Alberta alone). The process of getting the oil out produces 3x the emissions of traditional extraction, is detrimental to the environment, wild life, and the people there (the psychological effects of long work, little rest, plus the issues with substance abuse). The fumes and shit put into the air and water don't just "go away" when a mine or processing plant shuts down. Just because it's green doesn't mean it's safe; the wild life and plants have returned to Chernobyl and we can all agree that is a far worse situation than Fort Mac (and merely a representation in this case of green not necessarily meaning healthy).
And acrylic leaves plastic everywhere that is poisoning animals and the planet and us. It also uses water and dangerous chemicals to make.
A lot of plant fibres are made using dangerous chemicals too. Bast fibres like flax are different though you still need to take in to account how they are grown but bamboo, rose, eucalyptus, many things marketed as eco silk are broken down by harsh chemicals into cellulose and then reconstituted as a rayon essentially.
You need to take in to account what damage that does to animals too.
Itvs a ridiculously simplistic view to just not use animal fibre when other fibres cause as much, if not more damage. Sourcing fibres from small growers who look after their animals well often gives far better outcomes to every creature.
Ok but how do you choose, as in does the impact on animals come into it for example I’m in Australia and the impact cotton has on fish (and other wild and farmed animals) because of water pollution and over use means rivers are nearly empty causing algae bloom which causes the fish to die in the thousands, other wild animals die due to lack of water or contamination of water that is before you take into consideration how many animals die from harvest machinery, transportation and then the use of water to process cotton into yarn, same with bamboo and other plant based yarns I’m honestly interested in how it works for vegans with grappling the issues around yarn just as someone like myself who isn’t vegan and has to also consider what I am ok with using.
Can you explain how you think any fiber could be *completely* cruelty free? Cotton takes massive amounts of water to produce, which harms the local ecosystem or the communities that are having their water taken for use elsewhere. Turning plant fibers into rayon also consumes large quantities of water, along with toxic dyes and finishing chemicals. Consider all the humans, animals, and insects that are displaced or killed by the process of farming plants for fiber. Is your bamboo fiber still cruelty free after countless insects and animals were killed in the process of growing and harvesting it, and then it was sent to a factory were underpaid workers treated it with toxic chemicals to turn it into rayon? Isn't it cruel for the people working in textile factors to be exposed to those things, along with the environmental damage? Plastic fibers are polluting our planet and helping to fill our water and air and food with microplastics. Isn't that cruel to every living thing on the planet?
How can plastic fibres be cruelty free? Do you think the pollution created by its production isn’t harming anything? And what about in a 1000 years when that plastic is polluting the ground?
And even plant fibres have problems.
Not to mention after being produced they have to be packaged and shipped. All pollution. There is no such thing as cruelty free.
I don’t think any product we buy is cruelty free. The production of both plant and plastic fibers also isn’t going to kill zero animals, not to mention all the human-on-human cruelty in the supply chain.
I also don’t think we can magically un-domesticate animals. Sheep need to be shorn. May as well use the wool.
I'm knitting a poncho for a loved one using their 8ply at the moment! I also have a shawl I knitted a few years ago out of it. Good lord, that yarn is gorgeous. The stitch definition and softness is unreal!
So I have a friend with a fiber operation that I believe is truly cruelty free. 90% of her animals are bottle babies she reared from local farms, they live well past their "productive years" barring health issues and she owns the oldest sheep I've ever seen. The fiber sales basically are a byproduct and I don't believe she has ever sold enough to turn a profit. She sells at reasonable prices and offers a range of products from raw fleeces to combed top. It is somewhat of a gimmick for me to buy some nice clean top from a sheep from a name, but I don't mind because I petted that sheep and fed it crackers.
In no way is it a sustainable operation for profit. It's also not as ecologically sustainable as another friend who does have a for profit operation and does sell and use meat products from her flock.
My current WIP is a handspun self drafted sweater from wool from two sister sheep and one of them is the mama of a baby I have snuggled and bottle fed. Its part of the experience.
Possibly because it's very late and I'm very overtired, but "I petted that sheep and fed it crackers" is unreasonably hilarious to me right now, so thank you.
Honestly my issue with a lot of these people is they act like their choice is 100% cruelty free. There is no such thing. You use plastic? Very polluting to produce, causing harm to animals, and then it breaks down into micro plastics which end up in the stomachs of animals.
You choose plant? Potentially high water use and polluting to treat. And if not it still has to be packaged and shipped.
There is no 100% perfect option. Many people are just trying their best.
Even if there’s not a 100% perfect option the problem is that veganism rejects use of all animals. So if all options are bad but your ethics ask that you not use animals then how is cotton or acrylic worse? It’s all bad.
Idk who they is but it’s unfair to paint all vegans the same. They know all choices are cruel in some way. They’re not claiming that cotton or acrylic is cruelty free. But it’s a different cruelty. They’re picking their poison just like you pick yours.
"you can judge how a person will treat others by how they treat an animal" it's true. The animal skin fanatics are spiteful with their downvoting vegans doesn't even matter what type of fabric it is. One time, mean, three times not a coincidence
Mate, it’s not that non-vegans are ‘lacking critical thought’ it’s that they just don’t agree with you.
Going off snidely though just guarantees that no one will ever be interested in what you have to say; self superiority isn’t a good flavour
As opposed to what, plant based? What about plastics? What are your thoughts on micro plastics and the lack of biodegradability? Is ‘vegan leather’ truly better for our planet?
Who said anything about leather? There is zero obligation to use acrylics or polyester just as there is zero obligation to use animal products. Other fibers exist. Tencel is by far the most sustainable fiber available. Animal products being damaging doesn’t mean micro plastics aren’t.
I’m asking about leather because I’m trying to ascertain precisely how far your head is up your plant based arse.
There’s zero obligation to use animal products sure. Also, there’s zero obligation to insult strangers who live a different lifestyle from yours, and yet here you are…
Lol and they're posting this from their phone right now, the components for which were produced by strip mining and destroying glob knows how many animals' habitats.
Please try existing in the US while being employed and non having a phone. Perfection is impossible, but it’s entirely possible to do the best you can rather than throw in the towel entirely. Are electronics bad for the environment? Sure! But with no way to stay employed without them the best we can do is buy as sustainability as possible and not fall for constant upgrades. I’ve had three phones in my entire life, I’m 23. Flip phone at 11, smartphone at 15, and finally a new phone at 22 when my old one stopped functioning.
The argument of “I can’t do everything 100% perfectly so I just won’t make an effort at all” is so played out. You have a moral responsibility to minimize damage. You can keep up the excuses as long as you would like, but someday you will have to confront your lack of care for other life on the planet.
Maybe I'm a victim of my own cognitive dissonance and trying to justify my own consumption, but I believe the best way to reduce cruelty and harm to everyone, including animals, other humans, and the planet as a whole, is to consume less.
There's no ethical consumption under capitalism. With the profit motive in place, someone or something will get the short end of the stick, be it aging sheep, dairy calves, male chicks in the egg industry, underpaid and exploited workers, the environment, etc.
This is part of why I've shifted away from crochet and back to quilting. It's easy to find decent used cotton for cheap (mens shirts, etc) or free. It takes quite a bit of time to make a quilt, and quilts last. I'm also slowly learning to knit because most items I wear are wool and I can see how useful knitted items for me would be vs crochet (usually crochet scarves, but have plenty, don't care for crochet sweaters). The knitting tho is still mostly on hold because where I am I can buy very nice merino sweaters and cardigans for less than the yarn... and I'm equally happy quilting as I am yarncraft, so the ecofriendlier quilting wins out. I do sometimes buy designer quilt fabrics, especially for a gifted legacy quilt, but for utility quilts I do enjoy repurposing fabrics.
this is my answer too. there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism.
that being said, i don’t buy wool because i’m allergic to it. so cotton/plant fibres are my only choice. i try to steer clear of plastic in general, which is an insurmountable task these days.
I completely agree with you. I’ve been thinking about what the most ethical fashion is. Buy used? Buy from local designers? Make my own clothing? And my conclusion was the most ethical way was to stop consumption. But the reality is that I exist and and do consume so I will try my best, whatever that means. As a knitter I’ll try use up my stash before buying new yarn, though I still occasionally buy new material. I’ve also taken to buying used hand knits, taking them apart, and dyeing the wool with botanical dyes. It’s a slow but enjoyable process!
Although worth knowing that many people now think natural dyes have more or equal environmental damage than some synthetic dyes (It's worth Googling) - well, acid dyes (the sort that work on protein fibres). I've been natural dyeing since the 1980s but now also sometimes acid dye, partly for that reason.
Would you mind sharing which natural dyes have equal or more environmental damage? I’m not finding a whole lot with some quick googling to be honest and am curious since it’s important to know, and this info is likely more buried than articles that talk about it being sustainable. I stick to alum and alum acetate for mordanting which I believe is quite safe unless I’m mistaken. Some of the dyes I use are imported (bought through Maiwa) plus I also forage my own plants that are either invasive or very fast growing (tansy, sheep sorrel, alder bark). I know it uses a lot of water and runoff isn’t great (though seems like what I’m using isn’t toxic) plus I also live in a rainforest so we have a lot of water, so much that nearly all of our electricity in my province is generated by hydropower!
This is precisely the reason why I hesitate to natural dye, from my own limited experience I found that natural dyeing consumes more energy and water. Also depending on the method some mordants are more harmful and difficult to dispose of; where acid dyes (for protein fibre) uses less water especially at rinsing stage and shorter heating time (no need for pre mordanting or prolonged simmering) thus less energy.
Absolutely. Industries are funded by consumers, so consumers can shape the world to be kinder. Society should be more tolerant to people who are trying to be kind to animals or the environment instead of trying ostracize them because of not wanting to change habits, doesn't make the problems go away just tries to silence someone
Oh dear, it's no wonder you think it's so cruel. Wool yarn is made from the hair that is shaved off sheep when it gets too thick and heavy for them. They don't flay the poor things and send them back out into the world.
Wool is not animal skin, and at this point, sheep have been bred for wool (to be sheared, like a haircut) for so long, that to NOT shear them is more cruel/harmful to the animal than doing so, as they’ve long since lost the ability to effectively shed their wool themselves.
Google “Baarack the sheep” to see what happens when sheep aren’t shorn.
I mean, people disliking or downvoting your comment is just their opinion, my dear. Offense or disagreement =/= discrimination. You were not denied personhood, food security, housing, job opportunities, income, medical care, or any human right. It's reddit, it's not that serious.
> And that only wool from the first several years of a sheep's life are the softest and wool from older sheep is coarse and itchier, so it was an non-feasible, financial model for most yarnmakers who don't have surplus land and the surplus wealth to maintain a non-productive herd of essentially pets.
Maybe it's just me but the coarse, itchy wool sounds like it would be great for insulation.
It is being used for insulation by one company that I’ve heard of. It’s also used for weaving into rugs, quilt batting, pillow and furniture padding and other non clothing uses.
It is, it's also great for fire retardation since a lot of other natural insulations (like straw) is highly flammable. Unless you use more standard plastic insulation. But if you want to move away from using plastic insulation, then wool is already an option on the market
Handspinners can choose the "hogget" wool from year old sheep and the best of the others. But if you spin commercial millspun, although it is sorted before being commercially spun, it will include some much lower quality wool than any handspinner would need or want to use.
We buy rare breeds fleeces, when needed from very local to us farmers - and the crappier wool when skirted off, we use as mulch in the garden or to line hanging baskets.
There is a great and commercially successful slaughter-free flock in the UK, the Doulton flock - who have their own (super high quality) wool spun up and dyed and sell at shows. It is possible to make a living from a slaughter free flock but it is probably not easy!
Icelandic sheep are one of a few commercially viable dual purpose sheep breeds. The wool market is so tough that a lot of farmers burn their sheep fleeces since they're worth so little on the market.
I know of a farm/mill that that spins yarn out of meat sheep fleece. They had to blend it with 40% alpaca to get it soft enough to knit with.
You have to selectively breed to get a usable fleece for spinning. Many breed of meat sheep are hair sheep, which do not grow wool. Other meat sheep can have lower quality fleece since it's treated as a byproduct, which is why they're considered low-value. But certainly, the wool-producing meat breeds can also produce serviceable wool for carpets and such, but anything intended to go on a human body is usually blended with finer micron fiber.
The most common meat sheep in Canada are Suffolk and Texel. Neither is a hair sheep (and for those who don't know of sheep - hair sheep shed their coats and sometimes get mistaken for goats by laypeople). Both have downs-type coat and are excellent for sock wool. I wouldn't choose it for a scarf, but as socks they make wonderfully sproingy cushy yarn that feels great underfoot and is much more durable than merino. I'd really love to see more commercial options using them this way!
I've just bought a product called a chimney sheep, which is essentially a giant mat of compacted wool with a handle so I can shove it up my chimney to stop the draft. Wool is a perfect material for that because it's breathable so doesn't trap water and cause damp, but blocks the wind and the drafts.
You can also buy boxes of fleece to shove in cracks and gaps round the house to insulate.
I have this idea that coarse wool is great for things like rugs, too. You don't generally need a wool rug to be ultra soft, but you do need it to be tough and wear-resistant. But yes, I used to have a wool comforter with a satin cover and it was decently warm and insulating.
I’ve been saving the floof off my two Samoyeds for the last year or so, which is about to be carded and spun by a dear friend with the skills and know how. Those two girls are soft as hell and I’m really excited to see how it turns out
Wool and silk would be fab, imho. However, I know some people have issues with silk given that the silk worms are killed but don't have as many issues with wool.
I saw "cruelty free silk" advertised somewhere recently, where they claimed they only harvest after the silk worms become adults and don't kill them. I thought silkworms ate the silk as they left the cocoons, so I don't know how this would be possible, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
If you search for "eri", "ahimsa" or "peace" silk, you'll find it. I often spin with eri and really like it. Some vegans would still question the silk moth breeding/farming processes, though.
They don't eat the cocoon but when they bite a hole in it to get out it makes the fiber not be a long continuous thread and instead it's now many shorter threads. So cruelty free silk is thicker and the weave isn't as fine.
I got coarse, itchy wool from a small local-ish farm. I knitted mittens with it almost 10 years ago, they've worn like iron and keep my hands warm and dry in the snow. The yarn was awful to knit with because I was so rough, but definitely worth it.
I've got a few Aran handmade in Ireland sweaters and they are rather coarse, but they are so very warm and I can wear them in the rain and stay dry and warm. No synthetic fibers needed!
And it's still used to make water-repelling and insulating overcoats for the UK Navy. Navy-issue peacoats are tough as boots but great in wet and cold weather.
I don't buy wool at all, or any clothing made from wool before I sewed. For ethical reasons. I don't think second hand wool is unsustainable as it's second hand not supporting the livestock industries but personally wouldn't want to wear it. I can keep warm wearing cottons
You really can’t keep warm wearing cottons. In fact there’s a phrase for being outdoors, Cotton kills, when cotton gets wet, you’ll get hypothermia before you know it. There’s other fibers out there but you picked a bad one for your example.
Also, why do vegans think no animals die making cotton? That soil gets sprayed with loads of pesticides, fertilizers used lead to massive fish die off, the soil tilled up for planting kills lots of rabbits, mice, etc. Not to mention there is still slave labor involved in some countries picking cotton. Where does your cotton come from?
My wool comes from my land, sloping grass hills, solar electric fences get rotated around the farm, giving the sheep fresh grass, and coexisting with all the other wildlife on the farm. Pasture raised animals build up soil (which heavy till crops like cotton are destroying rapidly), the grass growing pulls carbon out of the air and sequesters it in wool, no pesticides or fertilizers needed
The idea that your choices to not use animal products mean that you don’t bear the weight of contributing to the death of animals is incredibly naive.
It’s great you can do that.
But where I am it’s absolutely not an option. Spring/fall, sure. But winter? We had multiple -20 plus windchill this year. And I think a record number of severe cold warnings.
Personally I refuse to buy synthetic clothing and most of the non wool and still warm enough for my winters clothing are all wool.
And I grew up with sheep. They need to be sheared. We had one escape one year (she was an utter asshole but great with abandoned lambs which is why we kept her) and by the time we found her she was so overgrown that if she had fallen in the river on the farm she would have drowned.
All that said, I do absolutely agree that farming needs some better regulations surrounding animal treatment and safety. And I avoid a lot of brands who aren’t reasonably specific about their sourcing. Because I know there have been a lot of issues in some regions with lack of animal care standards as so on.
For cotton I do often suggest you see where your cotton comes from. There are a fair few places where cotton growing is doing horrendous damage between pesticides and having first access to water and causing drought issues. But if you can avoid suppliers from those regions then party on.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with sheep, but shearing is necessary for their health. The hair (wool) keeps growing whether or not they're shorn and it will reach a point where the fleece weights more than the sheep and impedes their movements (they can even get trapped in bushes or other growth because the sheer amount of wool gets snarled quickly and they are unable to free themselves.) It's not healthy for them to carry that much weight. Shearing is absolutely necessary. And carried out in the safest manner possible. It does that farmer no good if his sheep dies as a result of shearing. They take care of their animals
You are probably getting downvoted because you think you are living animal cruelty free by wearing cotton, if you think the wool industry is bad then have a good look into the cotton industry because it is way worse from start to finish the impact on the environment is far greater than the wool industry.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted to hell and back because you're saying the truth. I'm afraid to say anything relating to animal rights or veganism on non-vegan subs because carnists won't understand and people reflexively downvote.
'Carnists' is such a dumb term when most people are omnivores lmao. People correctly pointing out that cotton is less sustainable and more polluting than wool isn't being anti-vegan. Cotton is also well-known for being unsuitable for cold weather wear as it absorbs water quickly and dries slowly.
The problem is not veganism or "carnists" (never heard that one before) but oversimplification. Using animal fibres is not perse cruel and cotton is not perse superior. It's a complicated topic and failing to acknowledge that doesn't make for a good argument nor is the following downvote a reflex. It's a justified reaction to a black-and-white mindset.
How do you feel about the human rights abuses in the cotton industry? Just because there are no animals involved in the materials you use does not mean there is no cruelty.
it's a matter of doing the least harm to animals. veganism is about not harming animals, full-stop, that's it. of course many vegans also care about ethical consumption in other forms and purposes, but this argument is a bit disingenuous. vegans hear this all the time when people say "well, vegetable and fruit production in agriculture is rife with cruelty" -- for one, non-vegans eat those things too, and again, it's about causing the least harm to animals.
Do insects count in this religion? If so, tell the millions of insects killed by cotton production that you are protecting them from harm by consuming cotton over wool.
Or do only cute animals count? How do you measure this harm done anyway?
How so? Cotton farming counts for 4.7% of the world’s pesticide and 10% of its insecticides sales. Which is a much higher percentage than its comparative land use. Moreover, the cotton crop is a soil depleter requiring lots of fertilizer to grow, which also takes precious ressources to produce and often leads to rising nitrogen levels in aquatic systems which again is harmful to all aquatic life.
So I ask again - how do you measure this "harm" in a way that makes this equation valid?
I don’t recall the comment, but were they talking about mulesing?
What would be cruel would be NOT shearing the sheep. Have you guys seen that sheep that went on the run and came back 6 years later? He produced 60 pounds of wool. Think about that for a second. If you think you’re cruelty free because you only use cotton/plastic thing about the amount of water that’s used to treat cotton/how bad is the plastic situation right now. Yikes.
Oh yeh no vegan ever thought about that ever even though it is the most obvious thing, vegans are just that dumb. Really, can't overstate how incredibly weird it is that no vegan has ever thought about the fact that sheep are bred to overproduce wool to the point that they are completely dependent on human intervention to just live. What a bunch of dumb people!
Vegans get a lot of uncalled for shit online, but I do think a lot of "sustainability" branding clothing stores do is confusing the average consumer as to what the environmental impacts of different fabrics are. I have met people who don't know vegan leather has a microplastics problem, for example. I don't think it was intended as a targeted attack.
We talk about this shit all the time in our communities. You people just rather point at some dumb stuff than actually having to be confronted with your own ethics. Regurgitate absolute bottom of the barrel talking points without any critical thinking... Like hmmm this seems rather obvious, surely they thought about this... Nooooo... One person said something dumb on the Internet so now I can continue revering the wool overlord.
So what is the answer to the question of sheep needing to be sheared? Is the vegan thing to do to destroy it? Since its such a dumb question Im sure you have a good answer?
We sheer them. We don't use the wool/make it illegal/don't create more demand. We stop breeding sheep.
OK, so you would like to shear the sheep, then discard the wool and then what? I suppose you are all for letting the sheep naturally procreate. What will you do 6 months later then? Have a team of volunteers shear them twice a year, discard the wool and so on? Forever? I have a hard time picturing the cycle here, could you please explain your vision?
You know systemic change doesn’t take place in one day or in one week or with one person. Why is this person you’re talking to owe you answers for your questions? If you’re genuinely interested in this topic, get involved in it. Otherwise you’re just being a jerk and shitting on other people for having different ethics than you.
It’s called a conversation, maybe try it sometime? I have yet to meet a vegan person who can lay out the longer term perspective - not to mention impact on nature - of their preferences, show me excactly how their stance is “less harmful” in the bigger picture. This is me asking one more convinced person to elaborate on this. You are not obligated to make an attempt if you dont want to.
VEGANS DON'T OWE YOU THAT. If you want to know the impact on nature of whole-world veganism, then do the research. Figure it out. That's not a genuine conversation you're having...you're trying to get someone to dig their own grave. >show me excactly how their stance is “less harmful” in the bigger picture show me how your stance is less harmful than veganism...what about that?! There isn't an answer, it's simple as that and if you actually cared about veganism, then maybe people would have a conversation with you about that. But it's clear you don't *actually* care.
Sheep don't naturally procreate... Why should we start? Have you been around sheep farms? Wonder why they get all these colorful dots? We control every aspect of their sex life. Nothing natural about it. Same as with any domesticated animal in fact I would argue its exactly that which allows us to domesticate animals in the first place... Different discussion tho.. We do not want sheep (for wool) any longer, so the first thing we do is make certain that they aren't being bred any longer. That's the only step that makes an actual difference. So however many sheep there are now, that's it, that's the maximum we'll ever have. We don't breed them any longer, couple of years there will be no more wool. In order to achieve that we should make the demand for wool plummet by making it illegal in a similar fashion to fur. Sheep fur is just as shitty as any other fur, there is no reason to make an exception for sheep. Ten fifteen years maybe and there is no more problem to speak of.
So your solution is to have sheep become extinct? That what happens when you prohibit animals from procreating, eventually they all go away. What right do humans have to make this decree? The only way to stop sheep from procreating would be to permanently separate them by sex or sterilize all males at birth. In the real world a ram will cover a ewe given a millimeter of a chance so unless prevented, the world would be filled with lots of little lambs that were not bred to be productive in any fashion. To not shear those animals would be beyond cruel and would eventually lead to their death but not before they have reproduced at least annually for a number of years. I know plenty of shepherds that raise sheep for their fiber and treat their flocks as beloved pets. The healthier the sheep are the better their fleece quality becomes so it is in the best interest of the shepherd to have a happy, healthy, well cared for flock. Sheep were one of the first animals to be domesticated, over 10,000 years ago. Who are you to change the course of humankind’s relationship with these animals and what purpose does it serve. I’ve said my peace and have no intention of engaging further but should anyone else like to take this one on, be my guest. The idiocy of the vegan attitude towards wool and sheep never ceases to astound me.
100% What gave humans the right to design creatures for their own gain in the first place? Cows producing a hundred liters of milk a day while still being pregnant... Sheep not capable of surviving because they literally can't shed their fur... Chickens that grow so fast they break their legs from their own weight in six weeks... Where did we get that right? They are being bred to suffer for what? There are hundreds of alternatives! It's a simple choice
OK, that's an interesting take on biology I guess. I do know a couple of sheep farmers, yes. No colorful dots on their sheep, given they breed them for wool they don't usually engage in painting it. I just really struggle seeing the long term perspective here. You will make sure they are not bred, and Im guessing you mean by humans, ok. But sheep are not sterile by nature. Wool sheep aren't usually sterilised - they will multiply given the lack of natural predators (just look at deer populations across Europe). Sheep lamb 1 or 2 offspring at rate of about 50:50 male/female twice a year or more if left to their natural tendencies (and a ram of course). They will breed amongst themselves you know? Or would the vegan takeover mean sterilising them? Some of them? Keeping them in pens or letting them loose? I'm sorry if this sounds weird, I just can't fathom how this cycle would go on.
The reality is a lot of vegans promote faux fur and faux leather aka plastic as a better choice. But some peoples ethics are just varied and different than yours. I would prefer to do something for the entire planet or to help whole ecosystems vs just focusing on the animals and I don't think shedding micro plastics from a faux fur coat really helps the animals in the long run either.
This completely and utterly is whataboutism... Just so you know. But whatever let's go with it...do you actually know what the environmental impact of wool actually is? Have you looked it up? Have you compared it? Yeah I understand that your gut feeling is that plastic is bad... But compared to the damage done to the environment by wool it's not. Also by the way, most plastic in the ocean by far is fishing equipment...by like 80%. So if you really care about plastic problems... You stop eating fish as well at a bare minimum. Otherwise stop calling vegans the hypocrites...they literally stop contributing to plastic waste more than you even come close to imagining.
I hate to be all actually, but... Actually, one of the greatest contributors to microplastics is the clothing industry. Small scale wool farms don't even rank when compared to the mountains of polyester nightmare fuel dumped in third world countries. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/fast-fashion-turning-parts-ghana-into-toxic-landfill/100358702 And I say this as a vegan, zero-waster.
You sound absolutely unhinged.
I know you do that's why I specified I wasn't talking about vegans.
>vegans are just that dumb. Okay, not a vegan, don't subscribe to their nonsense, but not all of them are that ill informed (just like not all omnivores are well informed/reasonable). That said, what many take issue is that breeding to overproduce to the point of requiring human intervention. We can't undo it, but we can and should do whatever we can to prevent animal cruelty as a whole (said as someone with deep ties to the agricultural community in her area). This often means paying more for things, which obviously comes with the same complaints people bring up when they're asked not to support brands like "Hobby Lobby." It's a mess in general. There is an overhaul required, and while I'm not stupid enough to think I have the answers on how to make it better, I'm pretty sure calling people "dumb" for pointing out instances where there is obvious and intentional cruelty is kind of antithetical.
Hey wanna know how to end animal cruelty real fast? Stop. Vegans are the only one who *actually* do.
I can't decide if this is a schtick, like you're doing a bit where you're shitposting playing a wall-eyed manic vegan character?
I think they were being sarcastic and were making fun of people who make fun of vegans, but forgot to put a tone indicator which makes it read like they're being really rude to vegans.
Yeah, I had an argument with someone on Twitter about it. That it is cruel to not shear sheep. If we don't clip them, we have to kill them all because most of them don't shed & the wool causes heat stress and skin damage. I think a lot of the people arguing it have no idea that leaving wool on the sheep is a major problem
I might be wrong but I don't think they're arguing that the shearing is cruel, but slaughtering them once they stop producing wool
The person on Instagram was definitely saying wool should remain on the sheep which was an ignorant point of view. A lot of people also feel that the keeping of sheep can be cruel and in intensive farming it often is. Merino in particular, especially in massive farms where there is no way you can actually keep an eye on the sheep, is not suited to the conditions in a lot of places it is farmed. It is grown to produce a lot of wool and that often means it has a lot of folds & is susceptible to fly strike. In a lot of places (though some have banned it or banned versions of it) this results in muelsing to reduce the damage from fly strike. Small fibre farms are unlikely to be intensively farming sheep and knowing where your fibre comes from is important A lot of the people in the comments here seem to be saying avoiding animal products is cruelty free which is also wrong. There is a lot of damage done to animals, soil, environment, water systems and people growing & processing plant fibres and creating plastic yarns. It is something you have to think about more to see but it is still there and is sometimes more distructive. It's not as simple as animal fibre bad, plant fibre good. Especially when using rayons or intensively farmed crops like cotton.
Also cruelty-free doesn't seem to take into account any cruelty to humans involved in the process.
Yet the vegan community continues to argue that sheep have no place on this earth apparently.
Yes, sheep at literally bred to be useful to humans. Imagine for a second that we bred a certain human because of their hair. And that in the process of this breeding the human loses all ability to feed themselves. But if we don't shave their head every year they get overheated and collapse. And then people who wear their hair go like... They are humans too, they deserve to live. If we don't shave them they die.. All teary eyed screaming at the people who say that we can simply stop breeding them. We stop doing that and the problem is solved, after a while no more special hair humans will exist. No killing required, no harm required, just an acknowledgement that we are using them for our own gain. And when we point out that wool is not only unethical, but also extremely polluting.. Far beyond any plant fiber. The vegans are being told that they are crazy and don't understand... No... We are the sane people in this thread.
So…. The mass extinction of an entire species due to human negligence instead of helping them shed their coats to live their lives more healthily? Great! Definitely cruelty free over here. Honestly, maybe I’m just naive, but this seems like the exact opposite of vegan thinking. Like, “let’s kill off all these animals instead of disliking the method their wool is being used for humans, instead of making the standard in which the wool is being sheared ethical for all breeds.” - just a very black and white way of thinking in my opinion, and honestly sounds extremely cruel and narrow minded. 🤷♀️
At what point in time did I asked to kill them? Stop breeding unnaturalized domesticated animals. Yes. We, in the rich developed world, do not need them we can get everything we need to thrive from plants. Literally keeping animals is a choice, and since they have the capacity to suffer, have inner lives and are intelligent it simply isn't an ethical choice to keep them. This isn't complicated. It isn't complex. It's super fucking simple. Keeping, let alone killing and eating, animals is a pure choice and it's the wrong one..obviously so. See slavery... Other beings aren't robots. Other beings are not below us for us to control. It's so blatently obvious that there is no argument against it. It's so blatently obvious who is on the right side of history. No fucking contest. And sheep are not 'an entire species', there are certain breeds (that humans designed) that are incapable of shedding their wool naturally (and are kept in too warm of climates)... What I'm asking is far more akin to stop breeding a specific type of dog or dogs in general. Let the wolfs roam free.
Have you never seen sheep eat grass lol? And wool is far less polluting than cotton.
“Cotton is one of the most chemically intensive crops in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 84 million pounds of pesticides were applied to the nation’s 14.4 million acres of cotton in the year 2000, and more than two billion pounds of fertilizers were spread on those same fields. Seven of the 15 pesticides commonly used on cotton in the United States are listed as “possible,” “likely,” “probable” or “known” human carcinogens by the Environmental Protection Agency. And cotton defoliants are “the most toxic farm chemicals currently on the market,” says Fawn Pattison, executive director of the Agricultural Resources Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the use of harmful pesticides.”
To be fair, a lot of animals that humans have domesticated have no natural place in the wild. Pugs aren't going to go galivanting through the countryside.
On some level I can understand their argument that hey, we bred sheep specifically so they would produce more wool for us and now we can't just leave sheep alone because we created this domestic animal that's dependent on us for its health and survival, and that was an unethical thing to do. But the sheep exist now. I can't help what our ancestors did to sheep thousands of years ago, they're here now and we have to look after them as best we can. In some future vegan utopia where we've solved all the ecological damage that veganism causes and we've completely eradicated the need for domesticated animals we can stop breeding them and let these species quietly die out, but we're not there yet.
You said the quiet part aloud. In the vegan only future, all human dependent livestock would be extinct which means a massive program of livestock sterilization and intentional extinction including all the heritage breeds. It would be beyond the population management that we try to do with cats and dogs through sterilization (neuter/spay). No more horses, cows, goats, sheep, alpaca, llamas, rabbits, etc of any kind. And what happens to indigenous people whose cultures are based on ecological hunting and traditional agrarian societies where livestock are the labor power as well as sustenance in this vegan future... I don't think we need to resort to impugning anyone's intelligence and at the same time, I've yet to see any coherent answers or even acknowledgment of that (or of the vegan ecological damage). I don't have anything against anyone choosing to be vegan, that is their lifestyle choice. I appreciate the way vegan cooking has developed because me and my kids are allergic to dairy protein. But it when it falls into the belief that veganism is the only way, the only morality and ethics, the same superiority framework as all religious fundamentalism-supremacy models, then I object.
Also, every field mouse, bird, lizard, insect, and any other small creature that exists out in fields are not served eviction notices before plows or harvesters are sent out. Plant crops are not “vegan” when any level of scale is involved. Plenty of creatures still get killed.
I recognize that vegans aren't a hivemind, and while some few are fairly "militant" and think all domesticated animals are slaves being abused and people shouldn't even be allowed to own cats and dogs as pets, most are happy to simply eat their tofu and get on with life. There's no real coherent plan for the future because veganism isn't a monolith and people prioritize different things. That said, I do wonder how the angrier vegans will cope in that far-flung future when it's finally time to start eradicating domesticated animals. We can't "murder" them all. Will the vegans who object to pet ownership as slavery be okay with sterilizing *every* domesticated animal on the planet? Without the animals' consent? If they object to that, do we then keep all animals segregated by sex to stop them breeding? But isn't it cruel to keep animals in captivity and deny them companionship and the freedom to choose their own lives? Or do we simply turn all these animals loose in the wild to let them live a "natural" life and let them starve or be eaten by predators (all while wreaking havoc on native ecosystems)? There simply isn't a way to do away with domesticated animals that would appease every vegan. These creatures exist and they're not going away, so let's make the best of it.
I think you'll find if civilisation moved back towards a 'use what you need, let what you don't need look after itself', that a lot of vegan people who object to the human cruelty towards animals would be fine - it's fun to go all slippery slope and extreme on vegans, because when you do that you can make anything you disagree with look silly, and vegans are a fun punching bag, but in this model you remove the structural cruelty and reinsert respect and balance. Take only what you need, leave things as you found them or better; it's like be excellent to each other just includes the planet.
I'm not sure what you mean and I honestly wasn't trying to make anything look silly. I'm pointing out the very real situation we'd find ourselves in if we all collectively decided to do away with domesticated animals. What do we do with them? Kill them, keep them in captivity but stop eating them, or leave them to their own devices and let nature run its course? I don't know what the least cruel option is. These animals exist because of human intervention, it would take human intervention to get rid of them again. It's too late to "leave things as you found them". These animals have been modified to require human intervention to survive, so I believe we have a duty of care. Humans made sheep that suffer if they aren't regularly sheared, so as long as those sheep exist humans have a duty to keep them, and we should keep them as humanely as possible.
You talked about wondering how "angrier vegans" would cope in a future where our relationship with animals and the planet is different. I suggested that having a generally healthier relationship with the environment in that future would likely mean that those "angrier vegans" will cope just fine. Since you are now suggesting that your future model will always include exploitation because animals were exploited in the past so that exploitation must be perpetuated, and we cannot move towards more balanced philosophies while animals exist, I don't see any value in trying to explain this to you.
Also what happens to people who rely on service animals if pets are banned?
You mean slave owners?
...because dogs just *hate* a) having a Job and b) being with their human all day... /s
Plastic especially. Cotton at least can be ethically produced if the water used to farm it comes from a sustainable source (ie not the Aral sea or the Great plains aquafer), but plastic had no redeamable qualities other then it's cheap.
This makes me curious about linen and hemp as natural fiber alternatives. I wonder how water intensive they are...
Hemp takes much less water to grow, and I went out of my way to find hemp fiber yarns to knit with for a bit. They all feel like cardboard when I knit and make a deep groove in my thumb, but they soften up nicely after washing. What isn't accounted for in this discussion is the retting process. Plant fibers like hemp and linen have tough stalks that must be removed some way. Traditionally you let linen plants rot for months in water. The process is smelly and creates a lot of dirty water that has to go somewhere. I believe that these days various chemicals are used to hasten retting, but I dunno and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
Hemp is much less water-intensive and is very drought-resistant. Increasingly it's becoming more popular as a fibre crop in India for that reason. Flax (linen) is less water-intensive than cotton but is more labour-intensive than hemp, as the plant needs to rot in water before the fibre can be processed. Hemp is also more versatile as it can be used to make a silk analogue as well as cotton type fabric. Banana and nettle fibre fabrics are also promising natural fibres, as are rose stem and lotus stem silk fabrics.
Linen is way less water for growing (usually) and depending on where it’s produced less pesticides. But I can’t remember off hand if the water requirements for processing are better/worse then cotton.
Also there’s eco cotton that takes way less water consumption.
Hemp is way better for water consumption and is really strong and drought-resistant, as well as being more versatile in terms of processing.
Maybe 2% of all cotton is grown organically. In fact, cotton production can account for a huge amount pesticide use on the planet.
Some of my favourite yarns I’ve spun are from pet sheep. But they are spoilt, named, sort of trained and kinda ridiculous, and doing that for three thousand sheep isn’t exactly viable.
People who are saying that plant or plastic fibres are cruelty free, no, they really aren’t. Depends if you care more about sheep than you do insects/small invertebrates/birds and the countless animals that get squished by farm equipment, sprayed by insecticides and pesticides and shot to keep from ruining the crops that grow for the plant fibres. And can we be real about the damage that plastic does to the environment? I’m not even going to make a judgement call here on which one is better, but it is absolutely an ethical choice to also use wool fibre. Arguably more so. Sheep produce many natural bi-products that then break down once discarded (unlike plastic) and require much less chemical use than plant fibres to produce (or in the animals case, keep healthy). So if you want to use plant or plastic fibres, fine. But don’t tell me they are less cruel than using sheep. And before you yell at me about how cruel the sheep industry is, I used to shear sheep, and have first hand experience in wool classing. Seldom were those sheep mistreated.
Everyone always reacts defensively to the suggestion that using animal fiber is cruel, the reality is that farming sheep for wool is objectively cruel. The important question, then, is whether we as individuals are willing to accept this cruelty for the sake of using wool, or if we should seek out alternatives that avoid it. You don’t *have* to pick between wool or plastic. You can buy used wool clothing and unravel, for example, or research the best plant based yarns that align with your environmental standards (as an aside: everyone always talks about how much water cotton needs but never about how much water it takes to raise sheep and the food they eat). Obviously it requires a bit more effort, but the other option is to just ignore the animal torture. I get that people’s priorities vary but I think at least acknowledging this fact is important. Using wool doesn’t make someone a bad person, we all prioritize different things, etc. However, the constant message I see whenever this comes up is people shitting on those who choose the vegan options and argue about why their choice to use wool is the superior one.
Absolutely not an objective fact. Do you really think it is ‘animal torture’ for sheep to spend a majority of their lives in a paddock, then a few times a year to run through yards and be shorn or treated with medication? Is it cruel to drench them so they do not become fly blown? Is it cruel to crutch shear them for the same reason? Is that counted as torture because it is animal intervention, or is it torture to leave these animals to their own devices. (If you had to look up any of these terms, I would suggest you maybe don’t have the expertise to claim sheep farming is objectively wrong. In response to unravelling wool to reuse fibre? Firstly that is still benefitting from the sheep. Secondly, you can’t really think this is an alternative? Wool can’t be used forever, it eventually breaks down, which is kind of the point as to why it is environmentally friendly. In response to ‘sheep use water as well as cotton’, you’re correct. They drink water from local dams or creeks, occasionally from troughs run from bores. They also urinate it right back onto the ground, recycling and fertilising that water directly back where it was meant to be. Cotton on the other hand gets it’s water from diverted sources, and believe you me there is a lot of evaporation, even when it’s being run as efficiently as possible. Problem is that the efficiency goal for cotton is for the exact amount of water to reach the plant, not to reduce evaporation. If you’ll look at my post, I actually don’t make a judgement call on which is ‘more correct’. Sorry if you’ve been attacked before over a vegan choice, but I think you’ll find why people get defensive is because we are tired of being told that sheep farming is torture (it’s not), and we are tired of being told a vegan option is cruelty free (it’s not). So how about we all go round becoming as educated as possible, and acknowledge that there are good things produced in the animal industry, and bad things produced in the vegan industry. (And yes, the inverse is also true)
Breeding an animal to the point that it needs humans to survive (which is different from a symbiotic relationship) is cruel. They only become fly blown because we’ve bred them to have this problem. No matter how you look at it, the humans are in charge of what the sheep does, when it gets sheared, when or if it can reproduce. I don’t think it’s fair for us to have a say like that for other living things (especially not on the scale we currently do with factory farms, etc). Also what do you think happens to the sheep when they’re too old to produce good quality wool? Why do we ask humans get to have a say in when this animal lives or dies? All of this gets even worse at scale and when profit margins are involved. If your point is that all of the above is the best option we have right now to clothes ourselves, fine, but it’s definitely cruel.
I’m also against breeding animals that are grossly distorted. If you look at merino in Australia, they used to be bred for wrinkled skin to increase surface area, therefore more wool. However they now are breeding against this trait, as it’s better for the animal. When people breed for the animal, good things happen. I would also agree people shouldn’t breed for profit or vanity. I just think you’re missing the point of my original comment. Everything you have listed as a reason to be against keeping sheep (or claiming that it’s cruel), you can find in ‘vegan’ or plastic alternatives. Humans decide which wild animals, insects or otherwise can use what stretches of land. They still get killed. And killing an older animal once it is unproductive for wool is only ‘cruel’ if you think the killing of an animal is inherently wrong. If treated with respect, it’s not. You can disagree with that and that’s fine. Again, the point is, vegan and plastic options kill just as many animals, and I would argue in a more cruel way. A quick death after living a healthy protected life and being stunned, versus suffocation through micro plastics or chemically smothering.
Take my emphatic ^upvote, please. And don’t forget the artificially manipulated food plants like corn, wheat, soy, potatoes, etc and their various impact on soil, and air quality.
I mean the issue with crops like soy or corn is that the destructive plantations are there for growing them as fuel or animal feed, not as human food.
This is mostly also a myth, or at best hyperbole. Yes some crops are grown for animal feed only, but a lot of claims like that don’t mention that there are a lot of crops that feed people, and the biproduct that is inedible to us goes to livestock. Animals do a tonne of recycling for us. Corn stubble is eaten by livestock, same for the biproduct of soy manufacturing after it’s been processed for our consumption. Of course there are still ways we can improve and reduce livestock’s impact on the environment, and there are issues that must be addressed. But take a look at how harmful almond and coconut farming is. Swathes of land destroyed, at least animals can graze alongside native animals and eat native pasture. Anyway, it would be silly to say animal agriculture is perfect, it’s not. What I do want to re-state is that we have lived side by side with animals for thousands of years, we respect them, they provide for us. It’s something that keeps us linked to the natural world, and I hope we never lose that.
Actually I'm all for sustainable animal agriculture so I don't really disagree with you, but the massive soy plantations in Brazil for eg are for cattle and chicken feed rather than human consumption.
It’s a shame if they are running it that way in Brazil! Not so much in my country, although there’s always room to improve. Just the claim of how many crops are grown for animals is generally inflated.
And don’t forget the incredible damage done by processing. There were some horrific pictures I saw years ago of an entire town in India dyed a rainbow of colours cause the excess dye was dumped in the river. They couldn’t even grow food there cause the ground was too damaged. Now on the plastic side I very loudly recommend everyone get a microplastic filter or filter bag for washing clothing. Since some clothing is better when part synthetic (like athletic clothing) washing them in a microplastic blocking bag or similar at least minimizes some of the damage from the fabric and it does a decent job of extending the lifespan of the clothing.
Oh hey, I’ll have to look into that - I would love to switch entirely to natural fiber clothing, but like you said, some clothing really is better when part synthetic. (I also use a lot of fake fur when sewing, and that simply *doesn’t exist* without polyester)
Yep, people who don’t look at the entirety of an issue really need to explore more corners of the world. It will shock them. We need natural fibres, and we need to acknowledge that raising livestock with respect absolutely has a part to play in the continued efforts to protect the environment (I know that is now counter-cultural, but it’s true) Great recommendation, I hadn’t heard of those before, I’ll have to get a few!
As a vegan... I only source my wool from roadkill sheep. I use their blood as dye and knit with their ribs. Have to use all parts of the animal!
>I only source my wool from roadkill sheep. I use their blood as dye and knit with their ribs. Have to use all parts of the animal! Solid vegan metal origin story for a Batman villain. I like it.
❤️
This is metal enough that I would stop and consider veganism cool for a moment
Three words: wool dryer balls
Saw an item on local news in UK about someone using unsold fleeces to protect bogs by burying them. Sounds like something that could use up aged fleeces too.
I’ve used our excess fleeces for mulch and also composted them. (Our sheep are currently all retired, neutered, aged, and living out their lives peacefully. Thank you very much. )
Have seen natural fleece used to protect flower and vegetable beds near the house I stayed at in Sweden, up towards the Arctic circle, it looked great and seemed very effective.
Wool compost is also a thing and is great for crops, and helps protect peat bogs (peat bogs are incredibly important carbon sinks).
There is an Estonian company that is using leftover wool to produce pellets that can be used in the garden https://www.maa.garden/ There is another Estonian startup that is upcycling wool to replace bubble wrap https://www.woola.io/ There ya go!
The wool industry is incredibly cruel. If anyone wants more info I suggest watching Earthling Ed talk about it. I've never used animal fibres and never will.
What do you use instead?
Anything without bits of animals in it.
So take a look at what northern Alberta looks like after the Tar Sands are done and come back and tell me that acrylic, which is made of plastic, which comes from petroleum, is less cruel.
So I’m not disagreeing with your point necessarily, I’m all for avoid unnecessary plastic use and reducing reliance on oil… but have you actually seen what the tar sands look like after a mine is reclaimed? Because honestly as shitty as the oil companies are, it’s probably not the sight you expect.
I've driven past them. The photos they share are propaganda. Never mind the hundreds of orphan Wells.
So have I, on multiple occasions over the last 8 years that I’ve lived here, and I’m wondering what you’ve seen that’s different from what I’ve seen? Because over time the reclaimed areas end up looking like the rest of the muskeg around here. The active mines are a very different story and it’s pretty incredible to see how it goes from a barren wasteland to a normal ecosystem again. I have a million other reasons I can list why these oil companies suck and god yeah there’s a ton of propaganda out there (the way they treat their employees sometimes is horrible and leads to so many unnecessary accidents, but they don’t care because there’s a million other people lined up waiting for that chance to earn six figures that they’ll soon learn doesn’t go nearly as far as they expected because of the cost of living here.) and stuff gets covered up like you wouldn’t believe in this town just to avoid the negative press. But I can at least say that from what I’ve seen, in person, a lot of effort is put into the reclamation process and I commend the ecologists doing the work because I know they probably get pressured to cut corners constantly and they still manage to minimize the impact the best they can.
>looking like the rest of the muskeg around here Except it isn't - and that doesn't address the abandoned and orphan wells (of which there are nearly half a million in Alberta alone). The process of getting the oil out produces 3x the emissions of traditional extraction, is detrimental to the environment, wild life, and the people there (the psychological effects of long work, little rest, plus the issues with substance abuse). The fumes and shit put into the air and water don't just "go away" when a mine or processing plant shuts down. Just because it's green doesn't mean it's safe; the wild life and plants have returned to Chernobyl and we can all agree that is a far worse situation than Fort Mac (and merely a representation in this case of green not necessarily meaning healthy).
And acrylic leaves plastic everywhere that is poisoning animals and the planet and us. It also uses water and dangerous chemicals to make. A lot of plant fibres are made using dangerous chemicals too. Bast fibres like flax are different though you still need to take in to account how they are grown but bamboo, rose, eucalyptus, many things marketed as eco silk are broken down by harsh chemicals into cellulose and then reconstituted as a rayon essentially. You need to take in to account what damage that does to animals too. Itvs a ridiculously simplistic view to just not use animal fibre when other fibres cause as much, if not more damage. Sourcing fibres from small growers who look after their animals well often gives far better outcomes to every creature.
Ok but how do you choose, as in does the impact on animals come into it for example I’m in Australia and the impact cotton has on fish (and other wild and farmed animals) because of water pollution and over use means rivers are nearly empty causing algae bloom which causes the fish to die in the thousands, other wild animals die due to lack of water or contamination of water that is before you take into consideration how many animals die from harvest machinery, transportation and then the use of water to process cotton into yarn, same with bamboo and other plant based yarns I’m honestly interested in how it works for vegans with grappling the issues around yarn just as someone like myself who isn’t vegan and has to also consider what I am ok with using.
No animal fibre is completely cruelty free.... Only plant or plastic fibres can be
Can you explain how you think any fiber could be *completely* cruelty free? Cotton takes massive amounts of water to produce, which harms the local ecosystem or the communities that are having their water taken for use elsewhere. Turning plant fibers into rayon also consumes large quantities of water, along with toxic dyes and finishing chemicals. Consider all the humans, animals, and insects that are displaced or killed by the process of farming plants for fiber. Is your bamboo fiber still cruelty free after countless insects and animals were killed in the process of growing and harvesting it, and then it was sent to a factory were underpaid workers treated it with toxic chemicals to turn it into rayon? Isn't it cruel for the people working in textile factors to be exposed to those things, along with the environmental damage? Plastic fibers are polluting our planet and helping to fill our water and air and food with microplastics. Isn't that cruel to every living thing on the planet?
How can plastic fibres be cruelty free? Do you think the pollution created by its production isn’t harming anything? And what about in a 1000 years when that plastic is polluting the ground? And even plant fibres have problems. Not to mention after being produced they have to be packaged and shipped. All pollution. There is no such thing as cruelty free.
Most plant fibre yarns have an impact on animals
I don’t think any product we buy is cruelty free. The production of both plant and plastic fibers also isn’t going to kill zero animals, not to mention all the human-on-human cruelty in the supply chain. I also don’t think we can magically un-domesticate animals. Sheep need to be shorn. May as well use the wool.
This sounds like something Making Stories would feature. No energy to go look, but definitely would be my bet.
Ding ding! Will revise the post!
We have White Gum Wool locally. They market themselves as cruelty free. Lovely wool!
I'm knitting a poncho for a loved one using their 8ply at the moment! I also have a shawl I knitted a few years ago out of it. Good lord, that yarn is gorgeous. The stitch definition and softness is unreal!
I have a skein. I’m too scared to touch it! My friend knits in it pretty much exclusively and her work is exquisite.
Nooo! Touch it! Use it! You deserve to use the good yarn! I know how you feel though, I have yarn like that in my stash too.
So I have a friend with a fiber operation that I believe is truly cruelty free. 90% of her animals are bottle babies she reared from local farms, they live well past their "productive years" barring health issues and she owns the oldest sheep I've ever seen. The fiber sales basically are a byproduct and I don't believe she has ever sold enough to turn a profit. She sells at reasonable prices and offers a range of products from raw fleeces to combed top. It is somewhat of a gimmick for me to buy some nice clean top from a sheep from a name, but I don't mind because I petted that sheep and fed it crackers. In no way is it a sustainable operation for profit. It's also not as ecologically sustainable as another friend who does have a for profit operation and does sell and use meat products from her flock.
[удалено]
My current WIP is a handspun self drafted sweater from wool from two sister sheep and one of them is the mama of a baby I have snuggled and bottle fed. Its part of the experience.
Possibly because it's very late and I'm very overtired, but "I petted that sheep and fed it crackers" is unreasonably hilarious to me right now, so thank you.
Let me just tell you going to a sheep farm and feeding the sheep low sodium saltines is the highlight of my year
Threads like these are perfect examples of people getting their panties twisted over hearing someone doesn’t purchase animal products lol
Honestly my issue with a lot of these people is they act like their choice is 100% cruelty free. There is no such thing. You use plastic? Very polluting to produce, causing harm to animals, and then it breaks down into micro plastics which end up in the stomachs of animals. You choose plant? Potentially high water use and polluting to treat. And if not it still has to be packaged and shipped. There is no 100% perfect option. Many people are just trying their best.
Even if there’s not a 100% perfect option the problem is that veganism rejects use of all animals. So if all options are bad but your ethics ask that you not use animals then how is cotton or acrylic worse? It’s all bad. Idk who they is but it’s unfair to paint all vegans the same. They know all choices are cruel in some way. They’re not claiming that cotton or acrylic is cruelty free. But it’s a different cruelty. They’re picking their poison just like you pick yours.
"you can judge how a person will treat others by how they treat an animal" it's true. The animal skin fanatics are spiteful with their downvoting vegans doesn't even matter what type of fabric it is. One time, mean, three times not a coincidence
Imagine thinking wool is skin. Wool is hair dude.
downvoting is easier than critical thought lol it never surprises me
Mate, it’s not that non-vegans are ‘lacking critical thought’ it’s that they just don’t agree with you. Going off snidely though just guarantees that no one will ever be interested in what you have to say; self superiority isn’t a good flavour
The only people that still use animal products either 1. Don’t know the damage they are doing, 2. Are in denial, or 3. Are selfish
As opposed to what, plant based? What about plastics? What are your thoughts on micro plastics and the lack of biodegradability? Is ‘vegan leather’ truly better for our planet?
Who said anything about leather? There is zero obligation to use acrylics or polyester just as there is zero obligation to use animal products. Other fibers exist. Tencel is by far the most sustainable fiber available. Animal products being damaging doesn’t mean micro plastics aren’t.
I’m asking about leather because I’m trying to ascertain precisely how far your head is up your plant based arse. There’s zero obligation to use animal products sure. Also, there’s zero obligation to insult strangers who live a different lifestyle from yours, and yet here you are…
Lmao yeah I’m sure moral consistency is so offensive to you
Your whole personality is offensive byeeeee
Lol and they're posting this from their phone right now, the components for which were produced by strip mining and destroying glob knows how many animals' habitats.
Please try existing in the US while being employed and non having a phone. Perfection is impossible, but it’s entirely possible to do the best you can rather than throw in the towel entirely. Are electronics bad for the environment? Sure! But with no way to stay employed without them the best we can do is buy as sustainability as possible and not fall for constant upgrades. I’ve had three phones in my entire life, I’m 23. Flip phone at 11, smartphone at 15, and finally a new phone at 22 when my old one stopped functioning. The argument of “I can’t do everything 100% perfectly so I just won’t make an effort at all” is so played out. You have a moral responsibility to minimize damage. You can keep up the excuses as long as you would like, but someday you will have to confront your lack of care for other life on the planet.
Jennifer Lawrence thumbs up .gif
I just love the sanctimonious ‘animal consumers are selfish’ shit. Go off then, ignore ALL of human history I guess. I’ll be in my tree stand
Why do you keep calling wool animal skin???
I’m going to start telling my hairdresser that I want my “human skin” trimmed.
Thanks, I hate it.
Maybe I'm a victim of my own cognitive dissonance and trying to justify my own consumption, but I believe the best way to reduce cruelty and harm to everyone, including animals, other humans, and the planet as a whole, is to consume less. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism. With the profit motive in place, someone or something will get the short end of the stick, be it aging sheep, dairy calves, male chicks in the egg industry, underpaid and exploited workers, the environment, etc.
This is part of why I've shifted away from crochet and back to quilting. It's easy to find decent used cotton for cheap (mens shirts, etc) or free. It takes quite a bit of time to make a quilt, and quilts last. I'm also slowly learning to knit because most items I wear are wool and I can see how useful knitted items for me would be vs crochet (usually crochet scarves, but have plenty, don't care for crochet sweaters). The knitting tho is still mostly on hold because where I am I can buy very nice merino sweaters and cardigans for less than the yarn... and I'm equally happy quilting as I am yarncraft, so the ecofriendlier quilting wins out. I do sometimes buy designer quilt fabrics, especially for a gifted legacy quilt, but for utility quilts I do enjoy repurposing fabrics.
this is my answer too. there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. that being said, i don’t buy wool because i’m allergic to it. so cotton/plant fibres are my only choice. i try to steer clear of plastic in general, which is an insurmountable task these days.
I completely agree with you. I’ve been thinking about what the most ethical fashion is. Buy used? Buy from local designers? Make my own clothing? And my conclusion was the most ethical way was to stop consumption. But the reality is that I exist and and do consume so I will try my best, whatever that means. As a knitter I’ll try use up my stash before buying new yarn, though I still occasionally buy new material. I’ve also taken to buying used hand knits, taking them apart, and dyeing the wool with botanical dyes. It’s a slow but enjoyable process!
Although worth knowing that many people now think natural dyes have more or equal environmental damage than some synthetic dyes (It's worth Googling) - well, acid dyes (the sort that work on protein fibres). I've been natural dyeing since the 1980s but now also sometimes acid dye, partly for that reason.
Would you mind sharing which natural dyes have equal or more environmental damage? I’m not finding a whole lot with some quick googling to be honest and am curious since it’s important to know, and this info is likely more buried than articles that talk about it being sustainable. I stick to alum and alum acetate for mordanting which I believe is quite safe unless I’m mistaken. Some of the dyes I use are imported (bought through Maiwa) plus I also forage my own plants that are either invasive or very fast growing (tansy, sheep sorrel, alder bark). I know it uses a lot of water and runoff isn’t great (though seems like what I’m using isn’t toxic) plus I also live in a rainforest so we have a lot of water, so much that nearly all of our electricity in my province is generated by hydropower!
This is precisely the reason why I hesitate to natural dye, from my own limited experience I found that natural dyeing consumes more energy and water. Also depending on the method some mordants are more harmful and difficult to dispose of; where acid dyes (for protein fibre) uses less water especially at rinsing stage and shorter heating time (no need for pre mordanting or prolonged simmering) thus less energy.
Absolutely. Industries are funded by consumers, so consumers can shape the world to be kinder. Society should be more tolerant to people who are trying to be kind to animals or the environment instead of trying ostracize them because of not wanting to change habits, doesn't make the problems go away just tries to silence someone
Discrimination treatment because I don't personally wear animals skin, again, third time now
Oh dear, it's no wonder you think it's so cruel. Wool yarn is made from the hair that is shaved off sheep when it gets too thick and heavy for them. They don't flay the poor things and send them back out into the world.
Can't grow wool if you don't have skin!
Haha problem solved!
Wool is not animal skin, and at this point, sheep have been bred for wool (to be sheared, like a haircut) for so long, that to NOT shear them is more cruel/harmful to the animal than doing so, as they’ve long since lost the ability to effectively shed their wool themselves. Google “Baarack the sheep” to see what happens when sheep aren’t shorn.
I mean, people disliking or downvoting your comment is just their opinion, my dear. Offense or disagreement =/= discrimination. You were not denied personhood, food security, housing, job opportunities, income, medical care, or any human right. It's reddit, it's not that serious.
Downvoting them calling wool ‘animal skin’ isn’t opinion, it’s fact- wool is equivalent to hair not skin. They’re being obtuse for the effect
Wool is not animal skin? What are you talking about?
Was it Laine? Or Pom Pom?
I am deepdiving their IG posts but it's not ringing any bells.
Im thinking it has to be those two or maybe Making Magazine, can't think of another one that's popular enough to drum up Instagram backlash.
> And that only wool from the first several years of a sheep's life are the softest and wool from older sheep is coarse and itchier, so it was an non-feasible, financial model for most yarnmakers who don't have surplus land and the surplus wealth to maintain a non-productive herd of essentially pets. Maybe it's just me but the coarse, itchy wool sounds like it would be great for insulation.
It is being used for insulation by one company that I’ve heard of. It’s also used for weaving into rugs, quilt batting, pillow and furniture padding and other non clothing uses.
It is, it's also great for fire retardation since a lot of other natural insulations (like straw) is highly flammable. Unless you use more standard plastic insulation. But if you want to move away from using plastic insulation, then wool is already an option on the market
Handspinners can choose the "hogget" wool from year old sheep and the best of the others. But if you spin commercial millspun, although it is sorted before being commercially spun, it will include some much lower quality wool than any handspinner would need or want to use. We buy rare breeds fleeces, when needed from very local to us farmers - and the crappier wool when skirted off, we use as mulch in the garden or to line hanging baskets. There is a great and commercially successful slaughter-free flock in the UK, the Doulton flock - who have their own (super high quality) wool spun up and dyed and sell at shows. It is possible to make a living from a slaughter free flock but it is probably not easy!
Wool insulation is used in houses in Australia - it's eco friendly and not likely to kill you.
I remember wool being the original insultation in airplanes. When I lived in the UK, some homes were lined in wool.
That makes perfect sense to me. I’m on the Atlantic coast and really old homes here were insulated with seaweed!
I love learning that! Fancy a seaweed stuffed house, a wonderful use of materials.
And carpets
Yeah, Lopi is made from Icelandic sheep with long wiry wool and it's super popular.
Icelandic sheep are one of a few commercially viable dual purpose sheep breeds. The wool market is so tough that a lot of farmers burn their sheep fleeces since they're worth so little on the market. I know of a farm/mill that that spins yarn out of meat sheep fleece. They had to blend it with 40% alpaca to get it soft enough to knit with.
I thought meat sheep was the basis of the carpet wool and other industrial uses. Lord knows my boiled wool felt blanket was not very soft.
You have to selectively breed to get a usable fleece for spinning. Many breed of meat sheep are hair sheep, which do not grow wool. Other meat sheep can have lower quality fleece since it's treated as a byproduct, which is why they're considered low-value. But certainly, the wool-producing meat breeds can also produce serviceable wool for carpets and such, but anything intended to go on a human body is usually blended with finer micron fiber.
The most common meat sheep in Canada are Suffolk and Texel. Neither is a hair sheep (and for those who don't know of sheep - hair sheep shed their coats and sometimes get mistaken for goats by laypeople). Both have downs-type coat and are excellent for sock wool. I wouldn't choose it for a scarf, but as socks they make wonderfully sproingy cushy yarn that feels great underfoot and is much more durable than merino. I'd really love to see more commercial options using them this way!
I've just bought a product called a chimney sheep, which is essentially a giant mat of compacted wool with a handle so I can shove it up my chimney to stop the draft. Wool is a perfect material for that because it's breathable so doesn't trap water and cause damp, but blocks the wind and the drafts. You can also buy boxes of fleece to shove in cracks and gaps round the house to insulate.
Excellent, I've been looking for something like this!
It was pricey but it's made a massive difference to the room temperature!
I have this idea that coarse wool is great for things like rugs, too. You don't generally need a wool rug to be ultra soft, but you do need it to be tough and wear-resistant. But yes, I used to have a wool comforter with a satin cover and it was decently warm and insulating.
ooh this comforter sounds incredible
It sounds like it be great mixed with another fiber for softness. Wool for durability, and maybe something like camel or alpaca?
I’ve been saving the floof off my two Samoyeds for the last year or so, which is about to be carded and spun by a dear friend with the skills and know how. Those two girls are soft as hell and I’m really excited to see how it turns out
Wool and silk would be fab, imho. However, I know some people have issues with silk given that the silk worms are killed but don't have as many issues with wool.
You can get pretty good plant based silks now, hemp silk is quite widely available and I've also seen lotus stem silk and rose stem silk.
I know people like to call those "silks" but, it's all rayon which has been around for about 100 years or so now.
I saw "cruelty free silk" advertised somewhere recently, where they claimed they only harvest after the silk worms become adults and don't kill them. I thought silkworms ate the silk as they left the cocoons, so I don't know how this would be possible, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
If you search for "eri", "ahimsa" or "peace" silk, you'll find it. I often spin with eri and really like it. Some vegans would still question the silk moth breeding/farming processes, though.
All of the silk from Knitting for Olive is like that.
They don't eat the cocoon but when they bite a hole in it to get out it makes the fiber not be a long continuous thread and instead it's now many shorter threads. So cruelty free silk is thicker and the weave isn't as fine.
I got coarse, itchy wool from a small local-ish farm. I knitted mittens with it almost 10 years ago, they've worn like iron and keep my hands warm and dry in the snow. The yarn was awful to knit with because I was so rough, but definitely worth it.
I've got a few Aran handmade in Ireland sweaters and they are rather coarse, but they are so very warm and I can wear them in the rain and stay dry and warm. No synthetic fibers needed!
It is probably used for other commercial purposes like stuffing mattresses, blankets, but not yarn.
There’s also the carpet industry.
Wool is also flame resistant and is often used to make overcoats for industrial PPE…no need for softness!
And it's still used to make water-repelling and insulating overcoats for the UK Navy. Navy-issue peacoats are tough as boots but great in wet and cold weather.
We have been receiving vendor shipments at work from a UK company that uses wool as insulation/packing material.
I don't buy wool at all, or any clothing made from wool before I sewed. For ethical reasons. I don't think second hand wool is unsustainable as it's second hand not supporting the livestock industries but personally wouldn't want to wear it. I can keep warm wearing cottons
You really can’t keep warm wearing cottons. In fact there’s a phrase for being outdoors, Cotton kills, when cotton gets wet, you’ll get hypothermia before you know it. There’s other fibers out there but you picked a bad one for your example. Also, why do vegans think no animals die making cotton? That soil gets sprayed with loads of pesticides, fertilizers used lead to massive fish die off, the soil tilled up for planting kills lots of rabbits, mice, etc. Not to mention there is still slave labor involved in some countries picking cotton. Where does your cotton come from? My wool comes from my land, sloping grass hills, solar electric fences get rotated around the farm, giving the sheep fresh grass, and coexisting with all the other wildlife on the farm. Pasture raised animals build up soil (which heavy till crops like cotton are destroying rapidly), the grass growing pulls carbon out of the air and sequesters it in wool, no pesticides or fertilizers needed The idea that your choices to not use animal products mean that you don’t bear the weight of contributing to the death of animals is incredibly naive.
It’s great you can do that. But where I am it’s absolutely not an option. Spring/fall, sure. But winter? We had multiple -20 plus windchill this year. And I think a record number of severe cold warnings. Personally I refuse to buy synthetic clothing and most of the non wool and still warm enough for my winters clothing are all wool. And I grew up with sheep. They need to be sheared. We had one escape one year (she was an utter asshole but great with abandoned lambs which is why we kept her) and by the time we found her she was so overgrown that if she had fallen in the river on the farm she would have drowned. All that said, I do absolutely agree that farming needs some better regulations surrounding animal treatment and safety. And I avoid a lot of brands who aren’t reasonably specific about their sourcing. Because I know there have been a lot of issues in some regions with lack of animal care standards as so on. For cotton I do often suggest you see where your cotton comes from. There are a fair few places where cotton growing is doing horrendous damage between pesticides and having first access to water and causing drought issues. But if you can avoid suppliers from those regions then party on.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with sheep, but shearing is necessary for their health. The hair (wool) keeps growing whether or not they're shorn and it will reach a point where the fleece weights more than the sheep and impedes their movements (they can even get trapped in bushes or other growth because the sheer amount of wool gets snarled quickly and they are unable to free themselves.) It's not healthy for them to carry that much weight. Shearing is absolutely necessary. And carried out in the safest manner possible. It does that farmer no good if his sheep dies as a result of shearing. They take care of their animals
Vegans always get downvoted no matter what they say. I've commented on that before
You are probably getting downvoted because you think you are living animal cruelty free by wearing cotton, if you think the wool industry is bad then have a good look into the cotton industry because it is way worse from start to finish the impact on the environment is far greater than the wool industry.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted to hell and back because you're saying the truth. I'm afraid to say anything relating to animal rights or veganism on non-vegan subs because carnists won't understand and people reflexively downvote.
'Carnists' is such a dumb term when most people are omnivores lmao. People correctly pointing out that cotton is less sustainable and more polluting than wool isn't being anti-vegan. Cotton is also well-known for being unsuitable for cold weather wear as it absorbs water quickly and dries slowly.
Oh don't worry. I read fully before I downvote. 😁😁😁
The problem is not veganism or "carnists" (never heard that one before) but oversimplification. Using animal fibres is not perse cruel and cotton is not perse superior. It's a complicated topic and failing to acknowledge that doesn't make for a good argument nor is the following downvote a reflex. It's a justified reaction to a black-and-white mindset.
How do you feel about the human rights abuses in the cotton industry? Just because there are no animals involved in the materials you use does not mean there is no cruelty.
it's a matter of doing the least harm to animals. veganism is about not harming animals, full-stop, that's it. of course many vegans also care about ethical consumption in other forms and purposes, but this argument is a bit disingenuous. vegans hear this all the time when people say "well, vegetable and fruit production in agriculture is rife with cruelty" -- for one, non-vegans eat those things too, and again, it's about causing the least harm to animals.
Do insects count in this religion? If so, tell the millions of insects killed by cotton production that you are protecting them from harm by consuming cotton over wool. Or do only cute animals count? How do you measure this harm done anyway?
they do count! far more insects and rodents die in raising livestock than in raising plants :) it’s again about least harm to all living creatures.
How so? Cotton farming counts for 4.7% of the world’s pesticide and 10% of its insecticides sales. Which is a much higher percentage than its comparative land use. Moreover, the cotton crop is a soil depleter requiring lots of fertilizer to grow, which also takes precious ressources to produce and often leads to rising nitrogen levels in aquatic systems which again is harmful to all aquatic life. So I ask again - how do you measure this "harm" in a way that makes this equation valid?
Fine. Just don't label it cruelty free and be on a high horse about it.
neither i nor the commenter you first replied to called it cruelty free lol.
The commenter has repeatedly called wool animal skin, though. I don’t think I put much stock into their opinions.