Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Your help needed: "FOR" Votes for 2015 TSLA Prop 3 and 4

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
History
The world's most versatile plastic had a rather humble beginning: A rubber scientist during the early 1920s stumbled onto a new material with fantastic properties during his search for a synthetic adhesive. Waldo Semon was intrigued with his finding, and experimented by making golf balls and shoe heels out of the versatile material called polyvinyl chloride, or PVC.

Soon after his discovery, PVC-based products such as insulated wire, raincoats and shower curtains hit the market. As more uses for vinyl were discovered, industry developed more ways to produce and process the new plastic.

The 1930’s
Plants manufacturing PVC began to spring up during the '30s to meet demand for the versatile material. Just a decade after its conception, PVC - commonly known as vinyl - was sought for a variety of industrial applications including gaskets and tubing.

The 1940’s
Joining industries across the nation during the '40s, PVC manufacturers turned their attention to assisting the war effort. Vinyl-coated wire was widely used aboard U.S. military ships, replacing wire insulated with rubber. Vinyl manufacturers were working in high gear as World War II wound down, and they quickly found new markets for the durable plastic. Following the war, news of vinyl's versatility and flame-resistant properties spread, leading to dozens of commercial uses.

The 1950’s and 1960’s
Five companies were making PVC at the century's midpoint, and innovative uses for vinyl
continued to be found during the '50s and '60s. A vinyl-based latex was used on boots, fabric coatings and inflatable structures, and methods for enhancing vinyl's durability were refined, opening the door to applications in the building trades.

The 1970’s
Vinyl products quickly became a staple of the construction industry; the plastic's resistance to corrosion, light and chemicals made it ideal for building applications. PVC piping was soon transporting water to thousands of homes and industries, aided by improvements in the material's resistance to extreme temperatures. Twenty companies were producing vinyl by 1980.

Today
Today, vinyl is the second largest-selling plastic in the world, and the industry employs more than 100,000 people in the United States alone. Vinyl's low cost, versatility and performance make it the material of choice for dozens of industries such as health care, communications, aerospace, automotive, retailing, textiles and construction. Rigid as pipe or pliable as plastic wrap, vinyl is a leading material of the 21st century.

What is Vinyl?
Vinyl (polyvinyl chloride or PVC), is the world's most versatile plastic, used to make everything from food wrap to auto body parts. Vinyl is composed of two simple building blocks: chlorine, based on common salt, and ethylene, from crude oil.
The resulting compound, ethylene dichloride, is converted at very high temperatures to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) gas. Through the chemical reaction known as polymerisation, VCM becomes a chemically stable powder, polyvinyl chloride resin.

Interesting Vinyl Statistics
• Vinyl is the second largest-selling plastic and the most versatile one.

• The vinyl resin industry has more than $4 billion in sales and employs more than 100,000 people.

• Vinyl is used in hundreds of consumer, industrial products.

• More than 14 billion pounds of vinyl are produced annually in North America.
Recycling
Even after a useful lifespan of decades, vinyl products can be recycled into new applications lasting decades more.

Manufacturing Scrap
A significant amount of vinyl scrap (coming from polymer manufacturers and plastic processors) is collected and recycled. Overall, more than 99 percent of all manufactured vinyl compound ends up in a finished product, due to widespread post-industrial recycling.

Post-Consumer Recycling
Post-consumer vinyl recycling continues to grow as an increasing number of recycling programs are equipped to handle vinyl bottles. The Vinyl Institute has supported the development of technology to automatically separate one plastic from another (a key to making plastics recycling successful). Several vinyl recycling systems have been developed around the nation by innovative companies with the encouragement of the Vinyl Institute. Researchers have found that vinyl can easily be separated from other plastics automatically because technology can spot its unique chlorine chemical composition.

Recycling Statistics
According to a 1999 study by Principia Partners, more than one billion pounds of vinyl were recovered and recycled into useful products in North America in 1997. About 18 million pounds of that was post-consumer vinyl diverted from landfills and recycled into second-generation products.

The Vinyl Institute is working to increase the number of communities recycling vinyl since studies show that the estimated demand for recycled vinyl is about twice the potential supply.

• PVC can be, and is being recycled.

• Automatic sorting of vinyl is now possible.

• Demand for recycled vinyl far exceeds the supply.

Vinyl Lifecycle
Vinyl has become one of the most widely used materials in part because of its cost efficiencies. These efficiencies begin when vinyl is produced and continue throughout its lifecycle, encompassing such elements as raw material usage, energy used in processing, energy used in distribution and transportation, durability, maintenance requirements and disposal costs. Vinyl consistently scores better than other materials in many economic and environmental performance categories.

Vinyl's beneficial qualities affect every aspect of our lives. Because it will not rust or corrode, vinyl is widely used in water pipe to deliver clean water and in sewer pipe to ensure the integrity of wastewater handling systems. PVC pipe installations last up to 50 years, reducing raw material consumption. Vinyl is also the material of choice for blood bags and tubing, helping maintain the world's blood supply and supporting critical healthcare procedures such as dialysis.

In packaging, vinyl helps to keep food safe and fresh during transportation and on store shelves, and provides tamper-resistant packaging for food, pharmaceuticals and other products. Vinyl's resistance to high electrical voltage and its ability to bend without cracking make it the leading material for wire and cable insulation. It helps add years to the life of motor vehicles as an under body coating. Vinyl's toughness and durability make it the most widely used plastic for building and construction applications such as siding, windows, single-ply roofing membranes, fencing, decking, wall coverings and flooring.

• Over 50 percent of the vinyl polymer comes from an inexpensive, renewable resource.

• Selected vinyl products are shown to have a distinct lifecycle advantage over competitive materials.

• Vinyl has demonstrated its utility and value worldwide.

Vinyl and the Environment
Conservation of natural resources
Only 43 percent of vinyl comes from nonrenewable petroleum feedstocks. The balance (57 percent) comes from salt.

According to an independent study, vinyl uses less energy to make, generates fewer emissions and requires fewer natural resources than some of the other leading packaging materials.

In transportation and construction applications, vinyl is one of three plastic materials with the lowest energy requirements of the 12 major plastics used. It saves more than 34 million BTUs per 1,000 pounds manufactured compared to the highest energy-consuming plastic.

Incineration
Vinyl can be safely incinerated in state-of-the-art facilities and its energy recaptured and reused.

A number of studies, including one by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), have found that the presence or absence of vinyl has no effect on the amount of dioxin produced during the incineration process. Rather, incinerator operating conditions (primarily temperature) are the key to controlling dioxin formation.

A 1995 study sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), involving the analysis of more than 1,900 test results from 169 large-scale commercial incinerator facilities throughout the world, found no relationship between the chlorine content of waste like vinyl and dioxin emissions from combustion processes under real-life conditions. Instead, the study stated, the scientific literature is clear that the operating conditions of combustors are the critical factor in dioxin generation. Additionally, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency declared in June 1996 that, "Reducing the quantity of PVC in waste does not reduce the quantity of dioxin in the waste gases."

Incinerator scrubbing systems can remove about 99 percent of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) generated by incinerating vinyl plastics and other chlorine-containing compounds and materials.

Also, a study by the Midwest Research Institute determined that wastes containing vinyl plastics are not a significant factor in cost-effectively operating either medical or municipal solid waste incinerators.

Landfilling
Vinyl products are extremely resistant to the corrosive conditions found in landfills and will not break down or degrade under them. In fact, vinyl is often used to make landfill liners because it is inert and stable.

Chlorine
Vinyl won't harm the atmosphere. Once chlorine is processed into vinyl, it is chemically locked into the product more tightly than it was in salt. When vinyl is recycled, landfilled, or disposed of in a modern incinerator, chlorine gas is not released into the atmosphere.

Environmental Summary
• Vinyl can be safely incinerated or landfilled.

• Operating conditions, not vinyl, affect dioxin creation in incinerators.

• Vinyl conserves natural resources and is good for the environment.

Vinyl and Health
Worker health hazards resulting from prolonged, high exposure to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) came under scrutiny by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the EPA in the late 1970s. Through new manufacturing technology, industry was able to address those problems.

Vinyl production facilities are regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and all emissions are regulated by the EPA and reported under state and federal law.

Health Risk Estimates
The EPA has estimated that the industry's VCM emissions have been reduced by more than 99 percent since the 1970s. Moreover, there is no confirmed case on record in which a member of the general population has been harmed by exposure to VCM. The actual risk among the five million individuals presumed to live within five miles of a VCM or vinyl production facility has been calculated to be less than 0.1 case of cancer in the next 70 years. This compares with the risk over a lifetime of smoking 1.4 cigarettes or drinking one-half litre of wine; travelling 10 miles by bicycle, 300 miles by car or 1,000 miles by jet; or having one chest X-ray. No other confirmed community health effects have been linked to the presence of vinyl or VCM production facilities.

In its recent review of the toxicological data on vinyl chloride, the EPA reduced its cancer unit risk estimate for vinyl chloride to 20 times lower than its previous estimate.

Dioxin Emissions
The vinyl industry's dioxin emissions are a very small part of overall emissions, constituting less than one-half of one percent of the total emissions to air, water and land as identified by the EPA. The vinyl industry emits about 12.6 grams of dioxin a year, compared to the EPA's recent estimate of nearly 3,000 grams a year from known sources. The EPA also stated that dioxin emissions in the United States decreased by about 80 percent between 1987 and 1995, primarily due to reductions in air emissions from municipal and medical waste incinerators. Notably, while the amount of dioxin in the environment has decreased sharply over the past
30 years, VCM production has more than tripled - which is the best evidence that the vinyl production chain is a minor contributor to dioxin levels in the environment.

• Close regulation makes vinyl production safe.

• Vinyl production poses no risk to community health.

• PVC production is a "classic case of waste minimization."

• Vinyl production is a minimal contributor of dioxin.

• Vinyl industry is working with the EPA to ensure safety.

Vinyl and Fire
Vinyl products are inherently flame-retardant due to their chlorine base, do not readily ignite and most will not continue to burn once a flame or heat source is removed.

Unlike metal tubing, vinyl conduit will not arc or short, thereby reducing the hazard of fires in electrical applications.

Combustion by-products
The products of vinyl combustion are no more hazardous than those produced by many other common materials, both natural and synthetic. When it burns, vinyl does release hydrogen chloride (HCl), but studies have shown that HCl does not incapacitate or become dangerous until it reaches concentrations much higher than those measured in real fires.

Systematic investigations of large-scale accidental fires in Germany, Sweden and Canada have indicated that dioxins will be produced in accidental fires whether vinyl is present or not, and that the quantities produced in such fires posed no threat to human health or to the environment. A recent analysis conducted by one of the industry's leading authorities on vinyl's fire performance found that fires involving the combustion of vinyl products most likely contribute less than half a gram per year to overall airborne dioxin emissions.

• Chlorine in vinyl helps stop it from burning.

• Tests show PVC not an unusual fire hazard.

• Its properties make vinyl an ideal material in electrical applications.

30 years, VCM production has more than tripled - which is the best evidence that the vinyl production chain is a minor contributor to dioxin levels in the environment.

• Close regulation makes vinyl production safe.

• Vinyl production poses no risk to community health.

• PVC production is a "classic case of waste minimization."

• Vinyl production is a minimal contributor of dioxin.

• Vinyl industry is working with the EPA to ensure safety.

Vinyl and Fire
Vinyl products are inherently flame-retardant due to their chlorine base, do not readily ignite and most will not continue to burn once a flame or heat source is removed.

Unlike metal tubing, vinyl conduit will not arc or short, thereby reducing the hazard of fires in electrical applications.

Combustion by-products
The products of vinyl combustion are no more hazardous than those produced by many other common materials, both natural and synthetic. When it burns, vinyl does release hydrogen chloride (HCl), but studies have shown that HCl does not incapacitate or become dangerous until it reaches concentrations much higher than those measured in real fires.

Systematic investigations of large-scale accidental fires in Germany, Sweden and Canada have indicated that dioxins will be produced in accidental fires whether vinyl is present or not, and that the quantities produced in such fires posed no threat to human health or to the environment. A recent analysis conducted by one of the industry's leading authorities on vinyl's fire performance found that fires involving the combustion of vinyl products most likely contribute less than half a gram per year to overall airborne dioxin emissions.

• Chlorine in vinyl helps stop it from burning.

• Tests show PVC not an unusual fire hazard.

• Its properties make vinyl an ideal material in electrical applications.

U.S. federal law. Building wire, usually used inside walls and away from regular human contact, must meet strict insulation standards.

New studies affirm that disposal of metal-stabilized vinyl waste in landfills poses no appreciable risk to human health or the environment. In fact, vinyl sheet is used as landfill liner to help prevent leachate from contaminating groundwater, specifically because vinyl is so resistant to the aggressive conditions typically found there.

In short, the demonstrated performance and scientific facts about stabilizers confirm that they are the right choice for most rigid vinyl processing. Extensive testing and review have shown that there is no risk to processors, consumers or the environment when these stabilizers are used as intended.

• Vinyl plasticizers are well-researched; found to be safe.

• Heavy metal stabilizers are used selectively and do not represent a health or exposure risk.

• Additives do not hamper the recyclability of vinyl.

Key Properties
Because PVC resin can be combined with many additives and modifiers, vinyl can meet the requirements for products in many industries.

Vinyl is often chosen over other materials because of its low cost, versatility and performance properties.

Vinyl is strong, durable, abrasion and moisture resistant; withstands rust and corrosion; is electrically non-conductive and has excellent fire performance properties.

Colour Availability
Vinyl can be produced in almost any colour, with end products ranging from opaque to crystal-clear.

Versatility
Through a variety of extrusion, calendering and moulding processes, vinyl is used in products as rigid as pipe or as flexible as upholstery and food wrap.
Economics
Because it is less than half petroleum, vinyl is the most energy-efficient plastic. And because it has been used for more than a half century, it is one of the world's most analysed and tested materials.

• Vinyl comes from salt, an inexpensive, renewable resource.

• Vinyl products consume less energy, generate fewer emissions and save more energy than many competitive products.

• Most vinyl products are durable and long-lived.

Applications
• Vinyl's largest use is in construction.

• It is one of the most time-tested synthetic materials in use.

• Vinyl is critical to many quality-of-life products.

Building Products
Vinyl is especially widely-used in construction, in products like water pipe, house siding, window frames, gutters and downspouts, floor tile, electrical wire and cable insulation and wall coverings.

Packaging
Flexible vinyl film is a leading packaging material for wrapping meats and produce, and for tamper-proofing over-the-counter medications and food products. Rigid vinyl film is widely used in the blister and clamshell packaging that protects hardware items. Vinyl bottles store everything from peanut butter and cooking oil to shampoo, lighter fluid and motor oil.
 
I would think that Vinyl (sensatec) would be a detriment in a fire, being made of ethylene.
My goal is not to be in the car regardless of interior materials during a fire :)

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't synthetic materials also technically animal based? I mean, a dinosaur had to die to end up being the petroleum used in the making of the plastics and such... so, every plastic part in your vegan vehicles is technically animal based if you trace it back far enough. Where is the line drawn?
I suspect you're being facetious, but the line is drawn on living animals and their parts being used for human exploitation. But you know this, you're just trolling.

The whole animal based/non-animal based argument when it comes to something like a car is just ridiculous.
I have a great idea - you live by your morals, and I'll live by mine. And you won't find me telling you that your beliefs are ridiculous! I'm happy to discuss anything and everything but you're just seemingly wanting to start flame wars in as many threads as possible. Smile. Enjoy your time here. Life is short.
 
I'm not sure if this was different in older versions, but the fabric inserts in the SensaTec seats use wool today (and a quick google found going back to 2004, the SensaTec had fabric inserts, so I imagine it had fabric inserts the whole time). That's why SensaTec is not a vegan option. This seems be be a conflict between being "vegan" and "green". It's more "green" to use wool instead of synthetics, but it's not vegan.
 
I suspect you're being facetious, but the line is drawn on living animals and their parts being used for human exploitation. But you know this, you're just trolling.

I was only half joking, mainly because the entire premise is ridiculous to me either way. I actually don't know what the deal is with the different levels of vegan.

So by your definition, if I invent the Star Trek replicator and make you a leather interior for your car and an awesome t-bone steak, with their atoms and molecules exactly the same as if it were a cow killed for food in the livestock industry, except made via energy->matter conversion, you'd be cool with that?

Sounds silly, but I'm actually being quite serious. If the killing of the animals is the issue, how would this fit in where it involves no killing of animals but is the exact same product? :)
 
However, wool production does not kill sheep. They are shorn, a relatively harmless process.
I'm not sure if this was different in older versions, but the fabric inserts in the SensaTec seats use wool today (and a quick google found going back to 2004, the SensaTec had fabric inserts, so I imagine it had fabric inserts the whole time). That's why SensaTec is not a vegan option. This seems be be a conflict between being "vegan" and "green". It's more "green" to use wool instead of synthetics, but it's not vegan.
 
@wk057: It's about how you view animals (especially mammals which are biologically much closer to human beings than birds, for instance) and the business of mammal exploitation (agro-business) in general.

If you came to the conclusion (like some vegetarians and vegans do) that mammals like cows, pigs, horses, sheep are sentient, self-conscious beings which we shall not breed for killing and eating, then it's not ridiculous at all to strive for a reduction of that very exploitation.

If you think that the daily breeding, feeding, killing and eating of mammals is more similar to picking an apple from a tree and totally not disgraceful, you're probably with the majority of people today. That might change in the future for a variety of reasons (not only moral reasons, but efficiency reasons primarily). In the end, it's a legitimate view and not ridiculous at all.

I think that the word "ridiculous" is inappropriate in any case here on TMC... Go back in time to the year 1995, 2000 or 2005 and tell people about the Tesla Model S or the Hyperloop. They would tell you this is ridiculous stuff that you're talking about. Things are a-changing. So are people's minds and their views on their daily behaviour.

Questioning blatant inefficiencies which have been taken for normal for a long time is not a bad or ridiculous thing.
 
sheep are sentient, self-conscious beings

If that's your argument, then you'd have to ask the sheep whether it would rather have it's wool shaved off in the beginning of each summer, but protected on a farm, or be left in an open field with wolfs, jackals, lions etc. I know what my choice would be.

I think the moral argument is lost quickly after "Do we treat the animals better than they would be treated in the wild".


not only moral reasons, but efficiency reasons primarily

It's not a slam dunk whether wool is more inefficient to manufacture than e.g. cotton. You need at least 5 times more water to make cotton than to make wool.

But in the end, inefficiency just makes something more expensive. That's neither good nor bad (unless you're a communist who argues that if not everybody can afford a product, then nobody should have that product). When it's bad is when it interferes with sustainability. I would chose using a sheep over a T-Rex all the time. The sheep is sustainable, the T-Rex is not.


So by your definition, if I invent the Star Trek replicator and make you a leather interior for your car and an awesome t-bone steak, with their atoms and molecules exactly the same as if it were a cow killed for food in the livestock industry, except made via energy->matter conversion, you'd be cool with that?

Sounds silly, but I'm actually being quite serious. If the killing of the animals is the issue, how would this fit in where it involves no killing of animals but is the exact same product? :)

Energy to matter conversion sounds like it something that would require a lot of dead dinosaurs. However, what will become very real in the next century is cloned organs, including skin and muscle. I would really like to hear the vegan argument against artificially produced leather or steak. If there is one?

If there isn't an argument against (hard to imagine there would be), then what if we take it one step further. It seems like growing steak in a lab would be expensive. It needs to be constantly fed and needs to be protected around bacteria. What if we then also clone some skin to wrap around the steak? And then clone some bones so that it can remain ridged, and a digestive system to feed itself. Basically clone an entire sheep, EXCEPT instead of giving it a brain, we give it an Arduino. Well... next version of an Arduino. Surely there is no sentient argument that can be made here? You essentially have a robot that's growing some organic matter for you that would otherwise be grown in a lab. Almost the entire animal, only better, because now there's no qualms about treatment, you don't need those pig cages, don't have to have enclosures to prevent the animals from running away - heck you can even stack them if you want. Arguments against this robotic grower? No?

Forward another hundred years later, and we'll likely be able to manufacture an organic computer using DNA. So now, you don't even have to splice the organic and silicon material together. You just insert the computer straight into the DNA chain. So there you have it. Organism that can be grown from a single cell into something that can grow wool, supply milk and supply meat... Behold: The iSheep

Or we can admit that that's exactly what nature did, and save ourselves a few trillion dollars.

So where do you want to draw the line?
 
Last edited:
If that's your argument, then you'd have to ask the sheep whether it would rather have it's wool shaved off in the beginning of each summer, but protected on a farm, or be left in an open field with wolfs, jackals, lions etc. I know what my choice would be.

I think the moral argument is lost quickly after "Do we treat the animals better than they would be treated in the wild".

How quickly you're pushing me to argue on the side of vegan :).

I think you're missing the point. Without breeding sheep for wool, there would not be all those sheep to throw to the mercy of the wild. This is not a choice that would have to be made.

But if we're asking animals in general what they prefer (since you brought it up), then we're probably going to hear all about evils of factory farming (I personally only buy from small local family farms, where I know the family by name). I doubt many would opt for what goes on today around the world in so many places.

I love my pups and am horrified over the yearly dog eating festivals in China - and I'm sure many there don't understand how I see a dog as a sentient being, with feelings. -shrug-

As for 'we treat better than in the wild' ... that statement alone says 'we know best for the animal world'. And that hasn't been working out so well. Check out how many species are going extinct. We're not exactly the best stewards.
 
So by your definition, if I invent the Star Trek replicator and make you a leather interior for your car and an awesome t-bone steak, with their atoms and molecules exactly the same as if it were a cow killed for food in the livestock industry, except made via energy->matter conversion, you'd be cool with that?

Sounds silly, but I'm actually being quite serious. If the killing of the animals is the issue, how would this fit in where it involves no killing of animals but is the exact same product? :)
It's a legitimate question, and one being taken on by scientists right now - lab created meat with no animals involved (other than starter cells). Yes, vegetarians would eat that (assuming they're not veg for health reasons). My concern is animal welfare - remove the animal and I have no qualms with leather or beef.

That would make it an appropriate selection for a vegetarian, but not a vegan.
That's a fair distinction - vegetarians consume milk and eggs, vegans don't. Some vegans won't even eat honey. People are people, and some are more stringent in their beliefs than others. Personally, I avoid leather pretty fanatically.

Bonnie - your last post shows how easy it is to make the leap from caring about our pets to caring about cows, pigs, sheep, etc. It's hard for many to reconcile not wanting harm to come to any dogs or cats, and being okay with harm coming to other creatures. I'm not trying to preach at all - it just mirrors my path to vegetarianism, I grew up with lots of pets and at a certain point just basically asked myself "what's the difference??" and here we are.

All I want is people to be respectful of others' beliefs. If you eat everything under the sun, know that others have self-imposed limitations and respect that. If you eat nothing with a face or whatever, know that plenty of people eat animals and respect that too. Change happens from within in my experience, and unless someone asks me I've never in my life talked about my vegetarianism. It's akin to religion, everyone has their own beliefs and trying to change minds will more often harden existing beliefs than motivate new ones. Both sides (Well it's more than 2) would do well to coat their arguments in honey rather than vinegar.

Getting back to the heart of this thread, that's why I'm in favor of choice. A vegan option for those who want it, and a jerky dispenser built into the console for those who eat meat. (I'll still take the dispenser actually and fill it with veggie jerky. Win win baby!)
 
How quickly you're pushing me to argue on the side of vegan :).

I think you're missing the point. Without breeding sheep for wool, there would not be all those sheep to throw to the mercy of the wild. This is not a choice that would have to be made.

Always a pleasure to argue with you bonnie :).

Surely you're not advocating killing off 1 billion sheep because they shouldn't have been here in the first place? I think you're probably more thinking towards sheep prophylactics and attrition.

So let's say we dwindle the numbers down to 1 million and then release them all into the wild. First of all, we'll quickly get a few thousand more wolfs, hunting distressed dodo-sheep that have been bread out of any possible way for them to defend themselves or run away. Forward 5 years, and you have no more sheep and thousands of starving wolfs.

Unless we get rid of their whole population? Or alternatively just put them in Zoos? This is a sins of our father's... father's... father's... father... that we're left with. For all intents and purposes, it's an engineered animal. What is your solution of what to do with the population?

But if we're asking animals in general what they prefer (since you brought it up), then we're probably going to hear all about evils of factory farming (I personally only buy from small local family farms, where I know the family by name). I doubt many would opt for what goes on today around the world in so many places.

I prefer local farms as well. I wish I can eat at the French Laundry every day. But that's a luxury item, and not a global solution.

I love my pups and am horrified over the yearly dog eating festivals in China - and I'm sure many there don't understand how I see a dog as a sentient being, with feelings. -shrug-

The interesting thing about that is that people in China also keep dogs as pets, and eat them as well. And kids over here growing up on farms, sometimes have a goat or a pig as a pet.

But... even considering that the animal is a sentient being with feelings (isn't that redundant?). You probably have euthanized a sick pet, or at least not judged somebody who did. How does that jive with how to treat a sentient being? Don't get me wrong - I have dogs as well and love them to death. I will sell my Tesla in a heartbeat if it's needed to get money for them for medical care to keep them alive or pain free even 3 months longer. But in the end, I still know what's best for them. I substitute their decisions for mine. If it's up to them they'll go out hunting rabbits all day long, drink toilet water, and eat nothing but pizza. They don't get to decide that. They don't get to decide where they live. They don't get to decide what they eat. And in the end I get to decide whether they live or not. However much we love them, it's not the same relationship we have with humans.

But either way, if the sentient being part is the only issue, surely you're in favor of my iSheep :).


As for 'we treat better than in the wild' ... that statement alone says 'we know best for the animal world'. And that hasn't been working out so well. Check out how many species are going extinct. We're not exactly the best stewards.

Extinction doesn't happen because we don't know what is best for the animal world. It is because it's not in our economic interest to care about it.

And sometimes we make short-sighted emotional instead of practical decisions. Like the ivory ban the U.S just instituted.

I grew up around elephant reserves and farms. There are 2 things you need to know about Elephants. They breed without any problems, and they create absolute chaos wherever they go, to the point that it threatens their existence. Each elephant can take out up to 10 trees a day. You take a luscious farm the size of say San Francisco, put 100 elephants on it, and within a year they can't feed themselves anymore.

So you need massive expanses of land to keep Elephants on. But where to get the money to sustain those lands? Up to now, small game reserves would allow limited hunting of specific animals, which serves both for culling purposes that's needed to protect the land (and the Elephant's source of food), and to actually get money to afford the land in the first place. That source of money has just been taken away from them in a big way. It's not going to be long for the small reserves to just give up and convert the reserves into farmland instead. And guess what the ACTUAL biggest threat is to elephants? Habitat loss.

But hey, we're not hunting them anymore. Woo-hoo. Score 1 for the elephant... soon to lose even more habitat.

Sometimes the best thing you can do to preserve something, is to attach economic value to its lifecycle.
 
Last edited:
Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

-- from The Graduate.

- - - Updated - - -

That would make it an appropriate selection for a vegetarian, but not a vegan. A vegan would avoid anything that would exploit animals for the benefit of humans - wool, dairy, leather, etc. (I'm not a vegan, but I respect those who are.)

My respect for a person is generally orthogonal to their position on the Vegan scale. There are definitely vegans whom I don't respect.
 
deonb, first of all, I'm not vegan, but Pescetarian. I'm trying to avoid meat whenever I can, primarily because of the insane amounts of water needed to produce pork or beef, which is unsustainable on a global scale (there's numerous studies stressing the water footprint of meat, check here the blog post, for example, Meat Water: the steaks are high (News-Blog for betterplace.org)) . And if there'a any doubt about this, there's MANY different ways of a healthy diet without any pork, beef, poultry, etc.

As bonnie mentioned, it is not like the billions of pigs, cows, etc are there for natural reasons... If we'd all cut our pork and beef consumption in half by next year, the number of livestock bred would be cut proportionately.

And about prices, I'm all in favor of market mechanisms. No evil communists around, no worries. :D

But as Elon Musk has been arguing for years, it's the same with gasoline cars: There's a big market failure disrupting normal price mechanisms because nobody is paying the price for the environmental pollution of burning fossil fuels, and, for that matter, equally not for the pollution produced by the billions of livestock we humans breed, raise and feed every day for eventually killing and eating it.

@Robert: Go ahead with moving, please. :D
 
Last edited: