You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-87 points

Because wool is not for humans to use

permalink
report
reply
1 point

yes it is

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Sheep have been domesticated for over 10,000 years and require regular shearing to continue living, otherwise their wool will overgrow and they eventually won’t be able to eat or move.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-31 points

Because humans breed them to be dependent on us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

Yes, for over 10,000 years. It sounds like you think we should kill all domesticated sheep…

permalink
report
parent
reply
92 points

I’m all for the humane treatment of animals, but domestic sheep need to be sheared or they end up like Baarack here. Meanwhile, wool is a sustainable textile source, unlike synthetic fibers.

If we want domestic sheep to live good lives, it requires humans embracing sustainable practices quickly to address the climate crisis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Guess they prefer microplastics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I think they mean that animals are not for us to use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Well it’s too late for that, we already changed these animals to be unable to to live without us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

How did I remember this whole story and not remember his name was Baarack lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we’ve evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere…well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn’t care less if the cows are being wiped out because “uNnAtUrAl!!!”

ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn’t dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why “the bad ones” “totally deserve it” because pregarnart. I’m sure you wouldn’t find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of “the bad ones” to rant about how they’re producing too many children, or that “the nation” isn’t keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!

Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for “defying nature” or “being abusers”, that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yawn.

“Genocide” only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is “extinction”.

And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.

Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We have billions of captive animals that will be forcibly impregnated every year in order to replace those thag are killed, and even under the most “humane” conditions will still be killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, yet you consider cutting out the forced impregnation part in order to end the cycle of violence to be “genocide”?

You don’t think that label might be more appropriately applied to the systematic killing of billions every yeat which will happen in perpetuity until we end animal agriculture?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.

Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I’ve heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we’d have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If they wait much longer it will be too hot for wool anyway

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 30K

    Comments

Community moderators