Warning: The linked website contains some malicious cookie bullshit. Take appropriate precautions. Hardened Firefox and uBlock Origin are advised.
archived (Wayback Machine)
Warning: The linked website contains some malicious cookie bullshit. Take appropriate precautions. Hardened Firefox and uBlock Origin are advised.
archived (Wayback Machine)
Can you define “non exploitation”?
My understanding is that leather is a waste byproduct of the meat industry, so much in the same way that gas is from dinosaurs that are already dead, the cows that provide leather are “already dead” due to their use as meat.
So in that sense, it seems like leather is the more ecological choice, though not knowing your definition of exploitation, it may or may not be exploitative. I certainly wouldn’t consider it vegan though.
Leather keeps the beef industry profitable when it’s wreaking havoc on our environment.
I probably could, but I cannot say what Donald Watson or Leslie Cross or anyone else meant.
It is a co-product, and it directly supports the industry.
Dinosaurs did not die as a result of humans exploiting them in order to consume their bodies. Cows live and die solely for the sake of exploitation.