Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
AwesomeTom
52
Aug 26, 2017
Hi all, I hope you will all consider buying leather alternatives. I know most people think leather is just a waste product from the beef industry, but it's not the case. It is more on par with the the fur industry.
These days there are many products that look as good as leather and are softer and stronger, such as those made from microfibre. I'm not trying to sell anything so do your own research - I would just like people to make a more informed choice that creates less pollution and less harm, so that we can all protect the future for our families.


Thomas from Autogefühl explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSUzZXzpdc
Peloz
2
Aug 28, 2017
AwesomeTomSorry I have tried the microfiber PU belts and they last about 2-3 months at best before they start to come apart and while still somewhat functional are nowhere near presentable - I have several leather belts I still use that are 30 + years . I have to disagree with the statement that alternatives are better because that has not been my personal experience. I think if you also look into microplastics pollution you will see that alternatives aren't necessarily better for the environment either.
AwesomeTom
52
Aug 29, 2017
PelozYou don't have to apologize to me, I'll be long dead before things go south. But your children and grandchildren will the ones asking you why they don't have a future because you didn't take the time to look into alternatives which are good quality, and often made from recyclable/recycled materials and are not contributing to more pollution.
INTELLIGENDA
49
Aug 31, 2017
AwesomeTomI certainly sympathize with your desire to protect the health of the planet. But correct me if I'm wrong here. But aren't all microfibers derivatives of petroleum? Same thing for PU leather, held together with polyurethene. Isn't petroleum production as much a threat to the planet as cattle ranching if not significantly greater? Isn't real leather a renewable resource as compared to petroluem? My experience with PU leather is that it's distinctly inferior to real leather and that it breaks down rapidly with use. Doesn't breathe like real leather and you can't condition it.
AwesomeTom
52
Aug 31, 2017
INTELLIGENDAWhat I've read is that a leather tannery is far worse for the environment than any alternatives. When you think about it, skin/hide wouldn't last long on it's own - an animals flesh decays fairly fast, so it must be treated with all manner of chemicals to turn it into leather.
We also have to use a considerable amount of land and water to grow food for the animals. Land to store the animals, and land to dispose of their feces and other by products - all of which cause habitat loss and species extinction. And of course cows release a lot of methane, and carbon dioxide. Right now, animal agriculture is the leading cause of habitat loss, species extinction, and global warming. It's part of the puzzle, that needs to be solved, along side of electric vehicles.
There are also animal cruelty issues, as often leather is actually dog skin labeled as cow :( Because well dogs are more easily kept in some areas of the world than cows, and there is no real way to tell because of the long chain of suppliers.
Petroluem based products aren't great, but used responsible (e.g. not burnt and turned into CO2!) are a far better alternative, especially if they are made to be recycled - but again that responsibility falls on us consumers, since the world govt's basically don't care. It's not a perfect solution, but I see it as a necessary step until even better materials become available, (fashion allowing!)
INTELLIGENDA
49
Aug 31, 2017
AwesomeTomI can't speak specifically on the issues surrounding tanneries although wouldn't doubt their potential to be polluters. The regulations very per state, eg, some states allow the use of oil based dyes other require water based. On these other issues, I see them as technology based rather than fated for discontinuation. Every issue you mentioned can be addressed by modern science for alternative processing measures rather the loss of cultural traditions. I believe you're entirely wrong about your assessment of the worthiness of leather and it is infinitely preferable to most of the alternatives. After all, nothing lasts forever. On the issue of animal husbandry, there are already organizations campaigning for more regulation to curb the cruelty of certain practices. I doubt many people would argue. And beef, pork and poultry production isn't going to go away. Even a minor survey of vegetarian and vegan diets reveals their inferiority. We're omnivores as determined by nature millions of years ago more recently by modernity some 100,000 to 200,00o years ago based on which theory estimate you accept. Our status as the high point of primate development was established by meat consumption. In fact, studies of primitive cultures reveal that those that are plant or agriculture based are significantly shorter, smaller and less robust than those that are significant meat consumers. The lower protein content, the lack of B12, carnitine, carnosine and creatine have a lot to do with that. So although I agree with regard for each species, I see nothing even vaguely wrong about using the skins of slaughtered animals for useful purposes.
AwesomeTom
52
Aug 31, 2017
INTELLIGENDAI agree with a lot of what you've said but I believe that unless there is financial incentive for companies to change then they won't, and that's why I think it's important to have a social shift in the way we view these products. Although I suspect it won't be long before someone like Richard Branson starts 3D printing 'leather' belts in a lab, but in the mean time, we need to create that incentive for change :-)
If you are interested in the nutrition side of things have a look at authors such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, or Dr. Joel Fuhrman. They make a pretty great case against eating animal products.
INTELLIGENDA
49
Aug 31, 2017
AwesomeTomThe only thing that's going to make that work is consumer and political pressure. I'm all for that. What happens in most commercial slaughter houses is deplorable and unacceptable. Same goes for the methane gas issues. What? We don't have the science to address that? I don't believe that for a second or that we can't generate it. Just has to be profitable to do so. Wouldn't it be a new industry? But we have to live with who we are. Our predecessors became considerable meat eaters some one and a half to two and a half million years ago. That and the reduction in the forests drove us to the ground and to modernity. And even if we survey a nearby cousins, you'll find to that contrary to what most people know, our fellow primates have a genuine affinity for meat. In fact, smaller primates flee the presence of greater primates to avoid any chance of being on the menu. Now, it's possible that our physiology could eventually move toward more plant dominance, but even in the case of punctuated evolution, the fastest form, it would take thousands of years. We can't wait for that.
AwesomeTom
52
Aug 31, 2017
INTELLIGENDACheck out the authors I mentioned above, or even if you have Netflix have a look at "What The Health". I know a stranger on the internet won't convince you of anything, but perhaps a registered medical doctor or two will be able to show another side to this whole thing (the side that isn't funded by the meat/dairy/egg board) :-)
INTELLIGENDA
49
Sep 1, 2017
AwesomeTomI think you're using the wrong approach with your analogy to " as stranger on the internet." You're overlooking the fact that virtually everyone is a stranger to me. It's a rare occurrence indeed when I have any personal familiarity with the the authors of any book or article I happen to read. Is there such a thing as literary xenophobia that I've missed along the way? But, to get to the point, I was aware of this documentary and I have seen clips from it. I did find it enlightening in certain respects but it didn't convert me to rabid veganism. And, I must add, it's never going to dissuade of the inferior nature of overly plant based diets and that meat isn't an essential element in an anatomical and physiological system which has changed not much in 100,000 to 200,000 years. On the other hand, you're sorely mistaken if you think even for a moment that I subscribe to the spokesmen from the beef, pork, poultry and dairy associations. What I believe has happened is that they've allowed their products to become debased in the name of profit with some notable exceptions. You know, those farmers and ranchers, same applies to plant growers, who cater to the free range, grass fed, no GMO, humane treatment sectors. If anything, we should be pressuring those who don't and our government to make these practices more affordable and logical. Same way we should be funding the processes of waste disposal from these same industries. And on health and the tendency to pillory these same industries, our neolithic ancestors consumed huge amounts of meats compared to us. Sometimes as high 79% of their diet, They didn't know cancer, diabetes, heart failure as we do. Of course, their meat came from wild game. Until someone can show an empirical and longitudinal which would show that consuming free range animals won't decrease the risks of these diseases, I'm not even going to consider it. Same goes for the dairy industry. The exaggerated figures on lactose intolerance are just that even though a substantial part the population is. The rest of us seemed to have retained the enzymes to handle dairy beneficially and thousands of years old dairy cultures would seem to prove that. Might this not be a case of not having enough affordable raw certified dairy available to us at affordable prices, a situation which the big commercial companies reinforce with the help of the feds. Well, this stranger isn't going to change your thinking either. Not likely. But maybe I've given you something to think about?
AwesomeTom
52
Sep 1, 2017
INTELLIGENDAI think it's better coming from a qualified professional because it's a fairly complicated topic (well at least for me it was lol), since it's the small details are really what matter and I'm unlikely to do it justice here. Like everyone else I was an animal consumer for most of my life, and I had all of your concerns, but I can assure you they are addressed by those authors above, and many others such Dr. Michael Greger, T. Colin Campbell, Dr. William C. Roberts, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn (aka, the only person ever to cure heart-disease).
What I've learnt:
There is probably about a million times more published and peer reviewed research into health than the mainstream world would lead us to believe (although that's slowly changing).
The "inferior nature of a plant-based diet" is a myth. There is no nutrient, mineral or vitamin that animal products have that cannot be acquired from a kinder, healthier, and more environmental source.
Evolution's job is to get us to breeding age, that's it. Yet we can live for 100 years beyond reproductive age. Yes we have adaptations which allow us to survive off just about any food source, but that's not really the point these days - we want to live as healthy and long as possible, instead of dying a decade after our offspring are born. That means we cannot really look to the past to see how we should live our lives beyond reproductive age, we must instead look at the science - and the best available evidence clearly shows the major key is to eat as few animal products as possible, and as little refined foods as possible (particularly oils, and sugars - which a lot of these modern vegans are yet to figure out....), and of course to move around everyday, even if it's gardening or housework, just move that body :-)
Different groups of humans throughout history have eaten just about everything so there is a wide range of evidence showing humans eating anything and everything. But heart-disease, cancer and diabetes was not uncommon throughout ancient history and the paleolithic period for those on high animal diets (if they lived long enough to get it!). The key here is no one group ate the same diet, and they had vastly different health outcomes, but the groups eating more beans, grains, vegetables and fruits had fewer diseases. Long before factory farming, anti-biotics, pesticides etc.
We know which components of foods cause the diseases. E.g. Saturated fat. Whether it's from a pig, from cows milk, or from a coconut. It does us damage. The source can be wild animal, factory farmed, or even a plant - but, the effect is the same: increased cholesterol production in our bodies(heart-disease), increased IGF-1 hormone production (cancer), increased insulin resistance (type 2 diabetes), and so on. Unfortunately animal products tend to contain the bad things like saturated fat, and plant-foods usually do not have them, or in smaller ratios, and often time the fibre and other nutrients in whole-plant foods offset the bad things.
If I can't convince you to read their work, or at least watch one of their videos on youtube, then I'd encourage you to try the 3 week whole-foods challenge at pcrm.org/kickstarter (100% free) and I would bet my life on it that you will feel better than you ever have, and you will save money on your groceries. If you are as stubborn as me you might not think it make any difference, but it experiencing it for myself really did change my perception about , well, everything :-)
Please let me know if you have any specific questions, as I'm happy to answer, or point you to a good source. Otherwise all the best to you, and happy shopping :-)
INTELLIGENDA
49
Sep 1, 2017
AwesomeTomWow! Now I have to just say that was a valiant effort. But you're a smart fellow. So you know it was entirely in vain. I thought for a moment that we might have some common ground. But we don't. If we do, it's entirely inconsequential. You see, you can cite all the sources you like but you know at best I may briefly peruse a few and that's all. Now, I could cite a list for you. But I wouldn't lay the weight of that reading on you because I've been at this for so many years. I have an entire library of this stuff written by some of the most respected scholars whom you would likely recognize here and there. Going all the way back to 1971, I remember reading Diet for a Small Planet, an early landmark work on surviving on plant life alone. I believed it would work then and I still do today. But I believe even more strongly that it's completely inferior diet and not meant for humans. So when you speak of the of the myth of a plant based diet being inferior, what I hear is someone who has been passively radicalized to the my that plant based diets aren't inferior. Regardless of what any of your sources relate, any brief look into anthropology on the subject will tell you differently and that's based on empirical research. But even without depending on that, you find that even your plant based societies will take advantage of any meat on which they can lay their hands. Do you know what country boasts the greatest proportion of 100 plus year olds? Italy. And Italians have never shied away from beef, pork, poultry, cheese and fish. Now it's convenient to demonize saturated fat and cholesterol. But the fact is that we benefit from both and there's no good evidence that these foods advance cholesterol levels that isn't subject to debate. In fact, without adequate cholesterol, the stuff of hormone production, we wouldn't last very long. I must also decline your challenge to a three week whole food diet which to me is nothing but another faulty cleansing diet all of which are doubtful and certainly not necessary if one consumes a decent diet which does include meat or something of animal nature. So I guess we part on this note. I have no further questions or needs for sources. And I do believe that animal based nutrition is here to stay. I further intend to stay with it although I'll do all in my power to promote cleaning it up. Otherwise, good luck in your endeavors and may they reveal the truth whatever it may be.
JohnnyCredit
469
Sep 17, 2017
AwesomeTomJesus, way to derail a conversation for your own ends, Morrissey. Long-winded diatribes like this just turn people off to the ideas you support.
AwesomeTom
52
Sep 17, 2017
JohnnyCreditAre you saying that you're not going to help the planet, because you don't like a conversation you weren't involved in? Is that short enough for you? :P