Another step for animals rights!

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

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

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      10 months 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
          ·
          10 months 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

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

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

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

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

      • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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
      ·
      10 months 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
          ·
          10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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
          10 months 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.