Another step for animals rights!

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Leather is fine and probably the most environmentally friendly material in an Apple product. I just wish it was cruelty free, but the alternative is a lot worse imo

    Edit: I’ll also add that there’s no such thing as a “leather cow.” It’s just a byproduct of the beef industry, so it’s not like ditching leather will save animal lives. As always, this is Apple finding an environmentalist message to excuse cheapening their products

  • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Leather is a byproduct of the beef industry.

    At no point will any fewer cattle be ‘processed’ for meat because of this decision.

    What does change is the utility ratio of the beasts. Well use less of each beast making the tragedy of their death more meaningless.

    Leather is far more environmentally friendly than plastics, with a small caveat for the tanning process’ chemicals, and emissions from the beasts themselves (though that’s attributable to beef production.)

    Leather doesn’t degrade into micro plastics.

    So unless Apple is also reducing its beef consumption* by the equivalent amount it’s pointless.

    * yes, it’ll be non-zero.

    • Nora@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is wrong in so many ways.

      Making cows(not beasts) less viable to grow because they are more expensive because the farmers aren’t getting money for their other body parts is a win!

      Less leather bought = more expensive cows = less people able to afford cows = less cows murdered.

      • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not considering that the meat will still be sold, and the leather doesn’t actually decide how many cows are killed more than the meat does.

        • ribboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, the person did take that into account. That was the whole point. If leather can’t be sold, meat prices will have to become higher (if farmers are not to get less money per cow). This will lower demand for meat, and less cattle will be raised.

        • redballooon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Meat will be replaced by meat replacement products. There’ll be less demand for meat, and there’s also less demand for leather. Good for cows.

  • randombullet@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just remember it’s always about the profits.

    Just like how they stopped selling chargers for the sake of reducing e-waste. Even though they can save on shipping weights and charge extra for 1st party chargers.

    Now is it worse for the environment to produce extra chargers and cables? Or the secondary purchases, shipping, and manufacturing? I can’t tell you the actual impact.

    Oh and remember the absolute trash 1A/5V charging bricks they included for the longest time ever? They hardly even pushed out 18w bricks before they nixed the entire included charger crap.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the drive for profits pushes companies to use more recycled materials and reduced their carbon footprint , that’s a good thing right? In the same way that Apple have decided that privacy is a marketing differentiator

    • cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love those little bricks, they share outlets very well if you’re going to plug things in overnight.

  • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool.

    But like a broken clock that is right twice a day, Apple doing the right thing is only because there is money in it.

    • justRon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doing the right thing for the wrong reason still results in the right thing being done. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, I’m all for this. Less body parts being sold is always a good move. I just think we need to keep in check why corporations SOMETIMES act ethically.

        • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this case it’s obviously cheaper, also organic materials are probably harder to source and manufacture consistently

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As much as I hate Apple (and like beef and leather), I suspect a bit of work went into making it financially viable. Maybe they’ve worked their synthetic material to be as good and cost effective.

      But yeah, there’s the chance it’s all marketing and they’ve merely replaced the word “vinyl” with “vegan” and called it a day.

      Maybe they want to move manufacture to India where the cow is sacred. Who knows.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apple claimed this was for environmental reasons, not animal rights reasons.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more enshittification. Making it cheaper and worse and telling everyone it’s an upgrade.

        OP is editorializing that it’s for vegan ethics.

          • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly

    • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Yes I am causing pain and suffering ring but lol idc” is a totally normal thing to say.

      Can you name another place where it’s ethical to willingly cause harm to another?

        • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.

          But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.

          Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?

          What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another step for animals rights!

            —OP

            Sure, but no one is saying they do.

            Animal rights do not exist.

            • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Kinda weird that you are only saying the same thing over and over whole ignoring questions. But allright, you do you.

            • BEZORP@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Human rights don’t exist either. These are legal and philosophical concepts that we decide on, not fundamental constants.

        • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.

          I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.