Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of textiles

Share your recipes and great shopping spots with the rest of us.
User avatar
tyrannosaurus mark
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:00 am

Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of textiles

Postby tyrannosaurus mark » Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:57 am

What is the rational behind transfering the ethics of a vegan diet over to the ethical use of textiles in clothes etc?

Does it come from a position of 'an animal life is sacred so don't fucking wear them', or does it come from a place of 'this is the best thing for a sustainable environment for people and animals', or both? I can't imagine that promoting the purchasing of petrol based plastic clothes over buying second hand biodegradable clothes is really that ethically sound?

It seems to me like there are different ethical factors in textile production and consumption when compared with that of food, and so applying the same approach to both is confusing me.

I'm sure this is a common question, if I could be pointed in the right direction that would be great. I'm new.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
PertHJ
Inventor of 'LOAL'
Posts: 19696
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:53 pm
Location: Milano

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby PertHJ » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:21 pm

Buying new clothes made from Animal products (eg leather/wool) is directly related to Vegan ethics as an animal had to die/exploited to get them and you buying them is supporting that industry. Second hand leather/wool is a bit more iffy - On the one hand an animal was still killed/exploited at some stage to produce it, but you buying it isn't directly supporting the industry....then again wearing leather/wool could be seen as sending the message to others that wearing these materials is ok/looks awesome so influencing people to buy them brand new.

As far as the environmental side of it goes, id be interested to know what has more of an impact - Farming + the treatment of wool/leather (tanning is pretty bad I'm told) vs Cotton vs Synthetic fabrics. Seems like synthetic fabrics would be pretty bad, but never actually seen any figures on it.
http://hungjurynz.bandcamp.com/
http://www.discogs.com/user/pertHJ

Drinking beers, hell yeah!! Smoking dope, KICK TO THROAT!!

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:36 pm

Fuck
Last edited by the croc on Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
tyrannosaurus mark
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:00 am

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby tyrannosaurus mark » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:11 pm

PertHJ wrote:Seems like synthetic fabrics would be pretty bad, but never actually seen any figures on it.


Yeah this is what I'm interested in, particularly the argument of whether wearing second hand animal product clothes promotes the creation and purchase of new ones, v.s. the environmental effects of making clothes that just fill up the ground forever when they're no longer wearable.

The fact that this argument isn't explored on any basic 'so you're interested in veganism' sites that I've come across indicates to me that people involved in veganism (or in making those websites, more accurately) are more interested in the immediate welfare of animals than anything else. But that isn't nessisarily explicitly talked about, so I just find it a bit confusing.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
tyrannosaurus mark
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:00 am

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby tyrannosaurus mark » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:12 pm

Sorry Mr Croc not following. Would love some links to info you found helpful if you know of any :)
ImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:12 pm

Wrong fuckin thread!!!!!!!!
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:47 pm

Right, I know where I am now. This is sort of on what you're asking:

The bad news is that you'll be hard-pressed to find a common textile that isn't soberingly toxic to produce. It makes sense if you think about the raw materials -- wood, cotton, sheep, oil -- and what it might involve to transform them into a soft blouse. So what's the good news? It's not clear that one fabric is far better than another, which means you can avoid the Elvis look. The modern environmental era has introduced techniques for evaluating the life-cycle impacts of products such as textiles. Such an evaluation sometimes results in clear-cut guidelines for shoppers, but in the contest for The Environmentalist's New Clothes, I can't find a clear winner.

All textiles, as currently manufactured, require large volumes of water throughout the manufacturing process. Spinning, dyeing, weaving, scouring, sizing -- all involve flushing the threads or fabric with water at one point or another, and often that water comes away contaminated with chemicals used earlier in the process. Common toxic substances include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dioxin-producing bleach. Synthetic/cotton blends are usually treated with formaldehyde, which may account for the continued sightings of a well-preserved Elvis.

Thread materials are also water-intensive and toxic-heavy. Cotton is renewable in that it can be replanted, but it is not grown sustainably. It's said that cotton accounts for one percent of U.S. crop production but 10 percent of U.S. pesticide use. Pesticides are used not only to deter pests but to defoliate plants for harvesting convenience. Rayon is made from cellulose (wood pulp, with its own relationship to poor forestry practices) -- and talk about toxic: Turns out that sulfuric acid is handy when transforming a tree into a chemise. Fabrication of petroleum-based fabrics like nylon and polyester is energy-intensive and greenhouse-gas producing. And, sheep are often bathed in organophosphates to control parasites. Thus completes our brief look at the laundry list of lamentable dilemmas for the clothed.
http://www.grist.org/article/umbra-clothing1/


Environmental impacts of clothing

Different fabrics have different impacts, depending on what they're made of:

Nylon and polyester
Made from petrochemicals, these synthetics are non-biodegradable as well, so they are inherently unsustainable on two counts. Nylon manufacture creates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Making polyester uses large amounts of water for cooling, along with lubricants which can become a source of contamination. Both processes are also very energy-hungry.

Rayon (viscose)
This is another artificial fibre, made from wood pulp, which on the face of it seems more sustainable. However, old growth forest is often cleared and/or subsistence farmers are displaced to make way for pulpwood plantations. Often the tree planted is eucalyptus, which draws up phenomenal amounts of water, causing problems in sensitive regions. To make rayon, the wood pulp is treated with hazardous chemicals such as caustic soda and sulphuric acid.

Cotton
Natural fibres have their problems, too. Cotton is the most pesticide intensive crop in the world: these pesticides injure and kill many people every year. It also takes up a large proportion of agricultural land, much of which is needed by local people to grow their own food. Herbicides, and also the chemical defoliants which are sometimes used to aid mechanical cotton harvesting, add to the toll on both the environment and human health. These chemicals typically remain in the fabric after finishing, and are released during the lifetime of the garments. The development of genetically modified cotton adds environmental problems at another level. Organic cotton is quite another matter.

Wool
Both agricultural and craft workers in the UK suffer from exposure to organophosphate sheep dip.

Manufacturing processes
Getting from fibre to cloth - bleaching, dyeing, and finishing - uses yet more energy and water, and causes yet more pollution.

Dyeing alone can account for most of the water used in producing a garment; unfixed dye then often washes out of garments, and can end up colouring the rivers, as treatment plants fail to remove them from the water. Dye fixatives - often heavy metals - also end up in sewers and then rivers.
Cloth is often bleached using dioxin-producing chlorine compounds.
And virtually all polycotton (especially bedlinen), plus all 'easy care', 'crease resistant', 'permanent press' cotton, are treated with toxic formaldehyde (also used for flameproofing nylon).
Other materials
Other materials used in clothing and shoes include:

Leather (with polluting tanning and dyeing processes, as well as intensive farming impacts and animal rights issues).
PVC - a notoriously toxic material.
Harmful solvents - used e.g. in glues and to stick plastic coatings to some waterproof fabrics.


http://www.greenchoices.org/index.php/impacts-2
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:00 pm

tyrannosaurus mark wrote:The fact that this argument isn't explored on any basic 'so you're interested in veganism' sites that I've come across indicates to me that people involved in veganism (or in making those websites, more accurately) are more interested in the immediate welfare of animals than anything else. But that isn't nessisarily explicitly talked about, so I just find it a bit confusing.


This is exactly one of my major gripes. Many if not most vegetarians/vegans eat the produce of large scale agriculture, which first requires the destruction of forests or grassland areas, displacing or causing the extinction of countless animal and plant species. Plants are generally planted in monocultures that use a large amount of pesticides and herbicides that essentially kill the soil in what can only be described as ecological genocide.

Yet somehow this is still more morally acceptable than going out and shooting a deer or a pig or a possum that destroys the native forest and contributes to the extinction of native flora and fauna?

There seems to be a large disconnect between direct effects of consumption as opposed to more large scale realities. As with any fundamentalist system it's easier to disregard and avoid any issues that question your beliefs rather than face them.

I don't have any problem with eating vegan/vegetarian as long as people are honest about their real impacts. I didn't touch meat for three years and very rarely eat it now due to these environmental, health and animal welfare concerns.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
melpomene
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: The wellster

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby melpomene » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:29 pm

I think you'll find any large scale meat or dairy production will have a far larger and more negative effect on whichever environment it is implimented than any plant based agriculture scheme. To start with, the amunt of food produced that can be directly consumed is far less in animal based food production than the latter, therefore if you are only seeking to feed X amount of people, straight away you will need far less land and water etc than if you are aiming for secondary consumption of the animals themselves.

Anyway back to the original question.


As always i guess it comes down to personal choice. I am vegan for mainly animal welfare reasons and thus any industry that is conected with the use of animals for material gain i attempt to avoid. Not eating animal products, but still wearing them seems a bit fucked to me, so i don't.

I admit to a fair amount of ignorance when it comes to knowledge of how synthetic fabrics are produced and the whole "environmental impact" scenario can become quite overwhelming. I probably use a lot of products on a daily basis that have some animal product or another in them that i am unaware of, but it's a matter of how far you want to go. If i find something out about a product i'm using then i alter the way i use it. I tend to focus more toward the animal rights angle than the environment angle but thats just me, they're both intertwined anyway.

Some people focus their energy on saving the environment as a whole, others are more concerned with the intensive farming of animals, the ocean, deforestation etc. All are equally valid and it is an individual choice as to where you want to focus your attention, if indeed you want to focus it at all.
If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.
--C. S. Lewis (novelist and essayist)

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
--Leo Tolstoy, author

User avatar
PertHJ
Inventor of 'LOAL'
Posts: 19696
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:53 pm
Location: Milano

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby PertHJ » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:59 pm

melpomene wrote:I think you'll find any large scale meat or dairy production will have a far larger and more negative effect on whichever environment it is implimented than any plant based agriculture scheme.


But that's exactly the point. It is often talked about how the vegan way is so much more environmentally sound, yet when you point out a more environmentally sound way of doing things which might go slightly against the vegan doctrine it is is often not received well at all (like Croc's example of killing a few bush pigs - NOT in a large scale farming sense). It sort of makes you wonder how much some people really care about the environment they claim to be protecting, or if it's just another Christmas day argument winner.
http://hungjurynz.bandcamp.com/
http://www.discogs.com/user/pertHJ

Drinking beers, hell yeah!! Smoking dope, KICK TO THROAT!!

User avatar
melpomene
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: The wellster

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby melpomene » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:11 pm

Yep, agreed. I personally am not vegan for any environmental reason and although i do care about the environment as a whole, am more concerend with the treatment of animals by people on what i guess you could call a smaller level. I have no problem whatsoever with hunting for food, as long as it's done as humanely as possible, and would far rather people who wish to eat meat get it this way than from the supermarket, but that just ain't gonna happen.
If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.
--C. S. Lewis (novelist and essayist)

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
--Leo Tolstoy, author

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:24 pm

I'm no defender of any large scale production system, I think it's all fucked.

Another point I've never had answered is that many vegans (the ones I've had conversations with anyway) seem to be pretty out of touch with the natural world. Most are urban dwelling, and most have a limited at best understanding of ecology. As cheesy as it sounds, the circle of life is a very real thing. Nutrients are recycled in cycles, and ecosystems evolve to make the most efficient uses of these nutrient cycles.

Domestic animals are an integral part of the human cycle and before artificial fertilisers were produced all fertiliser used on a large scale came from animal manure. In a fundamentalist vegan utopia, no animals would be exploited at all, and everyone would eat vegetables and legumes etc. But agriculture in any form requires nutrient inputs, which aren't accounted for in this utopia. Either they come from fossil fuel fertilisers, or they come from animal manure. I realise comfrey and other plants can be used as a fertiliser as can other plants, but I don't see plant fertilisers being really feasible on a global scale. Animals are much more efficient in recycling nutrients on this sort of scale.

I can't see anyone who really cares about the future of the planet arguing for fossil fuel fertilisers over animal use, which for me makes the vegan utopian argument largely redundant. Animals are integral to any longterm sustainable ecosystem. It is basically a lifestyle choice that mainly exists in urban areas is only made possible by global trade systems that rely heavily on fossil fuels.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:31 pm

I just want you know melpomene I'm not having a go at you, you sound pretty reasonable and onto it. And you have the same reasons I don't eat a lot of meat, because of ethical concerns on how it's produced. My targets are the fundos who seem to be pretty out of touch.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:35 pm

This might be of interest too: Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices

In the evaluation of processed protein food based on soybeans and meat protein, a variety of environmental impacts associated with primary production and processing are a factor 4.4–> 100 to the disadvantage of meat. The comparison of cheese varieties gives differences in specific environmental impacts ranging between a factor 5 and 21. And energy use for fish protein may be up to a factor 14 more than for protein of vegetable origin. Assessment suggests that on average the complete life cycle environmental impact of nonvegetarian meals may be roughly a factor 1.5–2 higher than the effect of vegetarian meals in which meat has been replaced by vegetable protein. Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur. Long-distance air transport, deep-freezing, and some horticultural practices may lead to environmental burdens for vegetarian foods exceeding those for locally produced organic meat.


Which is basically just restating that modern food production and transport systems are the real problem.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
tyrannosaurus mark
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:00 am

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby tyrannosaurus mark » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:47 pm

Veganism is practiced mainly in cities by wealthy enough people with enough time and education to figure out how to eat plants instead of the usual meats and dairy, surely? Are there people who would argue with that? But the point for me at least is that when you're in the social position to do the vegan thing, you have the option to live your life in a way you think is more 'moral' and 'right'.

Thanks for the links and discussion, really interesting. I see the attitude of 'animals have rights that need to be preserved at all costs' leading down a kind of morally ambiguous path.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
melpomene
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: The wellster

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby melpomene » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:56 pm

It sure is an interesting subject when you get to talking about it on a global scale. What seems the only answer to an "urban vegan" can quickly become flawed when it is applied to 7 billion humans; and indeed i think that is probably the crux of the matter. WAAAYYY too many people wanting way too much stuff.

I used to give more of a shit about the environment as a whole, and indeed all animals as a whole before i realised i was just working towards a stomach ulcer and anger managment issues. Now i try and restrict focus to those animals i can help and try to do what i can when i can. That doesn't preclude decent conversation about the issue on a larger scale though, just means i try not to think about it as much!!

The original question as it related to the rational behind transferring the ethics of a vegan diet to the use of textiles in clothes i can still only answer on a personal level, and that is that, for me, the ethics behind my vegan decisions, food based or otherwise, are based on the same principles.
If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.
--C. S. Lewis (novelist and essayist)

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
--Leo Tolstoy, author

User avatar
yvon
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:13 am
Location: The Discworld

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby yvon » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:47 pm

I'm finding this a really interesting thread.
I have often wondered about the "enviroment vs. animal welfare" aspect of veganism.
Mainly in regards to the environmental impact of synthetic replacements for animal products, pesticide use on crops, and long distance transport of products and the like.
I had assumed that a major motivator towards a vegan diet must be emotional, rather than rational, which is fine. But I guess you can't argue emotion because it's subjective. (I'm really struggling to put this into words, so I hope no one is offended). It's hard to hug a planet, easy to hug an animal?
Veganism is practiced mainly in cities by wealthy enough people with enough time and education to figure out how to eat plants instead of the usual meats and dairy, surely?
I hadn't really thought about this until now, but it's a very good point. People in cities are much more likely to be disconnected from the cycle of life.

I seem to agree mostly with The Croc.
:D

Regarding textiles, I imagine if you were to avoid both synthetics and animal products, you would be stuck with organic cotton, organic bamboo and hemp? And you would probably still end up with some synthetics in there for wearability I guess.
"All paid employment degrades the mind."

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:54 pm

If anyone is interested this is a pretty good read:

Image

Some of it is excruciatingly petty straw man arguments but most of it stacks up solidly.

Lierre Kieth was recently attacked at an Anarchist book conference with vegan cayenne pepper cream pies for this book which I guess shows how provocative it is.

Can even post my copy to someone as long as it comes back.

These give a pretty good background:

Part memoir, nutritional primer, and political manifesto, this controversial examination exposes the destructive history of agriculture—causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil—and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating—or not eating—animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.


http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/39 ... -Myth.html

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/ ... rian-myth/

http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/201 ... rian-myth/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegetarian-myth-review/
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
BanalityDUFF
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby BanalityDUFF » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:36 pm

People in cities are much more likely to be disconnected from the cycle of life.


i dont think that is necessarily true but would rather say that some people, in some cities are provided the opportunity of greater choice.

i know that i personally could not choose to live a vegan lifestlye if it wasn't for our industrialized society or if i did it would be far more difficult than living a omnivorous lifestlye. i am more easily able to get a larger variety of fruits and vegetables - although the majority of vegetables / fruits i eat are local (being within 500km of my home, at least, haha) and yet this is supplemented by things from further abroad (soy milk comes to mind immediately).

that said, if our world went to shit i would still aim to consume as little animal products as i could get away with - although if our world went to shit i imagine this would be a daily reality for pretty much everyone.

the croc - the vegan utopia could exist given that strictly speaking using animal shit from animals that aren't exploited surely wouldn't be out of the question. as long as the relationship between the human and animal isn't exploitative, and in this case would potentially be mutually beneficial then i'm sure most people wouldn't see an issue with throwing horse shit through their garden (and if they did let them eat their retarded morals until they starve).

also, i might try track down a copy of that book. and fuck getting a cayenne pepper pie thrown at our face

!

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:04 pm

I can lend you the book if you want to read it dude, let me know and I can post it up.

the croc - the vegan utopia could exist given that strictly speaking using animal shit from animals that aren't exploited surely wouldn't be out of the question. as long as the relationship between the human and animal isn't exploitative, and in this case would potentially be mutually beneficial then i'm sure most people wouldn't see an issue with throwing horse shit through their garden (and if they did let them eat their retarded morals until they starve).


I think though if we're really worried about being truly sustainable in some kind of utopia then surely fossil fuels would be discarded? Which would leave oxen/humans to plow fields rather than tractors and horses/oxen/donkeys for transport? I guess you could ideologically remove animals from the equation but in reality it is a lot easier to use them to accomplish some tasks.

Collecting manure for fertiliser would be a passive act, as would eggs and possibly hand milked cows/goats/sheep. But then this starts moving away from veganism very quickly.

Is 'owning' and riding a horse exploitive? Is owning a cat solely to keep down mice and rats exploitive? They get fed, groomed, provided with shelter etc much better than they would in the wild. If they weren't supported by humans they would lead much more dangerous and harsh lives, albeit freer. Is increased freedom always a good thing? Is it too much to say that animals, as autonomous, intelligent beings are able to enter into contracts with humans? That the contract can look like: I will feed, groom, house and protect you from predators if you pull my plough every day?

I've been researching this for a while and I came across these guys whom I posted about in the other self-sustainability thread:

Helen and Scott Nearing ran a subsistence farm in New England from the 1930s. They wrote an influential book called Living the Good Life first published in 1954 and reissued in 1970. The Nearings wrote that society “had rejected in practice and in principle our pacifism, our vegetarianism and our collectivism. Under those circumstances, where could outcasts from a dying social order live frugally and decently, and at the same time have sufficient leisure and energy to assist in the speedy liquidation of the disintegrating society and to help replace it with a more workable social system?” The answer was a farm.

The aim was to be as “independent as possible of the commodity and labour markets,” to be free of the stresses of urban life, and to avoid exploitation of the planet, people and animals. The Nearings wrote a ten year plan to achieve these goals, avoiding money as much as possible and selling maple syrup for what cash they did need. The farm was organic, they kept no animals, not even cats and dogs (because they “live dependent subservient lives”); they built stone houses by hand, logged, and planned meticulously.

Their diet was vegan, with fruit in the morning, vegetable soup and whole grains at lunch, and a big salad for dinner. They snacked on nuts, honey, and peanut butter and avoided refined flour, sugar and white rice. They opposed food additives and food processing. Instead of refrigeration, which would shackle them to distant electrical interests, they made do with root cellars. Their time was split between chores, which took half the day, and reading and writing, music, and social activities. All was part of an integrated whole, each portion as valuable as the other, and all fulfilling.

The Nearings had reduced their footprint on the earth in a way hat they found spiritually rewarding (though they were atheists), creating a blue print for four to five million young people to move back to the land, whether on communes or independently. Scott Nearing stayed true to his ideals and died three weeks after his hundredth birthday. Helen lived to ninety one.


Trouble is, they would also occasionally borrow the neighbours tractor for work around the farm and they also owned a pick- up truck. It seems to always come back to this choice between fossil fuels or animals.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

User avatar
the croc
Posts: 5663
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Wellington/At sea
Contact:

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby the croc » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:04 pm

I can lend you the book if you want to read it dude, let me know and I can post it up.

the croc - the vegan utopia could exist given that strictly speaking using animal shit from animals that aren't exploited surely wouldn't be out of the question. as long as the relationship between the human and animal isn't exploitative, and in this case would potentially be mutually beneficial then i'm sure most people wouldn't see an issue with throwing horse shit through their garden (and if they did let them eat their retarded morals until they starve).


I think though if we're really worried about being truly sustainable in some kind of utopia then surely fossil fuels would be discarded? Which would leave oxen/humans to plow fields rather than tractors and horses/oxen/donkeys for transport? I guess you could ideologically remove animals from the equation but in reality it is a lot easier to use them to accomplish some tasks.

Collecting manure for fertiliser would be a passive act, as would eggs and possibly hand milked cows/goats/sheep. But then this starts moving away from veganism very quickly.

Is 'owning' and riding a horse exploitive? Is owning a cat solely to keep down mice and rats exploitive? They get fed, groomed, provided with shelter etc much better than they would in the wild. If they weren't supported by humans they would lead much more dangerous and harsh lives, albeit freer. Is increased freedom always a good thing? Is it too much to say that animals, as autonomous, intelligent beings are able to enter into contracts with humans? That the contract can look like: I will feed, groom, house and protect you from predators if you pull my plough every day?

I've been researching this for a while and I came across these guys whom I posted about in the other self-sustainability thread:

Helen and Scott Nearing ran a subsistence farm in New England from the 1930s. They wrote an influential book called Living the Good Life first published in 1954 and reissued in 1970. The Nearings wrote that society “had rejected in practice and in principle our pacifism, our vegetarianism and our collectivism. Under those circumstances, where could outcasts from a dying social order live frugally and decently, and at the same time have sufficient leisure and energy to assist in the speedy liquidation of the disintegrating society and to help replace it with a more workable social system?” The answer was a farm.

The aim was to be as “independent as possible of the commodity and labour markets,” to be free of the stresses of urban life, and to avoid exploitation of the planet, people and animals. The Nearings wrote a ten year plan to achieve these goals, avoiding money as much as possible and selling maple syrup for what cash they did need. The farm was organic, they kept no animals, not even cats and dogs (because they “live dependent subservient lives”); they built stone houses by hand, logged, and planned meticulously.

Their diet was vegan, with fruit in the morning, vegetable soup and whole grains at lunch, and a big salad for dinner. They snacked on nuts, honey, and peanut butter and avoided refined flour, sugar and white rice. They opposed food additives and food processing. Instead of refrigeration, which would shackle them to distant electrical interests, they made do with root cellars. Their time was split between chores, which took half the day, and reading and writing, music, and social activities. All was part of an integrated whole, each portion as valuable as the other, and all fulfilling.

The Nearings had reduced their footprint on the earth in a way hat they found spiritually rewarding (though they were atheists), creating a blue print for four to five million young people to move back to the land, whether on communes or independently. Scott Nearing stayed true to his ideals and died three weeks after his hundredth birthday. Helen lived to ninety one.


Trouble is, they would also occasionally borrow the neighbours tractor for work around the farm and they also owned a pick- up truck. It seems to always come back to this choice between fossil fuels or animals.
There's more to life than thrash
So let's get really smashed
and do the heavy head dance

www.facebook.com/paekakpunkshow

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby Lentil » Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:26 am

Veganism is practiced mainly in cities by wealthy enough people with enough time and education to figure out how to eat plants instead of the usual meats and dairy, surely? Are there people who would argue with that? But the point for me at least is that when you're in the social position to do the vegan thing, you have the option to live your life in a way you think is more 'moral' and 'right'


Most of the vegans I know aren't wealthy myself included. Our family shopping bill is also cheaper than most omnivore families I know when we compare what we pay.
I went vegetarian after a few years working on sheep farms. And though we live in the city now my partner is very active on a nearby reforestation project. So that is our background if it helps.

For a balance on the book 'Vegetarian Myth' check out the blog 'Myths about the vegetarian myth' :D
http://vegetarianmythmyth.wordpress.com ... nmythmyth/

Bonnie
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:53 pm
Location: Београд, Србија

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby Bonnie » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:23 pm

This might be of interest, if you want to know the environmental impact of different textiles before deciding whether to exclude wool and/or leather from your wardrobe. It doesn't mention silk, I don't really know anything about the environmental impact of silk but silk worms are boiled alive for long filament silk fibres (long fibres that make nice expensive fabric) Silk can be made from the discarded cocoons though but it's not of a comparable quality.
Taken from Environmental Analysis of Textile Products, Hsiou-Lien Chen and Leslie Davis Burns, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 2006 24: 248.
If you want to read the full journal article let me know
Image

They all contribute pollution, and could all be recycled if only they weren't blended together.

Lentil
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Wellington

Re: Transfering vegan food ethics over to the ethics of text

Postby Lentil » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:16 pm

Another review of 'Vegetarian Myth' I came across today

http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/revie ... mment-1992


Return to “Vegetarian and Vegan”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests