From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Silk
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:37:11 GMT

Arun Meda Sannuti writes:


>	I was wondering if some of the ethical vegans in this group
>would share with me their feeling on silk.  Would you buy it?  Would
>you wear it if you were given it?  Would you wear silk that you had
>bought/recieved before you turned vegan?  I also think it would be
>informative if you mentioned whether you eat honey or not.  Thanks.
[...]


Arun, this is an interesting question but permit me first to
suggest a caveat regarding such discussion about silk-worms
or honey bees.

Some defensive or unsympathetic critics will self-
deceptively misconstrue this kind of legitimate ethical
concern as merely an example of the kind of "fanaticism",
"extremism" or "obsessiveness" characteristic of ethical
vegetarians and vegetarianism in general.  Instead of
focusing on the main concerns of us all for the better
welfare of those marvellous non-human animals whose
sentience is beyond doubt, they instead exclusively point to
our seemingly silly concerns about silk worms and bees.
Yet, these same critics would also demand that we
vegetarians deviate not in the slightest in our concern for
all living beings, otherwise they will blithesomely decry:

    "Well, you kill silk worms to produce that silk tie
    you're wearing, and you kill bees to produce that honey
    that you eat, and this is no different than my killing
    cows for my MacBurger and leather pants!"
    
Obviously there is a world of difference between the silk
worm and the cow, between the honey-bee and the lamb, and
with that difference follows a commensurate ethical priority
as well.  But such subtleties of degree and kind seem to
escape the unsympathetic critic.

Having forewarned about the kinds of silly quibbling one can
expect on this issue, I do think your question deserves
thoughtful consideration.  Certainly far better than what
the unsympathetic critic would deign to provide.

It is the practice to boil the cocoons that still contain
the living moth larvae in order to obtain the silk.  Modern
commercial beekeeping no longer attempts a caring
relationship of "symbiotic" exchange where we give the bees
sugar cane syrup for their honey.  Rather, the economically
more profitable route is to simply kill the bees rather than
waste money feeding them during the winter.  Maybe not all
beekeepers do this, but the general practice is one that
embodies the attitude that living things are mere *material*
and have no intrinsic value of their own other than what
commercial value we can wrench from them.

It is this kind of heavy boot on living things, even as
simple as insects, that I think the ethical vegetarian
objects to and wishes not to support.  It is true that the
pain and suffering criterion is really unclear and dubious
when applied to insects, and even the "subjects-of-a-life"
criterion here becomes uncertain.  Do bees and silkworms
have a sense of themselves as "subjects-of-a-life" and are
they sufficiently "conscious" of their life so it actually
*matters* to them if their life fares well or ill?  It is
not clear.  Evidence to date, however, suggests them to be
mobile but non-conscious living things.

Here then, is where maybe different or a more general
ecological or biocentric principles are to be considered.
Should we walk more gently upon the earth and simply
exercise a little restraint in our selfishness to exploit
all and every non-vertebrate living thing?  Should we kill
insects if we don't have to?  It is similar, I suspect, to
our correct reluctance to stomp on beetles for no good
reason.  If we have a choice of synthetics vs silk, it seems
better to choose the synthetic materials.  Why kill even
insects if we don't have to, especially for what is now
simply a superfluous luxury item.  The same applies to using
killed insects for broaches, crushed insect wings for
irridescent eye shadow, or dying insects in jumping beans.
Why promote even at this level a callous disregard for
living things around us?

I think for good reason, based on ethical intuition, that we
are more impressed by the kind-hearted soul who nets the
flies to let them out of the house alive versus the person
hunting them down for certain chemical death with a bottle
raid.  Even if our great White Suburban hunter of houseflies
uses a fly-swatter for ecological reasons, the more
admirable course pertains to the person who uses a butterfly
net to simply capture the fly for translocation outside.
What do you think?



                                         ted