There are mulesing free certificates, and some companies go the extra mile.
Varusteleka is pretty open about their wool, but they don't have the biggest selection.
(varusteleka, I've called you out twice on this account, sponsor me lmao)
Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you think most people can buy clothes for that kind of money? I sure as fuck can't afford a shirt that costs $64 or pants that cost $160.
You're basically telling me that in order to have cruelty-free wool, I have to be wealthy.
You’re basically telling me that in order to have cruelty-free wool, I have to be wealthy.
Congrats. You found out why there’s animal cruelty in the first place. People need cheaper things -> other things need to be sacrificed to make that happen.
That was my point. People who expect me to go cruelty-free think I can afford to.
Everyone can only do the best they can. Anyone who expects everyone to have zero impact is an idiot. Even a salad involved death and cruelty somewhere (animals caught in farm equipment, underpaid immigrant farmers who get abandoned if injured, etc).
So really, all you can do in your life if you care about these things is minimize your impact as much as you can based on what you know.
Similar to people who value giving to charity. Do they give all of their spare money to charity? No and no one should expect them to. Just giving anything to charity regularly has a positive impact and the whole "you're not doing enough" does much more damage than good.
Reminds me of vegetarians/vegans. I'm not really either, but I don't eat meat. And I'm just happy when I hear people say they want to eat less meat. Whereas most people who are against meat are only happy if someone else is also against it completely.
A better approach is probably to focus on clothes that last, and keep them longer. Of course those are also more expensive but it should even out over the long run
You could afford to, if companies were forced to go cruelty free. Clothing manufacturing is currently one of the most profitable industries, outpacing energy, fossil fuels, and technology industries while producing more new billionaires.
Do you really think that if they were forced to stop abusing animals, those companies would close shop and stop trying to sell textiles? That they would suddenly try to charge absurd prices for the same clothing you buy now?
Prices aren't set by costs, they are set by what the market will beat. Profits are the difference between costs and what the market will bear. Clothing companies charge exactly as much as they can to generate the sales volume they want, and nothing less. They want to sell you cheap clothes.
This applies to every industry. Nestle would find a way to sell chocolate even if they were forced to stop using child slave labor.
Okay, and? What do you want us to do about it? Those companies are never willingly going to become cruelty free, and the government will never force them to while the bribery, I mean, lobbying continues.
The only way these companies will go cruelty free is if people totally stop buying non-cruelty free products, which again won't happen because most people can't afford cruelty free products.
Got it. People on this site are stupid idealistic as hell, so it's probably good that I spelled out why these things are expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks thought animal cruelty exists in these industries because people are mean.
That is correct.
Ethics come at a premium. Ethics are a luxury good.
But that was my point. I can't afford luxury goods. Most people can't. So we have no choice in wearing clothes made with cruelty.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I buy very few clothes, so I save up to spend more on ones I think will last longer.
It's very burdensome when something doesn't last long enough to reach that price-equilibrium point compared to simply purchasing more, cheaper clothing.
I am currently almost out of socks and panties because of this :(
There are mulesing free certificates, and some companies go the extra mile.
Varusteleka is pretty open about their wool, but they don't have the biggest selection.
(varusteleka, I've called you out twice on this account, sponsor me lmao)
Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you think most people can buy clothes for that kind of money? I sure as fuck can't afford a shirt that costs $64 or pants that cost $160.
You're basically telling me that in order to have cruelty-free wool, I have to be wealthy.
Congrats. You found out why there’s animal cruelty in the first place. People need cheaper things -> other things need to be sacrificed to make that happen.
That was my point. People who expect me to go cruelty-free think I can afford to.
Everyone can only do the best they can. Anyone who expects everyone to have zero impact is an idiot. Even a salad involved death and cruelty somewhere (animals caught in farm equipment, underpaid immigrant farmers who get abandoned if injured, etc).
So really, all you can do in your life if you care about these things is minimize your impact as much as you can based on what you know.
Similar to people who value giving to charity. Do they give all of their spare money to charity? No and no one should expect them to. Just giving anything to charity regularly has a positive impact and the whole "you're not doing enough" does much more damage than good.
Reminds me of vegetarians/vegans. I'm not really either, but I don't eat meat. And I'm just happy when I hear people say they want to eat less meat. Whereas most people who are against meat are only happy if someone else is also against it completely.
A better approach is probably to focus on clothes that last, and keep them longer. Of course those are also more expensive but it should even out over the long run
You could afford to, if companies were forced to go cruelty free. Clothing manufacturing is currently one of the most profitable industries, outpacing energy, fossil fuels, and technology industries while producing more new billionaires.
Do you really think that if they were forced to stop abusing animals, those companies would close shop and stop trying to sell textiles? That they would suddenly try to charge absurd prices for the same clothing you buy now?
Prices aren't set by costs, they are set by what the market will beat. Profits are the difference between costs and what the market will bear. Clothing companies charge exactly as much as they can to generate the sales volume they want, and nothing less. They want to sell you cheap clothes.
This applies to every industry. Nestle would find a way to sell chocolate even if they were forced to stop using child slave labor.
Okay, and? What do you want us to do about it? Those companies are never willingly going to become cruelty free, and the government will never force them to while the
bribery, I mean, lobbying continues.The only way these companies will go cruelty free is if people totally stop buying non-cruelty free products, which again won't happen because most people can't afford cruelty free products.
Got it. People on this site are
stupididealistic as hell, so it's probably good that I spelled out why these things are expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks thought animal cruelty exists in these industries because people are mean.That is correct.
Ethics come at a premium. Ethics are a luxury good.
But that was my point. I can't afford luxury goods. Most people can't. So we have no choice in wearing clothes made with cruelty.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I buy very few clothes, so I save up to spend more on ones I think will last longer.
It's very burdensome when something doesn't last long enough to reach that price-equilibrium point compared to simply purchasing more, cheaper clothing.
I am currently almost out of socks and panties because of this :(