Another step for animals rights!

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apple claimed this was for environmental reasons, not animal rights reasons.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more enshittification. Making it cheaper and worse and telling everyone it’s an upgrade.

        OP is editorializing that it’s for vegan ethics.

          • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which I don’t really get. Most leather is a waste product from the meat industry. Are they just going to throw it away if everyone stops using it? That doesn’t really seem environmentally friendly… nor does using recycled synthetic materials instead of natural materials. Unless there issue is with the tanning process, but it seems like there should be options there.

        • Maestro@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tanning is very polluting. Even throwing away the hides is better for the environment than tanning them.

          • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is it all tanning or would vegetable tanning better than chrome tanning? I assume chrome tanning is worse, but faster and cheaper, which is probably why it’s done more often.

        • PuddingFeeling@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But the bigger issue is the amount of environmental destruction beef farming has on the planet. Why don’t we stop that instead?

            • PuddingFeeling@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it does reduce the profitability of beef. Thus reducing operations and preventing more carbon.

              • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Unless it’s reducing the demand for beef, I’m not sure how it’s going to shrink the operations. Beef might just get more expensive if they need to compensate for reduced leather demand.

              • Balder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But then, if it depends on customers to collectively stop buying something, we’re doomed already.

                • PuddingFeeling@lemmy.caOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  One less animal product consumer prevents the deaths of many animals. You’re using the all or nothing fallacy.

              • Mister@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You can’t get the same amount of amino acids that you can with meat without consuming 1000s of excess calories.

                Also iron from plants is hardly bioavailable.

            • PuddingFeeling@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Have you tried beyond burgers they taste just like the real thing and so humanity can skip the cruelty of lining cows in a narrow chute and slaughtering them unceremoniously.

        • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not a waste product, they rely on the profits of everything, it’s a product just as much as meat is and slowling demand for it is good.

        • Eggyhead@artemis.camp
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well meat farms produce a lot of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, so reducing any kind of demand from a ranch is probably better than nothing. That said, I thought the leather used for iPhones weren’t from animals we’d traditionally use for eating. Moleskin or something?

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious how many animals are killed to make leather. I would think that the animal is killed for food and the byproduct is leather. If we’re still raising feed cattle and just wasting the leather, wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re tight, but I couldn’t think of a better term for it. I suspect leather is made with material that is generated not for leather making but as a consequence of the meat industry. And since when is “using the whole animal” a bad thing? Unless I’m wrong and there are animals killed specifically for their leather, that would be pretty fucked up.

        • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, when we make things out of wood sure it’s killing trees, but it’s a sustainable resource that is better than mining for other materials that don’t biodegrade. Of course in leathers case it is literally a byproduct so there is very little environmental concers. Garentee faux leather is much more environmentally unfriendly

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Like almost everything, this announcement sounds more like green washing.

            For your wood example, wood is actually a great green resource. It’s not like they’re cutting down the old growth trees anymore. They selectively cut and they have tree farms. Trees are also not as good of a carbon sync as people tend to think they are. Yes, they absorb carbon over their lifetime, but when they die, they rot and release it back into the atmosphere. The carbon we’re worried about is the stuff that came out of the ground that was there for millions of years, which is far longer than a tree lifespan.

    • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Yes I am causing pain and suffering ring but lol idc” is a totally normal thing to say.

      Can you name another place where it’s ethical to willingly cause harm to another?

        • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.

          But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.

          Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?

          What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another step for animals rights!

            —OP

            Sure, but no one is saying they do.

            Animal rights do not exist.

            • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Kinda weird that you are only saying the same thing over and over whole ignoring questions. But allright, you do you.

            • BEZORP@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Human rights don’t exist either. These are legal and philosophical concepts that we decide on, not fundamental constants.

        • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.

          I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.