Animals as Clothing.

Every year, millions of animals are killed for the clothing for their fur, wool, silk, and leather. "Whether they come from Chinese fur farms, Indian slaughterhouses, or the Australian outback, an immeasurable amount of suffering goes into every fur-trimmed jacket, leather belt, and wool sweater," according to PETA. Animals, like in slaughterhouses, are confined for their whole lives in small, dirty cages and the industry uses the cheapest method of killing these animals possible. More than half of the fur in the U.S. comes from China, where millions of dogs and cats are even killed for their fur and often the fur is mislabeled so people don't know what species of animal they are wearing. Leather is not just a byproduct of slaughterhouses but it is a growing industry. The meat industry relies on skin sales to keep business on the rise. It even accounts for 50% of the total byproduct of cattle. All animals who end up as belts or shoes suffer confinement, branding, unanesthetized castration, tail-docking, dehorning, and cruel treatment during transportation and slaughter.

People, and the fur industry, would like to see fur as just another fabric but it's actually the skin ripped and peeled off the backs of animals. In our culture and society, there is no reason to use animals for clothing. In other cultures where animals are hunted for food and used as clothing for survival is justifiable since they do not have alternatives. However, in industrialized countries, there is no reason for it. More often than not, people don't even realize they are wearing animal products; I know I have shoes with leather in them. I think it is important for everyone to be more aware of their purchases and how what they buy affects animals. If we choose to buy products that were made without harming animals, then companies would find alternatives. The first step is being aware of what we wear. Then follows change.

My question to you is: There are many alternatives (like synthetic materials) to using animals for leather, wool, fur, silk, etc. So, why does our culture still exploit animals for clothing aside from it being a lucrative business?

A leather jacket and a wool sweater? Really?

Humane Meat: An Oxymoron?

Sometimes, when I tell people I am opposed to the way the meat industry slaughters animals for food, they reply with the idea of choosing free range animals for consumption since they get to experience life and the outdoors. As the truth of how factory farms treat their animals surfaces to the public, more people are choosing organic foods and free range meat. Slaughterhouses kill animals while they are still conscious with the production line moving so fast no one knows what is actually being put in with the animal meat. Animals are confined to dark, small spaces and live their lives eating antibiotics and hormones so they grow twice as fast. Disease is not uncommon in such small spaces. A solution has been raised to stop supporting these big corporations and start buying free range meat which means the animals are free to graze the outdoors instead of being stuck in dark confinement. However, no matter how these animals are raised, they are still killed for our consumption so is one way really more humane than the other?

Another solution is to promote veganism all around which would mean no animal has to die for the needs of humans. Experts have found this choice more drastic since many people would refuse to give up their ways so free range animals it is. There is no true definition of "humane meat" and many people see this as an oxymoron. Different producers have their own humane standards to follow like labeling the meat "Certified Humane Raised and Handled." Some standards are larger cages or no cages, natural feed, less painful ways of slaughtering, and the end to practices like tail docking and debeaking. A recent study performed by the United Egg Producers found that three out of four American consumers would choose food products certified as humane and protecting animal's interests over those that do not. Also, humane regulations provided on a state level provides relief to millions of animals. Humane standards are a step towards more animal rights... and maybe eventually equality...

My question to you is: So, is humane meat an oxymoron? Do you think people are on the right track of setting more humane standards for the raising and killing of animals for food or do you think there is no difference how an animal is raised because it is killed in the end anyways?

Response to "Human and Animal Interests."

Response #14

In Nick's blog, he talks about how any problem can be solved with a future goal and strategic planning, even animal testing. Some people believe we have no other choice but to put our interests over those of the animals in order to advance as a society. The fact that animals need shelter and food, can reproduce, and try to avoid pain and suffering are parallel to our needs as human beings. Human beings do have interests animals do not share but they can be accomplished without volunteering the usage of animals (whether it be for food, testing, entertainment). Nick says that if we are using animals in a way which does not benefit but actually harms them, then what is the point? It is unfair to exploit animals just for humans 'needs' or desires. He goes on to say testing on animals even for extreme reasons which could save thousands of human lives, like finding a cure for AIDS, is also unacceptable because it does harm and kill animals unnecessarily. In the end, he says animals should not be used just to fix the mistakes of the human race. He asks, "Can human and animal interests be aligned?"

I should hope so. Even though human beings see themselves, more often than not, as the superior species, there is no justification for this. Sure, we are more advanced in some ways, are larger than others, are capable of creating societies and cultures, are conscious, and are (usually) intelligent beings, and have our own language. This does not mean we have the right to belittle other species and deem them as lesser. I think the human race lacks major respect even for other people and especially for animals. Because of stem cells and the advances in the medical field, I see no plausible reason for animal testing. Because there are so many organic and vegetarian food options, I see no reason for hunting and slaughterhouses. Since animals are originally from the wild, I see no reason why they should be taken out of their natural habitats and put on display in zoos. I also see no reason for leather jackets and fur coats. Humans need to rethink why exactly we exploit animals the way we do and ask how this benefits the animals we are harming. Then we will be able to see there are so many alternative ways of doing everything which does not include using animals.

Right now, human interests are always almost placed above animals but I do not understand why this couldn't change. Coexistence is really a beautiful thing.

My question to you is: What needs to be done in order for human beings to start seeing their interests as equal to those of all other species?

Response to "Trophy Hunting."

Response #13

This is in response to Mary's question, "So obviously trophy hunting is an instance where the interests of the human are weighed heavier than those of the animal, but my question right now is, are we really able to justify it, or is it just a pig-headed argument created because it is something that humans can do and makes them feel good?"

Mary talks about how trophy hunting is just another way people show their competitive nature not only to brag to others about their conquests but to compete with animals for their lives. I agree with Mary; that trophy hunting is wasteful because the hunter has no intentions of using the rest of the animal. He or she just wants the head to mount of his or her wall. I do not find there to be any 'sport' in trophy hunting because the animal's life is on the line and he or she is usually, like Mary said, pushed into a corner with its back against the wall (figuratively speaking). The animal has no say in the matter. Trophy hunting is a power trip for the hunter because he or she is trying to overcome a more powerful animal. There is always a risk. Hunting for the sole purpose of gaining a new trophy to brag about is disgusting, to me. I wouldn't appreciate it very much if my head was mounted on someone's living room wall, staring at whoever is watching television that day. It's just sick. In my home state Vermont, most homes have deer head mounted on the walls and they all look the same to me. Once a hunter kills one, why must he or she keep going? What is there to prove?

There is no way to justify trophy hunting. End of story.

My question to you is: What is the difference between trophy hunting and hunting for sport? Which is more justifiable and why?

Factory Farming vs. Animal Hunting.

Which is more ethical?

I know I already blogged about this topic once but I feel as though I should come back to it...

This is a question I have been tossing around in my head for a while. Both, to me, seem like unethical topics because each requires taking a life and causing the suffering of the animal before it eventually dies. Billions of pigs, cows, chickens, horses, and so on are killed each year in factory farms. On the other hand, a little over 100 million animal deaths are reported by hunters each year. Factory farm animals are raised just to be meat. Most of them don't even see sunlight and their growth is altered and advanced by hormones and antibiotics. Animals that will be hunted in the wild live a natural life, eating what they please and enjoying the sun. Hunters then take them away from nature by shooting them for their own purpose; trophy hunting, subsistence hunting, or for sport. Both ways of killing animals provide food for families and consumers but which is more ethical?

Corporations control factory farming and employees are desensitized by the killing of animals every day. Conditions are extremely hazardous to the employees, the animals, and the consumer's health. However, consumers are often oblivious to what they are eating. They are able to detach themselves from the animal they are consuming. Since they didn't directly kill the animal, then don't see the wrong behind their meat. Hunters are required to have licenses to kill animals in the wild and are restricted to certain time periods. This way, people actually kill what they eat and the meat is not contaminated and spiked with growth hormones. Although animals do not consent to being hunted, factory farmed animals don't choose to live the lives they do either. It is hard to say one act is more humane than the other because, to me, taking a life in any way is wrong and it is not right to rank which way is more ethical.

However, I am going to have to say that people who hunt animals strictly for food is a more ethical act than the slaughtering of animals in factory farms for food. I wish both actions would cease but if I had to pick one over the other, hunting wins. Although, if people are just hunting for the sport or for the trophy, then they are just as wrong as the big corporations that kill animals in masses. I understand the point that people eat meat to survive but doing it in a way in which animals suffer from birth is really unnecessary and only killing animals for fun is not any better. Factory farming and hunting are the most controversial topics (aside from animal testing) when it comes to animal ethics. In the end, no one should have the right to take a life, human or nonhuman.

My question to you is: In your opinion, are factory farming and animal hunting comparable and which act is more ethical to you?

Response to "Change."

Response #12

In Sarah's blog, she talks about the big multinational corporations that control the meat industry today and how they also have the power to change the state of factory farming. Profits would be lost but there would be many supporters of the change which could make up for some of the loses. According to Food Inc, there are only a handful of meat companies that hold 80% of the power in the United States; Tyson, Swift, Cargill, and National Beef. They do not want the public to know the truth about what people are eating. Over the past one hundred years, the industry has changed the entire way meat is processed. Chickens have been redesigned to have larger breasts because there is such a demand for white meat. Animals are fed growth hormones and antibiotics so they grow in half the amount of time that they use to. Today, meat industries do not care about the animals nor the people. They care about the profit and the power only.

I don't think the large corporations are afraid of changing; they just don't want to change. They control everyone; the farmers, the assembly line workers, the public, and the animals. Industries do not care how the animals are treated as long as the assembly line is always moving. Conditions are unbearable and workers' lives are always in jeopardy. The large companies recruit illegal immigrants because they can pay them extremely low wages and put their jobs on the line if they speak out to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other regulators.

Consumers think they have thousands of product choices in supermarkets but really only a few companies are involved in producing goods. Healthy and organic foods are much more expensive because meat producers feed their animals cheap corn which drives down the prices. The lower class can not afford to eat well so they find themselves at fast food restaurants because it is all they can afford. The average person eats 200 pounds of meat a year and this is made possible because of the overproduction and meat being more affordable. The result is unsafe food which can lead to E. coli breakouts. Even though big companies do have the ability to change their ways, they don't want to. They have everyone eating out of the palm of their hands. They have finally developed a new way of 'farming' where animals grow twice as fast as they should and the assebly line never stops. They would never sacrifice their profits.

My question to you is: Since big corporations do not seem to want to change their ways, the only hope is with the people. If more and more consumers banded together and refused to support the meat industry, would companies finally listen? Why or why not?

A Peek at Animal Testing.

Animal research, vivisection, animal testing, animal experimentation: Whatever you want to call it, it is still wrong. Here's a short video to give you a better idea of what animals are forced to go through for us... I know this may seem extreme, but this is what happens. Ask yourself: Is this really necessary?