From: gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:20:32 GMT
Organization: I'm at, not speaking for: Uni of Wales, College of Cardiff

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
} gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards) writes:
} >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.

Ah, the old knock-em-down-then-educate-em approach, eh?

} >} 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.

But you assume that your readers are as gullible as sheep.  I don't
see the rules changing quite as eratically, but that our knowledge
increases and we change the rules to accomodate the new eco-info.

So, at any one point, the information can determine the rules.
We can make certain 'plays' in the 'game' according to those
rules, and then reevaluate, given the change in circumstances.

Noone said it was easy, hence the plea for help.

} >} >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.

But the sheep might not exist if it were not for the demand for
it's hair.  I would say that using a sheep for such purposes can
be so exploitative as to be inhumane.

} [shearing can be humane] 

} >Rosemary came to us asking for advice and you send her packing.
} >At least point her in the right direction.
} 
} [...]  I merely point out that it's not as simple as "which is
} more ethical, wool or nylon?"

But it is if you consider, as I do, that environmental impact
is also an ethical consideration.

} >laser-guided
} >robot shearer
} 
} 	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.

According to the video that I saw, you'll have cut the nipples
off with this method amongst other things!  And probably not
got the fleece off in one go either, nor deep enough.

} 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.

I'll look them up.

Gedge
--
Geraint A Edwards, Computing PhD student.      gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk
Graphic-free .sig's rule! Unix+Usenet 0pence/hr, Spuddy +44 203 638780