From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:39:45 GMT

gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards) writes:

>Oh dear, here I go...

<in my best Ronald Reagan imitation> "Well, there you go again..." ;-)


>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>} Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>} >Fur and leather
>} >are both obviously out of the question, which leaves us choosing between
>} >wool (probably harmful to animals) or synthetics (probably harmful to the
>} >environment, which harms animals).
>} 
>} 	You might as well kill yourself now, but there is no concrete
>} answer.

>Hardly constructive, Dan.

	It does get the point across rather well, doesn't it?  It also
sets up the following remarks for contemplation.

>} you should note the environmental impact of synthetics.  You can't win.
>} You can't lose.  You can't even understand the rules of the game.

>Why not?

	Because the rules keep changing according to what the Threat Meter
shows today.  Last week petroleum was nasty stuff and we fought a war over
it, today those evil synthetics, mostly petroleum based, are clogging our
landfills and must be stopped forever.  The rules change with regards to
what is the biggest enviromental impact, and this change usually revolves
around any published statistic that might sell newspapers.

>} >Is it actually possible to produce wool without harming sheep?  (i.e., are
>} >there humane woolgrowers, or would it be worthwhile to campaign for reform) 
>} 	Ever get a haircut?  It can be just that simple and painless.

>It's not quite as simple as that is it, Dan?  It's not just a haircut,
>it's the whole existence of the animal.

	Stop the presses!  Hair is the whole existence of the animal?  Yeah,
right, whatever you say.  The sheep I sheared suffered no ill effects, and
in fact were most likely less stressed as Iowa summers can be quite hot
if you're wearing a wool coat.  The trick is to shear often, say once a
month or so, and to leave an inch or so of hair on the animal each time.
Simple, painless, and as the sheep get used to it the stress is reduced
even further.  To be honest, I didn't use the wool -- that sheep replaced
the riding lawnmower because I didn't feel like fixing it.

>} 	Look, it just isn't that simple.  Study it on your own, using
>} different sources, and make your own decision.  Only complete and total
>} assholes will dislike you personally for it.  In this case, you didn't
>} want to know them anyway, and certainly have no reason to garner their
>} respect or even their notice.

>Rosemary came to us asking for advice and you send her packing.
>At least point her in the right direction.

	I thought I did -- a simple index of environmental impact of
various synthetics, say how much of product X fills our landfills, is
one statistic I hope she figures might be worth reading.  Others may
be the percentage of petroleum used in plastic Y, or the number of
sheep injured during shearing, and perhaps even visiting a local sheep
ranch would provide more insight.  How far she wishes to study this is
up to her -- I merely point out that it's not as simple as "which is
more ethical, wool or nylon?"  Personally, I'm for wool and cotton for
my clothing, and leather when durability is required, but I'll gladly
use rubber for boot soles because none of the above work well enough
on concrete.  My reading on nuclear power has shown two camps, one of
which has determined that nuclear power will kill us all.  My response,
after noting the risk assessments of driving a car versus nuclear
power, has been to recommend suicide now if nuclear power is what
you fear.  The same can be said if you wish to quit using wool because
it might cause some stress to the sheep -- switching to synthetics
exclusively merely shifts the problem to an environmental instead of
an ethical impact, and that's another argument entirely.

>One might also stop wearing wool because of the human damage it
>entails.  Australians are currently working on a laser-guided
>robot shearer in the light of falling numbers entering the
>business because of the dreadful back injuries (long term) that
>such work causes.

	Ouch!  Laser-guided, eh?  Why?  Load sheep into a gate, have
various bars move in until 3psi resistance is encountered, and then
let multiple clipper heads run along with a spring-loaded head that
cuts at a depth of 1", the springs being to force the head onto the
surface of the animal.  Lasers?  Somebody went for the high-tech
instead of the cheap and practical.  If you can provide a contact
or reference on this, preferably via electronic address, I'd like
to contact these researchers -- we've some techniques in progress
here at my lab that might be of considerable use to them, mainly
in optical recognition via computer and resulting control of
various devices.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals