Another step for animals rights!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 3 years ago (44 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 13 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (35 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago* (26 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Apple doesn’t have much control of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Anyone that buys cow products has control of it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (16 children)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    Research says red meat isn’t for your heart health

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (7 children)
  • [+] -4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    soylent would like to have a word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If you pay for it, it's not a byproduct

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent