What to do with leather, wool, etc. after becoming vegan

[Alusdra]

Just a quick comment on people in developing countries and not having children- I feel that was a particularly insensitive comment. The expected life span in some countries in Africa is only 30 years and their child mortality is depressingly high. On top of that, most of the cultures are very patriarchal (women don't get to say if they want children or not). And education can be hard to come by, especially in the warring parts of the continent. It's very easy to say- 'just stop breeding' but it is a much more complex issue than just that. If the women had access to and knowledge about contraceptives, would the birth rate in those places be lower? Undoubtedly. If the health care was such that they wouldn't have to see their children waste away and die from diarrhea would they have fewer? Definitely. And that's assuming that the children still have parents, or that it was by choice that the mother got pregnant, that she isn't dead from the AIDs the man who raped her gave her.

That kind of thing is what happens in an anarchist type environment and is why I personally am very for government. It's never going to be perfect, but having ground rules means that we have the luxury of tweaking the system instead of literally fighting for our lives. Would someone be making vegan soap (for example) if at any moment they could be killed and written off as collateral damage? No way. Once you take out the need to work to survive then philosophical and moral questions can be explored, along with other cultural curiosities like art, science, music, etc.

Is it necessarily our moral obligation to feed and care for the children? I don't think so- like in the example of the pet overpopulation problem- you can't save them all, but you can save a few so long as you don't stretch yourself out too thin. My parsimony score on the 'family' portion was 18% because of this- I have made a commitment to help my family, but I haven't for a stranger. And once I do, then they are 'family' too. Therefore I feel a much stronger obligation to uphold what I already said I would do rather than help those I have not said I would. If you want to help everyone it can quickly result in helping no one (to be fair) or getting over your head (eg- hoarding).

I can see where the argument of being speciesist against humans would be valid- after all, animals can have no culpability as they aren't self aware to the extent that we are, and certainly don't have as developed an awareness of the consequences of their actions. As such, they are more 'innocent' than a human would be in the same situation. However, as so many problems with humans are societally based, and given that we humans ARE aware of larger things than just ourselves- I feel that gives us responsibility to help each other and the planet as a whole. Humans aren't going anywhere- we're too successful as a species. And even if we do- whatever would be catastrophic enough to wipe us out would likely take the planet, too.

I like the UN Millennium Goals, I think that's headed in the right direction for controlling population and getting people on the right track. While it might not be a clear cut moral duty to help those people, it certainly would help the environment if we could get them to a place they don't feel like they have to have so many children and exploit the natural world to the point where it is being depleted/destroyed.

Ok, so not so quick a comment. Heh.

[Susan9608]

Just a quick comment on people in developing countries and not having children- I feel that was a particularly insensitive comment.

Insensitive, maybe, but there is truth to it. Of course, in countries where women have any meaningful social role (beyond that of breeding machine) they usually find methods of controlling their own fertility. Granted, some places have such tremendous political and social problems that a more advanced social role for women is not at the top of their priority list.

However, people in 3rd world countries are not the only ones who continue having children whom they can't support. There are plenty of children right here in America who were conceived by parents who knew full well that they couldn't support another child. So ... what's the answer there?

[Biscuit]

We always say "Don't breed or buy while shelter animals die." More and more I find myself thinking "Think twice about breeding while orphan kids suffer and die?"

We all acknowledge the overpopulation, but when the overpopulation applies to children and having more than we can take care of, we are quick to see ourselves as exceptions. Ego?

[Susan9608]

I don't necessarily see the two situations as identical, at least not from a global standpoint. But this has been discussed before this thread: http://www.guineapigcages.com/forum/...ng+convictions

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Alusdra

Just a quick comment on people in developing countries and not having children- I feel that was a particularly insensitive comment.

I can't dispute this, but keep in mind that my simplified stance on human reproduction (applying the abolitionist approach to humans as well as domesticated non-humans) is very likely to be considered insensitive to many people. I don't care, and I make no apologies for my stance.

Originally Posted by Alusdra

If the women had access to and knowledge about contraceptives, would the birth rate in those places be lower? Undoubtedly. If the health care was such that they wouldn't have to see their children waste away and die from diarrhea would they have fewer? Definitely. And that's assuming that the children still have parents, or that it was by choice that the mother got pregnant, that she isn't dead from the AIDs the man who raped her gave her.

There are certain groups in more highly developed countries who travel to the most AIDS-ridden areas of the world and tell people not to use condoms because of religious and/or political views. These groups pose a much greater problem than people who are simply insensitive.

Originally Posted by Alusdra

That kind of thing is what happens in an anarchist type environment and is why I personally am very for government. It's never going to be perfect, but having ground rules means that we have the luxury of tweaking the system instead of literally fighting for our lives. Would someone be making vegan soap (for example) if at any moment they could be killed and written off as collateral damage? No way. Once you take out the need to work to survive then philosophical and moral questions can be explored, along with other cultural curiosities like art, science, music, etc.

The reason anarchy and lawlessness result in chaos is because human beings are fatally flawed and have not evolved to a point where they can control and overcome their natural selfish instincts in the interests of justice. I don't believe humans, in their current form, without the aid of a massive collective awakening of spiritual consciousness, will ever be capable of achieving that goal, and therefore, I believe in the abolition of the human race.

Originally Posted by Susan9608

I don't necessarily see the two situations as identical, at least not from a global standpoint.

As one can probably conclude by reading my posts in the linked thread, I see the two situations as EXACTLY the same.

[Susan9608]

** Just for everyone's general notice, since this subject of human breeding being the same thing as non-human breeding was already discussed at length in the thread I linked to, it would be appreciated if the subject is not rehashed again here. If this subject is of general interest, please start a new thread, so that this one may remain on topic and that so others interested in human vs. non human breeding can find the new topic and participate in the discussion. Thank you. ***

[Biscuit]

I read every page of that thread and definitely have nothing further to add than what was said there. =) No worries! Thanks for linking it, it was a good read.

[Weatherlight]

I've tried to leave out the human vs gpig breeding thing; when I write about either or both, it's not as a question about whether they are equivalent. I hope writing about whether humans should be left to starve isn't in violation?

Very selfish, isn't it?

Everything is.

WHAT CONSTITUTES OPPORTUNITY?

Not believing in the supernatural, I would phrase this question a different way: how can things be altered for a better outcome?

Since you only judge consequences, are the thoughts and perceptions of the witness meaningless?

To the child.

If the witness was sleeping, does he share culpability for the child's death?

This is the problem here. You're set on blame, culpability, whether someone is good or evil or whatever. To me, those per se are irrelevant.

Of course you're judging him for not intervening.

Again, you are the one interested in being judgmental of people. That per se is independent of morality. I am more interested in judging the situation (the rest of the environment, the actions of the people) and evaluating what ought to be done.

How different would this discussion be if it were about, say, dogs and not humans? Say I have a dog who object guards and has done minor injury when I attempted to take toys, keys, socks, and gardening hand tools (I has a shovel!) away. Would you be discussing with me the best way to train object exchange exercises, for example, or would you be ignoring that, and instead trying to compare whether you thought the dog was evil with whether I thought the dog was evil? Or if that's not enough (because I'm a human), what if a dog is dog-aggressive or cat-aggressive or horse-aggressive, not human-aggressive? Wouldn't you be talking management, counterconditioning, desensitization, etc right along with me?

Haven't read anything by Judge Judy.

Same judgment?

On the outcome.

Another fallacy here is that during this entire discussion, we've been assuming that the "right" thing to do is to try to save the person in danger and the "wrong" thing to do is to kill that person or to not intervene when that person is being killed.

Premise. Although in these hypotheticals, hopefully you would agree that it is best to save the person, all else being equal.

Well maybe the world would be better off with fewer people in it?

Could be said of any species, assuming you meant "human people."

Maybe that would be the most morally correct choice, because that would minimize the total suffering to those who are currently alive, and those yet to be born would never suffer because they'd never exist. Kind of makes you wonder, maybe?

Only if it worked. You could say the same about cats or mosquitoes. Doesn't work that way.

You have to keep in mind that I believe in the abolitionist approach not only when it comes to domesticated animals, but also when it comes to all humans.

Oh? Why not other animals?

Whatever chance humans may have had

Chance to/for what?

In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world.

Err, what battle?

We should have mandatory sterilization for all newborn male babies STARTING TODAY.

Why not females? Males are cheaper and safer, true, but let one male slip by and he can sire a gazillion offspring in a year. Let one female slip by and she can birth one "litter" (almost always 1 child) a year, and wouldn't do so for that many years. Unless you're assuming everyone will be monogamous.

all these "problems" will have disappeared.

Problems concerning starving humans? Do starving mice and owls not matter to you?

Because the analogy doesn't fit!

Of course they do (I'm assuming you're referring to one of the ones mentioned in the article). As for the car, you can alter that however you want--that's half his monies, that's a fifth of his monies, whatever.

keep his analogies free of logical fallacies

You're saying he has some in that article? Quote them and name the fallacies please.

as well as give them some semblance of reality

Analogies are analogies. If you don't like analogies, or don't like analogies you find implausible, pay attention to what's being said, what the analogy is illustrating.

That's one thing I found really annoying about Singer, btw, although this is going off on a tangent (but what in this thread isn't?)--his ledger analogy. "It's just an analogy, don't take it too far"? Yeah, ignore the analogy completely, pay attention to what it's illustrating, and don't ignore that...grr. I don't have the book on me any more (Practical Ethics) and I read it when I was 15 or 16, I think, but it was basically about the creation of interests. Logic, indeed! Only when it doesn't bother him too too much. Hypocrite.

tug on his readers' heartstrings and guilt them

I don't know if that's his purpose. It is interesting that it was your reaction, though.

You want to talk about action vs. inaction -

No, I think that would be you. I don't particularly want to talk about action vs. inaction because to me it is irrelevant.

- did the parents act by bringing a starving child into the world, or did they fail to act by not preventing what should have been an unwanted pregnancy?

Both. Either, take your pick. Word it however you want. It doesn't change reality one bit.

Are you starting to see where my animosity towards humans is coming from? ... Was your hatred similar to mine?

Honestly, maybe or maybe not. I'd guess probably but with the information I have now I can't be sure.

How'd you overcome it?

I don't know if "overcome" is the right word. I still feel anger but less and it's not so much directed by speciesism. There's no more "reason" to hate all humans than to hate all Bengal tigers or socialphobics. I think there were a lot of factors in why I changed in this regard and some are personal enough I don't want to post them on a public board, but one large one was just stopping to think about it. I had a lot of flawed assumptions still running around in my brain, just because they were there by default, indoctrinated since childhood, and I'd never looked at them and thrown them out. I thought it was funny that breaking free of some falsehoods allowed to me to see more things (things that angered me, too), but not yet breaking free of other falsehoods was what caused me to react to those things with such irrational prejudice and discrimination. Or to put it another way, unwittingly and partially being what I hated was what caused me to hate.

Should I try to overcome it? Why would I even want to?

Should to/for what? A moral type of "should"? Want to/for what? What are your goals, your main "wants" that direct other wants?

sounds like Bob is a smart guy.

Implausibly so, but maybe you can't imagine the number of times I thought "what a stupid joke" or "that's such an obvious troll" only to find that it wasn't. "There are more things..."

Anyway, it is an analogy. Gets the point across. Works for me. The rest is, hmm, maybe "cosmetic" fits?

And most important of all, why should I send money to Africa to feed starving children whose parents are much more responsible for their hunger than I'll ever be (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I'm in a position to feed them while the parents are not), when I can take that same money and donate it to a local guinea pig rescue that works to feed hungry domesticated guinea pigs who are the victims of human exploitation?

I'm guessing this is a rhetoical question? "Why should I send money to a local guinea pig rescue that works to feed gpigs whose breeders and ex/owners are much more responsible for their hunger than I'll ever be, when I can take that same money and donate it to feed starving children who are the victims of adult selfishness and irresponsibility?" Why assign them one way and not the other? Is there any objective difference?

As for the most efficient, utilitarian method of doing good, that is a huge question in itself.

Since guinea pig rescues don't allow breeding, their cause is a lot more consistent with the abolitionist approach that I find to be morally superior to any other philosophy.

They don't allow breeding now. If there came a time that the demand (from decent caretakers) for guinea pigs was greater than the number of gpigs needing to be adopted out, most rescuers would not be against breeding, from what I've gathered. They are not against breeding per se but against overpopulation, pigs lacking decent homes, disregard for their care requirements, ignorance and/or lack of concern about genetics, etc.

I reserve judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Based on context I'm guessing you mean you reserve judgment on humans?

Please be mindful to keep religious and/or theological discussion out of this.

Thanks for the reminder. Although it would be a great philosophical discussion to try to draw lines between philosophy, mythology, superstition, theology, organized religion, spirituality, etc. I thought Jason's "God" was not a specific figure of an accepted organized religion, but more a, uh, maybe just an "origin of the universe" or similar concept?

Getting back on topic a little, does anyone know of a cheap vegan bar soap, preferably one that's available in retail (not specialty) stores?

Sorry, none come to mind right now, and I don't know how many ounces your current soap bars are or how well they last. I don't like lugging cases of soap from the store so I buy mine online. Since Clearly Natural Soaps sold out (to another 100% vegan company), their liquid pump bottles and 4 oz bar soaps got more expensive (but their liquid refills got cheaper, yay), it's $33.50 for 24 bars now, $6.95 flat shipping, free shipping if you buy $60. By far my favorite.

The cheapest I've found Kiss My Face bar soap is at Buy Discount Vitamins, Supplements, Low Carb and More at www.Vitacost.com $1.79 for an 8 oz bar. They have $4.99 flat shipping. My partner's favorite.

By the way, you can always call or write to manufacturers asking if their products are vegan. Some might pay attention to the fact that they have vegan potential customers. And on PETA's list, look for the symbol that says a company is entirely vegan, that way you don't have to ask manufacturers (or you might still want to in the case of companies that don't have vegan policies, as they might change ingredients sometimes without telling PETA). And for more ethical purchasing, the all-vegan companies are the ones I most like to support. For that reason I never liked Lush, KMF, Tom's of Maine (I don't buy that at all now since they sold out to Colgate), etc all that much.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

when I can take that same money and donate it to feed starving children who are the victims of adult selfishness and irresponsibility?"

Thank you for giving me the good reason. I wanted to say that myself but it didn't form in my tiny brain. For a moment, I even thought I may be wrong on this issue.
I want to add that insecure and selfish people like me could be easily convinced to stop their donation on starving children, with any small excuse.

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Jason's

It would be Justin, thank you, again.

[CF#5]

To the child.

I find this to be a cop-out, because we're talking about morality. Is there a moral difference between someone who fails to intervene due to lack of consciousness (i.e., sleeping) and someone who fails to intervene due to some other reason, such as laziness? In sort of a twisted way, this has absolutely nothing to do with the child. It's simply a question of morality, right vs. wrong, and justification (or lack thereof) for inaction.

how can things be altered for a better outcome?

This is the problem here. You're set on blame, culpability, whether someone is good or evil or whatever. To me, those per se are irrelevant.

Damn effing right I'm set on blame! Here's a not-so-unrealistic hypothetical example: You walk into a pet store, not intent on buying anything, but just to check the price of a specific item. You notice a sick guinea pig and ask the store owner if that particular pig has received proper medical care, and the owner tells you there's no use wasting money on vet care for a pig who is going to die anyway. Should you buy the pig to spare him or her a premature death?

I'll go back to the first page of this thread, and now I think the Thoreau quote is painfully applicable. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Saving that one guinea pig is hacking at a branch. Sad as it is for all of us, we know it would best to not buy that guinea pig.

Our reasons and motivation make no difference to that particular pig. Is it still wrong to leave the store without the pig?

How different would this discussion be if it were about, say, dogs and not humans? Say I have a dog who object guards and has done minor injury when I attempted to take toys, keys, socks, and gardening hand tools (I has a shovel!) away. Would you be discussing with me the best way to train object exchange exercises, for example, or would you be ignoring that, and instead trying to compare whether you thought the dog was evil with whether I thought the dog was evil? Or if that's not enough (because I'm a human), what if a dog is dog-aggressive or cat-aggressive or horse-aggressive, not human-aggressive? Wouldn't you be talking management, counterconditioning, desensitization, etc right along with me?

So you're saying we should try to take away humans' free will and force them to be less harmful to animals and the environment? I don't really disagree with you, but I don't think it's a realistic goal. People change when they're ready, willing, and able to change. I don't think people are ready.

Haven't read anything by Judge Judy.

Neither have I, but the title speaks for itself.

Premise. Although in these hypotheticals, hopefully you would agree that it is best to save the person, all else being equal.

Yeah, but all else is not equal. Based in a wonderland where the entire human race exists without harming other species or the environment, yeah, I would agree it's best to save the person.

Only if it worked. You could say the same about cats or mosquitoes. Doesn't work that way.

Which one of us is talking in theory and which one is being realistic? I have to admit I get a little confused when talking to you like this.

Why not other animals?

Because wild animals have equilibrium with the environment. Humans do not. Reduced to an abstract idea, domesticated animals are nothing more than merely an extension of humanity.

Why not females? Males are cheaper and safer, true, but let one male slip by and he can sire a gazillion offspring in a year. Let one female slip by and she can birth one "litter" (almost always 1 child) a year, and wouldn't do so for that many years. Unless you're assuming everyone will be monogamous.

Are you actually thinking about this in a realistic sense? It's what I think should happen in theory, and thus, there would be no "mistakes" that "slip by." We both know there's not a chance in hell this is going to happen any time soon.

Problems concerning starving humans? Do starving mice and owls not matter to you?

They have equilibrium with the environment. That means according to Darwinism, the stronger ones will find food while the weaker ones die out - some from starvation no doubt. Humans have been able to defy Darwinism for short bursts of time, so many of them seem to think nature won't ever be able to come back and bite them in the ass. They are wrong. In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world. Clearer this time?

Or to put it another way, unwittingly and partially being what I hated was what caused me to hate.

Been there, done that. I still hold myself in contempt in certain respects, but I've gone to great lengths to extricate myself from being what I hate for the most part. My anger and hatred that remain are mostly directed at others who still are what I used to be. I'm certainly far from perfect and I have my failings, but at least I'm aware of them. Most other people aren't in many respects.

Should to/for what? A moral type of "should"?

I don't know really. To grow? Evolve? Learn something?

Anyway, it is an analogy. Gets the point across. Works for me. The rest is, hmm, maybe "cosmetic" fits?

Yeah, I know what you mean - like setting up hypothetical circumstances that wouldn't actually exist in the real world but are necessary in order for the analogy to fit. To me, that's a logical fallacy.

Why assign them one way and not the other? Is there any objective difference?

Because it can be concluded with deductive reasoning that the humans who exploitatively bred the guinea pigs are not going to give those pigs a good home or even care enough for the thought to cross their minds, whereas the parents of human children are supposed to care for the children they bring into the world. By donating money to feed these children, you're letting the parents off the hook - same as when you buy a sick guinea pig in a pet store, you're letting the store owner and the supplier off the hook, freeing them up to replace that sick pig with another sick pig. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Buying that sick pig is as bad as breeding the replacement pig yourself. It's very similar to feeding children whose parents can't afford to feed them.

The parents have to be held accountable for their actions, which according to Alusdra, include breeding as much as possible because they know some of their children will inevitably die during infancy due to poor living conditions and lack of food. STOP BREEDING ALREADY. That's my attitude. Humans should know better. The guinea pigs being bred and the babies that result are victims all around. It's not the same case with humans. The parents are not victims, even if the children are. If the parents aren't willing to walk to the ends of the earth to feed their children, they shouldn't be procreating. It's like those parking spaces at the grocery store reserved for pregnant women. Why should I suffer because some other guy knocked her up? I'll park in that space whenever it's available simply out of protest. And I really don't give a crap if that costs me credibility in the eyes of most of the membership of this forum.

By the way, you can always call or write to manufacturers asking if their products are vegan. Some might pay attention to the fact that they have vegan potential customers. And on PETA's list, look for the symbol that says a company is entirely vegan, that way you don't have to ask manufacturers (or you might still want to in the case of companies that don't have vegan policies, as they might change ingredients sometimes without telling PETA). And for more ethical purchasing, the all-vegan companies are the ones I most like to support. For that reason I never liked Lush, KMF, Tom's of Maine (I don't buy that at all now since they sold out to Colgate), etc all that much.

Thank you very much for those links. After visiting a Lush store yesterday, I don't anticipate having a need for much soap in the near future (hopefully) but I'm sure those links will come in handy one day. I wasn't even aware that Tom's of Maine got bought out by Colgate. That's discouraging. Now I have to find a new supplier for toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, and shaving cream in addition to soap. But I'll continue to use what I've already purchased, so it's not an immediate need.

As for Lush and KMF, I totally get what you're saying, and if you don't want to give them your money, I can't fault you for that. But keep in mind that the issue with these companies has nothing to do with animal testing, only animal ingredients. Buying a vegan product at Lush isn't really any different than buying a vegan product at Whole Foods.

Tom's of Maine is a totally different monster now that they're tied to Colgate.

What's your view on Dr. Bronner's?

[Weatherlight]

I wanted to say that myself but it didn't form in my tiny brain. For a moment, I even thought I may be wrong on this issue.

Say what? What issue? Sorry, totally lost me.

Sorry, totally slaughtered your name.

Damn effing right I'm set on blame!

This is why I can't answer your questions on inherent fault, blame, culpability. I believe true ethics are independent of them, and I believe that they are purely created concepts without logical basis. In a less-than-ideal world, they can arguably be applied to create more moral consequences, but the same goes for fascism, theocracy, genocide, mass brainwashing, capital punishment, and many other things that morality does not inherently include.

Is it still wrong to leave the store without the pig?

Yes, it is wrong for that pig to be left to suffer and die. It is also even more wrong to purchase a slave, giving financial incentive for the slave dealer to continue stocking more slaves, and so causing hir to pay mills to breed more slaves, etc.

So you're saying we should try to take away humans' free will and force them to be less harmful to animals and the environment?

I don't believe in unmoved movers, nonphysical souls manipulating physical brains, etc. Atoms and cells in brains can change, just like atoms and cells in livers and blood. Actually, they are all changing constantly.

But if you're saying that "free will" is what separates humans from the "lower" animals, and makes them worthy of blame rather than worthy of moral consideration, then now we're getting somewhere.

Neither have I, but the title speaks for itself.

I don't see how it applies.

Which one of us is talking in theory and which one is being realistic? I have to admit I get a little confused when talking to you like this.

Hah, same. I meant in reality. I don't believe that ignoring humans living in poverty will lead to their extinction. While something like Charitable Gift Giving that Makes a Difference | Heifer International I would agree is immoral for many reasons, I see raising the quality of life for such humans as generally moral, even if it makes it easier for them to breed viable offspring.

Quote: