I am an environmentalist. I never realized the environmental impact of the leather industry. Looks like I'll have to stop buying leather products from now on.

The only salvation seems to come from the choices we make on a daily basis and how we spend our money. I really can not see how anything else will stop the trend of profit at any cost.

Radmama your question is a good one: where do we go from here? As others have noted, buy and eat local! Be compassionate. PETA has gotten a bad rap I think, because of their sometimes outrageous tactics, but they have done many good things as well. They have organized boycotts against corporations like McDonalds and Burger King to pressure them to be somewhat less brutal in their slaughter of animals. There is one underway now against Kentucky Fried Chicken, which also owns Taco Bell and Pizza Hut. They really are about educating people about what is happening in these slaughterhouses and processing plants every hour of every day. They will never take away anyone's choice of what to eat, but they hope to persuade you by educating you about the cruel reality of animal agriculture. They also point out what even the mainstream medical industry agrees on: a plant-based diet is much healthier!
As for the environment, a report issued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization stated that animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than automobiles! I don't have the links, but Kathy Freston wrote several articles on the subject on Huffington Post.
Also, I surely don't consider myself a morally superior human being, far from it! I'm just sharing my point of view. Bless the beasts!

With great respect for the compassionate arguments, with which I completely agree - I would be happy to send the majority of the grain grown in the U.S. to people who need it - discussions that focus on the "what" of products that we Americans consume, without taking into account the "how" and the "where" of the issue, are generally meaningless. And I want to say once again - I do not eat cows or chickens or any other legged creature. I have no difficulty eating local fish, and I catch them myself and I have no difficulty with that, either.

Those individuals who have done leading work on environmental issues will tell you that one of the key factors of sustainability is local, local, local. I cannot be overempasized. The majority of what we consume should be local. This includes everything possible - food and construction materials. The less marketing, transportation, refinement, energy associated with any product, the less the environmental impact, the more Life is preserved - all life. All the animals, not just the cows. But the creatures that count the most - those critical to biodiversity - the bees and insects, the frogs and birds and butterflies, as well as larger wildlife.

This doesn't mean we have to give up everything that is trucked or shipped in. But the whole of environmental impacts need to be honestly assessed. My computer is eight years old. I bought it directly from the manufacturer. It was shipped to me in a carton one time. True, it's parts were probably shipped once before that from someplace else. But compare that to my food. I've consumed hundreds more times that in carrots alone in the interval since I bought the computer, not to mention everything else.

Arguments that vegetarianism is some kind of environmental answer without taking into account "how" those food crops are grown, processed, packaged and marketed, and "where" they are obtained are false arguments.

The question becomes - do you honestly want to help the environment? It isn't Bombay or Calcutta that is consuming approximately 40% of the world's natural resources, neither are they producing nearly that much of the world's pollution. We cannot continue to consume as we do and merely substitute non-animal products for animal products and make it all okay. Arguments that we can go to Burger King but buy the vegeburger instead of the hamburger and save the environment are not true. They're just not true.

And yes, you can live quite happily with two kinds of shoes. I have a brown pair and a black pair. They work just fine.

gyptian, I read your links.

"The U.S. livestock population consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the entire U.S. population. One acre of pasture produces an average of 165 pounds of beef; the same acre can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes. If Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent, it would free 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption. That alone would be enough to adequately feed each of the 60 million people who starve to death each year."

The above facts are correct insofar as they go. They do not, however, present an accurate picture of the impacts of the agricultural industry. The difficulty is that we don't eat just grain. We eat apples, pears, oranges, lemons, etc., from orchards. Same with nuts. We eat peas, beans, squash, rice, etc. We eat asparagus, onions, garlic, lettuce, grapes, yams, greens, etc. And then there is cotton - a crop that requires high pesticide-herbicide application.

Grain is a dense crop compared to most food crops that humans eat. The facts cited by vegetarians rarely take into account the whole of commercial agriculture, focusing only on the grain issue. It is convenient, but it is a false picture entirely.

I'm afraid the links you provided do not justify the definition of "research." You can get away with that with someone who doesn't know anything about commercial farming, as most people don't, but that doesn't happen to be me.

I wasn't trying to make an "everyone else is doing it" statement. I was just pointing out that it's silly to say you buy leather because you are worried about plastics when leather shoes also contain plastics. I then suggested buying the new kinds of shoes made from recycled and eco-friendly materials, the plastics on those are better and re-used, the best of all possible choices. It's not like your only choices are leather or PVC. We need to be aware of all the choices we make and happily there are some really good choices available right now.

Also, most cattle are fed grain and soybeans, not grass because our demand for animal flesh goes beyond the number of animals that can be free-grazed. So, I ask that people stop living in their own minds in an imaginary utopia and take a hard look at the world today. Especially look at the parts you avoid seeing, like the third world, and the less afluent communities in the US. Then ask if your preference for leather, your love of beef, your desire for meat on your table and a fur coat is more valuable than the lives of others. Is it more valuable than the environment we all depend on? Or do we need to make a change?

When I look at pictures of starving babies in African I am well aware that environmental destruction has made their situation worse. I am well aware that our me-first-everyone-else-never consumer driven culture has pushed other peoples into starvation and displacement. I have no sympathy for those who deny these realities. If we just took the soybeans we are feeding to animals used as livestock here in the US and sent them instead to Africa to feed starving people, what a difference we would see. What if we sent the grain too?

It's ridiculous to point to people living on 1 1/2 acres growing their own food as some kind of answer to the ills of modernism. So how are the billions of people in the megapolises like Cairo, Mexico City, Calcutta, Peking, etc, etc, going to raise their own food and be self sufficient? They have 0 acreage! There are a lucky few that can do this, and more power to them, but it's not a workable solution to our problems. I raise large amounts of vegetables in raised beds in the summer in my suburban backyard, and it's a start, but I don't think this can really change things significantly. For example, how many people raise their own wheat and grind their own flour? Yet most of us eat bread or pasta every day.

With the advent of peak oil, we may be "returning to the soil" in more ways than one.

oldgrowthforest speaks the truth about small plot organic farming and the benefits of eating what we grow.

I have a friend with whom I visit, who grows enough food on an acre and a half of a three acre "hobby farm" to provide himself (and a few friends who help out), with most of his food needs for the year. He grows a variety of fruit trees and berries, as well as vegetable crops.

At one time, until he became to old to continue doing so, he raised and processed a few sheep, chickens, and pigs, for his consumption, all done in a very humane and ethical way. No use of growth hormones, artificial feeds or antibiotics.

He taps the maple trees on his land for syrup and uses a team of mules to do most of his farm work and hauling. The manure from the mules is tilled back into the rich soil. He also uses planting methods proven to cut down on crop destroying insects and disease.

To supplement store bought meat and fish, he legally hunts and harvests a deer or two each hunting season and does some fishing.

I realize that this lifestyle is not for everyone. However, we may find more and more of us returning to the soil, if as predicted, the sudden advent of "peak oil" forces us to change.

blessthebeasts--

My point is not that we live in the stone age or that most people hunt to obtain their meat. My point is not that it is okay to domesticate and slaughter cattle "en masse." My point is not that the current system is just fine and dandy. It isn't. My point was that the author of the article was implying that there is something inherently wrong with killing animals for food, clothing, and shelter. I disagree. The way we are doing it today is wrong, I agree. The scale is mind-blowing, the cruelty is heartbreaking. But the notion that every human being who eats meat is engaging in unethical behavior is seriously skewed. Moral absolutism is not going to help solve this issue or contribute to meaningful dialogue.

Also, vasalisa said, "some here are harping on how the only alternative to leather is petro-chemicals. Obviously nearly all shoes use some plastics–the soles, the water-proof lining, etc in leather shoes are all from chemical sources." This is the "everyone-else-is-doing-it" argument and it is fallacious. What I want to know is the environmental impact of PVC production, for example. Why didn't the author include this information in the article, so that people could decide for themselves whether leather or PVC is worse?

"All sources of our food should be treated with care and respect, whether animal or vegetable in origin."

Absolutely. The environmental impact of all of our ways of obtaining food counts. All of it counts. "Agricultural monoculture" is not just about grain or hay. It is about cabbage and lettuce and carrots and grapes and cotton (big time for cotton), as well. And the transportation and processing and packaging and construction and resource use required to market it all counts, too. As we now do it, it is all unsustainable. Becoming a vegetarian is no easy path to saving animals, nor is it environmentally any better unless you're growing your own food in intensive ways that utilize little land and there's no infrastructure between you and your salad.

Nearly half of the world's shorebird populations have declined in the past five years alone. It's not because people are eating them. It's loss of habitat and pollution, and it isn't just from the meat industry.

Amen to the comments on soybeans. Environmentally very bad.

Cattle can subsist mostly on a diet of grass and hay, human beings cannot. We raise and harvest cattle (as well as sheep, pigs, goats, chickens, turkeys, etc.) because as human beings, we need protein in our diet in order to exist. It can be argued that using land to grow hay and grasses for animal use is less harsh upon the environment (reuse of animal crap as fertilizer is also good practice) than is converting the equivalent acreage over to growing crops (such as soy beans)for foods high in protein.

At this point in agricultural development, growing crops that are rich in protein for human consumption requires intensive working of the soil and the use of petrochemicals for crop production and insect/vermin control.

I understand the criminal and unethical practices that are used in the meat industry world-wide. Just as there are criminal and unethical practices we find in the world of international banking, we certainly would not advocate doing away with all international banking?

The answer seems to be stronger laws and tougher enforcement in order to ensure animals do not needlessly suffer on their way to becoming food and leather products, not outlawing animal production altogether.

It is a given that citizens of the U.S., as a whole, need to reduce the amount of meat we consume and partake in healthier diets heavy on fruits and veggies and light on the meat, cheese, eggs and milk. All sources of our food should be treated with care and respect, whether animal or vegetable in origin.

My vegan friends still cannot address the issue of what would become of every farm (farmed?) animal in the world if, by some magical reaching of world-wide consent, the eating of meat was banned and/or forbidden. Perhaps we could have a phase-in period of 20 years and ensure that there will not be future generations of farm animals bred (let us not forget the poor yaks and camels in Mongolia) to suffer at the hands of evil human beings.

Let's get something clear - I don't eat animals. I do eat locally harvested salmon and other fish, much of which I obtain for myself in personal fisheries.

I have done my research. There are approximately 200 "dead zones" in the ocean right now, the largest of which is over 50,000 square miles. Every bit of it is from nitrogen and other chemical runoff from commercial farming. Small farms don't do this. Organic farms don't do this.

I do not in the least argue that eating meat in the manner that most Americans do is unsustainable. But so is the rest of all of our consumerism and all the infrastructure that goes with it. So is commmercial farming. Commercial farming is one of the biggest causes of habitat destruction. That and development. It's all unsustainable.

Read the article on the left of this website page - the one with the photo of the turtle on it. From that article: "Throughout the 20th century the causes of extinction - habitat degradation, overexploitation, agricultural monocultures, human-borne invasive species, human-induced climate-change . . ."

What causes "habitat degradation"? What is an "agricultural monoculture"? What is driving "human-induced climate-change"?

And the article we are all responding to is suggesting that we can fix the environment by shopping in strip malls but purchasing a different kind of shoe?

On top of everything else we're doing wrong, we can't even have the right discussion.

Grow your own food. As much of it as you can. Do it in containers. Grow your own food. Stop purchasing so many things. There is no right way to consume all this stuff. We don't have to give it all up. Computers are going to be important in the long haul, but stop shopping so much. Give up your material junk, and go grow a garden if you care about animals.

Around here we hunt our meat and why throw the deer hide away when you can get a few bucks for it or process yourself. Same thing goes if you raise a calf or anything else. The deer population is thriving and many killed on the highway. Way too many people don't even bother to pull the deer off the road. I have deep respect for the animals.

I find many of the comments here just strange.

As if Mr. Friedrich didn't address the issue of how leather is bad for the environment, some here are harping on how the only alternative to leather is petro-chemicals. Obviously nearly all shoes use some plastics--the soles, the water-proof lining, etc in leather shoes are all from chemical sources. Also, Mr. Friedrich listed the nasty chemicals used to treat leather. There is another alternative too, stylish cloth shoes or eco-shoes created from recycled materials. Start living in the now instead of pretending you live in 1920 and only have 2 types of shoes available.

Also, to the person speaking on the predator-prey relationship. How does this even apply to you? I'd love to see you chase a cow around and try to turn her into a pair of shoes with just your teeth and fingernails. Instead you pay huge factory operations to do all the dirty work for you. You are not a predator, you're a couch potato. Start doing something good for the environment and stop paying money for meat and leather that are harming the environment. The current human population cannot be supported by hunting, and we're polluting the whole planet by insisting on wearing animals and eating unprecedented amounts of them.

I also appreciate Mr. Friedrich's statement that it is poor people who bear the brunt of this environmental impact. I used to live near chicken farms and lived with the smell and the filthy water. I bet the person claiming to be a predator lives somewhere safe and clean. And what about people in Africa and India who really live in terrible conditions beside unregulated factories?

While I certainly think that slaughtering animals could be made more humane and less cruel, there is a certain naive other-worldliness to these types of rants. The alternative to leather is probably some type of petroleum based products, which have their own set of environmental issues. There is a reason that leather is so popular for shoes; nothing else "breathes" or adapts so well to people's feet. Given that we are slaughtering cattle anyway, one can argue that the entire animal should be used. Of course, the real irony that is rarely discussed is that if they were not raised for food, most animals would simply not exist in the first place. People are not going to raise cattle for pets. Hence cattle owe their existence to their ultimate fate. My own view is that meat should be expensive, and that animals should be treated very well during their brief lives and slaughtered with a minumum of pain and trauma.

frank thies, I think borderline religious fanaticims succinctly sums up the devotion to meat eating that is a central characteristic of Americna society. Apart from abortion and guns, arguing for EVEN LESS meat eating, especially on ethical grounds, elicits arguments that 1) shift the focus to the vegans and vegetarians (they are hypocrites, judgemental, fanatics, value animals more than people) which conveniently diverts attention from the issue at hand: the massive suffering that we cause to other sentient beings; 2) carry the argument to the extreme (as you have done)so that animals are seen to be privileged over people.
I believe that we can choose to live in ways that minimize the damage we do and the suffering we cause. That does not mean that damage and suffering are not part of the human and animal condition. We have gone so far to the extreme in viewing animals as units of production in factory farms, or pests to be exterminated, or laboratory test tubes, or simply "resources" that require no consideration beyond utility to humans, that any argument that calls these practices into question is perceived as fanatical.

We must stop using animals in every corner of the world. We must live in peaceful coexistence with them. Let us replace animal labor with human labor, especially on our vegan oriented farms. We will live in harmony with the hundreds of millions of animals that will roam our cities and neighborhoods, animals that will no longer be harvested for human needs and consumption. As for that portion of humanity that depends upon and relies upon animal protein and byproducts for sustaining their lives and livelyhoods, screw 'em. Their demise will create a planet with more room for the chickens, pigs and cows to roam.

Ethical and humane treatment of our animal food sources are just as necessary as the ethical and humane treatment of the land from which our veggies sprout from. Borderline religious fanaticism sucinctly sums up the veggan movement.

Brutality and killing go hand in hand. It is nearly impossible to seperate the two. I had a good friend who worked in a slaughterhouse and he told me some brutal things. He slowly went crazy there but needed the money, killed himself earlier this year/ He was a good person and that was his response to living among slaughter.

For people making a "natural predatory-prey" argument, keep in mind that in the "natural" world animals do not slaughter animals en masse for anything other than food and survival. We do it for enjoyment and fashion. Sorry, I'm not going to preach to you but that argument is bullshit.

also !

http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vegconf.php

Please do some research before mouthing off. Meat consumption not only destroys prime forests and the environment but is unsustainable over the long run.

http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/nutrition/vegetarian.htm#environment

The idea that we can be "ethical" by shopping at
"strip-mall staples" for products that do not contain animal parts, and that "we can help stop suffering and protect the planet" while doing so by simply purchasing the correct products does not wash. It is neither more ethical, nor is it more environmentally friendly.

The whole consumption thing is the problem, the logic that we can continue as we are but simply swap out cotton for leather doesn't hold.

I'm not justifying my computer or anything else. But neither am I encouraging people to shop at "strip-mall staples."

Vegetarians really do need to acknowledge the destructiveness that is a byproduct of what they do with all of their purchasing habits. Anyone who knows about animals knows it is habitat destruction that kills the greatest number. Small gardens are not habitat destruction. To call them so is false. Animals move around home gardens quite well.

Wow, you'd think we were living in the stone age Radmama. Very few people who eat meat do so for survival. The fact is that we don't need to eat any meat, or use animals for clothing, domestic needs and so on. Those who do really need to acknowledge that they do it by choice and there is nothing humane or ethical about it.
As for growing your own food, oldgrowthforest, I'm all for it, but tell me, was your computer locally produced in Alaska?

First, who defines what is or is not "unnecessary killing?"

I mean, I fully agree that humans today-- particularly those in the wealthiest nations-- eat far, far too much meat (far too much, period!) than is healthy for humans to ingest or is sustainable for the planet. But I also know that I have no right to be the arbiter of other people's dietary choices. We can offer information and our point of view-- we can reveal what others may not have known about the hideous consequences, on many levels, of excessive meat-eating (or excessive consumption of any type, really). But sneering and turning up your nose at "dead flesh," or at people who consume and/or wear it, really isn't going to get you the response that you want.

Secondly, as far as "compassionate dominionism" is concerned, this is precisely what it sounds like you are advocating. I don't believe humans are superior to other animals. I certainly don't think we have the right to treat them as mindless, feelingless objects that exist solely for our fleeting pleasure. Yet I do think we are animals-- animals who hunt, who eat meat and utilize the parts of other animals for shelter, weaponry, clothing, domestic needs, and so on. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this. It becomes wrong when we are irreverent and careless about it, when we dominate and domesticate rather than encounter and contest animals as respectful rivals in the life-and-death game that is existence, and when we take and take and take to the point of exhaustion of the biosphere, and give nothing back but hatred and toxicity.

kilmer said:

>MtnGoat and RadMama–the problem isnt cruelty–its unnecessary killing–cruelty is a byproduct of it. For you to think that the answer is some sort of compassionate dominionism or stewardship is naive.

oldgrowthforest,

No one is claiming "higher moral ground" in the sense of moral purity, and I agree that we are all implicated, since we live in a society that exploits, plunders, destroys to an unprecedented degree. The house I live in was built on land once occupied by animals. As for those vegetarians who you claim must raise their own food or they are hypocrites, the same applies. That is land that would have to be fenced off and protected from animals.

That said, I do believe that by becoming aware of the consequences of our actions and choices, we can take action to reduce the harm we do and the suffering we cause. I believe that we can find ways to live that are not based on the massive suffering of animals in factory farms, to give one example.

You are quite right, an entrenched system of production, no matter how unjust, gives rise to innumerable other "benefits" and practices that people come to depend upon or view as natural, indispensible, necessary. Indeed, this argument was used by pro-slavery advocates in the nineteenth century. However, that kind of awareness is also what it takes to bring about radical transformation. Once we realize the extent of our implication in and dependence upon an unjust system, then we are ready to change it.

That's "animals."

No discussion regarding cruelty to animals, the eating or not eating of meat, or the wearing of fur or leather has any substance outside of the context of habitat preservation. It is loss of habitat that is causing the current rate of extinction that is expected to wipe out half of all living species in less than one hundred years, and there is an article on this website today that describes both the suffering and terrible loss of that trend.

If you shop for your food in grocery stores, including your brown rice and vegetables, rather than growing your own, and you are wearing cotton that is commercially grown, then you are contributing to cruelty and death of animals more than a subsistence hunter in Alaska - and there a thousands of them, because I live here and I know them - that kills animals and eats them and wears their skins and fur. The infrastructure it takes to shop in stores for anything that is not immediately local - the packaging, the shipping, the industry, the lighting and the cooling and the heat, all the necessary energy, the destruction to terrain for the malls and the parking and the highways and the road access - all of it is destructive and cruel. All of it. Not one vegetarian, and I eat nothing but fish and vegetatbles, but not one vegetarian who does not grow their own food has ANY higher moral ground when it comes to animal.

Beautifully stated, kelmer and Stiv. I cannot understand the argument that by exposing the horrors that lie beneath the "normal" we are somehow "taking away someone's freedom" or "passing judgement." Obviously, we are enhancing freedom, since people can make informed decisions. How can people make free choices if all they know is the propaganda that overwhelms them from their earliest years? You know, we have to eat meat, everybody needs milk, etc.

And what about the freedom of animals to not have to endure the torture inflicted upon them by humans? Is it only those who can demand their "freedom" who are entitled to it, and then only through violence, either direct physical force, or the quiet violence that is done through socialization and normalization of power relationships that privilege some and ignore others? I would argue that every great liberation movement has started by challenging these kinds of power relationships: a "judging" of existing relationships as unjust or abusive, and the argument for limitation on the "freedom" of one group to abuse or exploit another. This is why I judge child abuse, bombing civilians, slavery, and the torture of animals for human exploitation to be wrong.

I eat dead animal flesh, why should wearing it bother me? My ancestors for aeons have killed animals, eaten them, cured the hides as best they could and worn them. Tigers have fur and teeth, I only have my brain and hands, and what tools I can glean from savage nature. She's a bitch, and she's out to kill you.

Having said that, it is best to treat animals humanely, because cruelty deadens the soul and makes us treat each other with cruelty. I'll bet we can trace the idea of human rights to the time when people ceased slaughtering an butchering their own meat.

MtnGoat and RadMama--the problem isnt cruelty--its unnecessary killing--cruelty is a byproduct of it.
For you to think that the answer is some sort of compassionate dominionism or stewardship is naive. Its just an excuse. Humans have always claimed they were being stewards. Can you imagine how messed up things would be if they actually were doing things because they had contempt for the natural world?

Judging others--lol unfortunately it is impossible to discuss moral issues and social injustice without judging. Try it on something like Iraq or child abuse. :) Anyone engaged in an act that can be shown to be harmful or unethical have this burden to carry. Get used to it.

Freedom ends where the rights of others begin.

radicalism--trying to be as compassionate and as just as possible--and avoid widespread unnecessary suffering, killing and destruction. Oooh! talk about a bunch of crazies! Not like turning cattle into cannibals by feeding them the remains of other bovines eh?

As for this notion of predator and prey relationships. So true--but interestingly you conveniently draw the line at human vs nonhuman relations. What about human vs humans? We kill and prey upon each other all the time--its quite natural--but we try to curb it.
The real notion of superiority doesnt come in the idea of trying to be compassionate or just--it comes from those who believe they have special rights over the lives of others.

Throughout history human societies have considered members of their group (defined by race, gender, wealth, religion, language, etc) more important than those regarded as outsiders, and discriminated according to various standards of value conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination.

If you believe that humans can discriminate against and exploit other life because they are superior in value as a species to all others you have to be able to show this supremacy to be true as an absolute, objective fact, or anyone can use similar non absolute, subjective criteria from religion to gender to skin colour to justify discriminating against anyone else (human or not). The fact that these standards of moral worth that favor humans ("reason", "free will," "immortal soul," "moral comprehension," "evolutionary selection." "Divine blessing," etc) can be doubted and questioned (i.e. what makes "reason" or free will" or a "Divine blessing" important?) suggests that they are no more objective or absolute than the standards of value used by racial and religious supremacists (what makes" skin colour" or a specific interpretation of " Scripture" important?). The only other choice one has, in order to have a consistent belief in human rights that closes the loopholes for racists, bigots etc., is to extend this circle of compassion and ethical justice to include non-human living beings. At the most basic level, it isnt about love, or emotion, but ethical consistency and common sense and trying to be as fair and as compassionate as possible to others, as opposed to the alternative.

The issue is not about avoiding all killing but avoiding it as much as possible. No ethical view--no matter how consistent--can take into account the interests of everyone at all times. One can certainly say the line of moral regard is not drawn at animals--that it is wrong to exploit trees and other plants (an argument found in the philosophy of Fruitarianism). If there are problems in implementing such a policy, then it is true of all potential beneficiaries of moral conduct (i.e. you may live on land that was once occupied by others who were driven off or killed due to colonial aggression; or pay taxes to a government that uses the money to finance wars, or use drugs that were tested on unwilling human patients in Africa etc.). No one can be perfect, either in compassion or cruelty BUT the failure to be morally perfect does not then mean one has to fall back to some safe line like species to focus one's discrimination practices. If you argue for that--then there is no reason why someone else cannot draw the line at race, or religion, or intelligence instead of, or, in addition to species. Thus, the need to prove human supremacy still exists. The human supremacist is shackled to it.

Knowledge is power. If you read the article and witnessed the videos, leather 'myths' are exposed and reconsideration can begin. It's not just about how horribly the animals are treated, it is also the toxic chemicals used in the tanning practice; additionally, globalization means it will be done in the countries with the least regulations under the most horrific conditions for both animals and people. If alternatives exist, go for the most humane, least toxic option. Right?

Check out the vegan shoes these days, the selection is vastly improved over the last decade:

http://www.mooshoes.com/

"YOU go out and offer cruelty free choices and stop pretending it is someone elses resonsibility to do it for you."

That is exactly what this is all about. This movement is doing the informing and has helped to create a demand for cruelty-free products. Now YOU stop pretending that cruelly produced products arent't themselves inherently judgemental, since they are proclaiming that a dominant power interest has judged cruelty to be okay. Don't you get that? Everything that "is" carries inherent "judgements." Movements of opposition or resistance are those that point out issues that are normally obscured through socialization that "normalizes" the things that go unquestioned or unrecognized. These movements open up the real possibility for freedom, because they challenge existing relationships of power. It's a shame you don't see them as anything but a threat to your "freedom."

You don't have to convince me, Bruce. I have been a vegan for many years and never cease to be horrified and ashamed of my fellow humans when I read of the abuses against animals that take place as a matter of course everywhere on this planet. I am also disgusted with people like Mtn Goat who place the moral onus on those of us who speak out against these practices. We are "judging" and "taking away peoples' choices." If you mean we are expressing our utter disgust at the practices that take place everyday against beings who cannot defend themselves, you're damned right we are judging. Just like I would judge someone who beats a child, or bombs a city of defenseless people. The lack of free choice is that suffered by people who don't know what goes on or what suffering is covered up in the endless ads for hamburgers, fur coats, rodeos, etc. Why don't you rail against huge corporations that don't tell you what goes into their products, or why they don't provide us with a real choice to not buy the products of suffering.

Just like every reform movement, we are criticized for pointing out wrongs, for being "judgemental," which is a great way to deflect attention from the wrongs themselves. That way people who passively contribute to the suffering can feel exonerated.

>>Looks to me like ethical slaughter practices are what is needed…not a wholesale end to animal usage.

(cont'd from above) I agree with this sentiment. While the author commendably emphasizes the environmental impact of leather, along with the atrocious treatment of animals in the production of leather and fur, he also not-so-subtly implies that there is something inherently nasty and gross about "wearing part of an animal's corpse." Other examples: "once you investigate what goes into creating this "natural" (dead) product . . ." and "chlorenol . . . doesn't have that dead-animal smell." I believe this is simply a denial of our inherence in a world whose life cycle is governed by the predator-prey relationship, where life requires death and where death sustains life. Yes, there are other forms of relationship, such as symbiosis and social cooperation, but to deny the life/death cycle of predation-- and to imply that humans are somehow different, superior, able to transcend this relation using our reason and volition-- seems incredibly naive to me, even dissociative and self-righteous. The problem is not death-- the problem is cruelty.

Also, the author wants you to take his word that leather constitutes an "environmental nightmare that far outpaces the synthetic alternatives." Perhaps he's absolutely correct. Still, he should have provided information that backs this claim.

blessthebeasts, your point is not ridiculous, maybe a bit naive, but not ridiculous. Research the honey bee crisis and the fact that humankind's existence could be in jeapardy within the next four years. You may find yourself expanding your own definition of what is ethical to eat in order to live.

blessthebeasts, you have it wrong about converting arible land to grow crops for human food production. The millions of acres of pasture lands (hay and grass) that now feed most types of grazing animals (which are a rich source of proteins), into heavily used crop lands (for the production of equivalent amount of proteins)is ridiculous.

In a previous post today I wrote - "Cattle can subsist mostly on a diet of grass and hay, human beings cannot. We raise and harvest cattle (as well as sheep, pigs, goats, chickens, turkeys, etc.) because as human beings, we need protein in our diet in order to exist. It can be argued that using land to grow hay and grasses for animal use is less harsh upon the environment (reuse of animal crap as fertilizer is also good practice) than is converting the equivalent acreage over to growing crops (such as soy beans)for foods high in protein.

At this point in agricultural development, growing crops that are rich in protein for human consumption requires intensive working of the soil and the use of petrochemicals for crop production and insect/vermin control"

I say yes, bless the beasts, and let us thank our lucky stars that we can eat them. To those who subsist solely upon the dead and decaying flesh of plant life, may the force be with you. That does not make you a morally superior human being. just different.

"As long as it looks and feels good, demand for leather will continue," writes one reader.

But, I think that's exactly the point of Bruce Friedrich's compassionate, well-researched, carefully documented article: When one knows the ugly reality behind the mask, one finds that the mask not only looks and feels bad, but actually has the power to demean the wearer and the beholder.

That principle applies in our political, economic and social lives as well!

Thanks to Freidrich for revealing the truth behind the noxious fictions of leather!

Yes, we do need to end consumption for leather here. But how many people would be willing to do that? As long as it looks and feels good, demand for leather will continue.

As long as a market exists for leather these things will continue. We need to end the consumption here in the West. Also the slaughterhouses in the US are almost as atrocious as those in the East.

blessthebeasts said: "Radmama–I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it."

First, I want to thank you for respecting my opinion. I respect yours as well, and we certainly are free to disagree with each other, however strongly. And, in all likelihood, I am not going to convince you that I am right, any more than you are going to convince me that you are right. So for me, this is the starting point, simply because this is where we are as concerned human beings who see things from different points of view. My question to you is, where do we go from here?

I suggest we begin by giving each other the benefit of the doubt that we are all doing our best to make sense of an overwhelming situation, to make the right choices based on the information available, and to create a more humane and ecologically sustainable system of food production and distribution.

I also suggest that we remain mindful of common narratives such as that of "Social Progress," evident in language that compares meat-eating and leather-wearing to slaveholding, and the impact they have on the way we view the issue. PETA's website (in the FAQs) says: "The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring . . . Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it." True, but not true enough. On a global scale, this myth of Progress is what allowed us to commit genocide against American Indians, Australian Aborigines, and other indigenous people. It is what what justified British Imperialism and fueled the industrial revolution. Social change can happen in many different ways-- it can happen organically from internal changes, or through mutual influence of two or more social groups, or it can be imposed on one social group by another. But all this difference is masked when PETA groups all of these changes under one term that sounds frighteningly akin to the mechanism of financial domination used by the World Bank: "restructuring." As frank thies points out above, there are "people starving to death for lack of food resources and we, the well fed and self-righteous will dictate to others what is acceptable practice regarding how and what they eat or wear for clothing?"

So to recap: two points of view-- one that states that killing other animals is inherently and unequivocally wrong; and one that states that killing other animals is not inherently wrong, but the form and scale it has come to take in our modern globalized world, and its inhumane and ecologically devastating consequences, are wrong.

Where do we go from here?

Sorry Radmama, my comment was in response to frank theis!

Yes, blessthebeasts, there is a very humane way to end a life. Do you wait for the apples to fall from the tree or do you pick them in mid-existence?

blessthebeasts is such a dreamer, and a very, very respectful dreamer at that. Let's examine what blessthebeasts real agenda is. I believe that he/she would object to humans using animals for food and clothing even if we made use of them solely after the animals lived long and happy lives, free ranging and free balling, dieing of old age.

Hmmm, hmmm, a 20 year old steak would chew almost as nice as shoe leather.

Human beings are omnivorous animals. We have survived millions of years in the food chain by being adaptable and able to live on a wide variety of food sources.

rafael is correct. My friend with the land is very, very lucky. A trust fund baby who was able to purchase a sweet piece of property in the country and make good use of it. Most of the world's people are not so fortunate.

For "F" sakes people, we are talking about people starving to death for lack of food resources and we, the well fed and self-righteous will dictate to others what is acceptable practice regarding how and what they eat or wear for clothing?

It is not my way.

Yeah, I guess I am a dreamer, which is why I really love this site. I try to be respectful too, but your latest comment was pretty ridiculous, Radmama. Hey, if you want to eat an animal that has died of old age, go for it. You can even eat your pets when they die if you're that into eating meat. Just don't slaughter them.
As for starving people, if all the land used for grazing animals were used for growing food, we could feed the world many times over.

Radmama--I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. Killing animals for food, clothing or shelter is wrong, unless there is no alternative. And there are plenty of them. There is no such thing as humane slaughter; it is an oxymoron. There can be slaughter that is less brutal, but it is still slaughter. I realize that the use/abuse of animals is deeply ingrained in our society, but as jp pointed out (way up there), so was slavery. People actually thought it was completely normal to own other people! My fervent hope is that someday (not in my lifetime, I realize), humans will look back on the killing and consumption of animals with the same bewildered feelings of horror that we have about slavery. I have faith in humanity.