Jump to content

Fake fur, Is it the real alternative?


Guest Tryxie Trash
 Share

Recommended Posts

Its funny how things can happen in the Chat Room. Well last night ToS happened, and I spontaneously combusted. Actually it wasn't quite like that but you get the drift.

 

Medical science is a wonderful thing, such pioneering work is being carried out sometimes its hard to decide where science starts and God stops. I'm sure I've already offended a few of you, so I may as well continue, those of you who have read my posts before have a good idea what to expect.

 

It all stemmed from a conversation I had with a friend of mine.

 

Through medical science, cloning and stem cell research we can grow human ears on the backs of mice, a kind of stegosaurus mouse. We take skin tissue cells from patients requiring plastic surgery and grow skin grafts in a nutrient rich matrix. It has follicles like skin, hairs that respond to temperature change, it is actually individually tailored replacement skin for grafting. Hey look! No joins.

 

What would happen if this same medical science was to be implemented by the fur farming community? No dead animals, that kind of destroys the PeTA morality issue straight away.

 

Fox, Mink, Chinchilla could be grow in sheets, bead spreads, carpet, or football field sizes and not a dead animal in sight. If the skin could be bonded to its nutrient matrix it could be continually fed, it would be alive but none sentient, it would respond as an actual animal. Self cleaning, waterproof, secrete natural oils, fluff up when cold, lay smooth when hot. It would also shed hair in summer and be thicker and more luxuriant in winter, and self repairing. No bald patches no drying out. Wouldn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tryxie,

 

This is something I've mentioned to others before although without considering the whole effect on the livelihood of those who depend on the care of their animals for their furs/skins. It's still a long way off happening of course and even longer before the cost of such a garment matches the cost of a traditional fur.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not natural; its not good; we are not god.

 

nature is god; it designed us to hunt. period.

 

When the cheetah can grow its own antelope then the antelope is buggered because he will not care for it any more. When antelope are low the cheetah hunt the hare. When the cheetah doesnt hunt the antelope the antelope breed indiscriminately and bad genes assure destruction.

 

Nature is a series of checks and balances. We are just part of this; nothing more than an ape that can skin.

 

No disrespect Tryxie but here we hunt we have fox. Healthy fox. badger otter. Every year some of their habitat vansihes as someone like monsanto or some bio tech/chemical giant promise us a brave new world. What I see is orange fluorescent poison where there was newt and kingfisher and otter.

 

40 000 years of hunting in the British isles, and still the Hunt defies the government and manages the land. Still we have the fox in huge number, healthy. God forbid when they can make a mechanical fox for the hounds to chase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranched fur farming is not natural. It takes place outside the natural ecosystem, it places no pressure on it whatsoever. The natural ecosystem will continue to flourish.

 

You may hunt cheetah, or it you, to your hearts content, you do not hunt a ranched fur bearer.

 

I think your reasoning and argument are flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Evenk and forest fur farming.

 

The evenk were the first human beinags to domesticate an animal. That animal was the reindeer. the fox and sable THEY say followed shortly after. The Saga model is based on Sami forest fur farming husbandry. Its why SAGA fur is good.

 

Anyway; so 60 000 years of natural fur farming cant be wrong. These are the most "natural people there are and they have a pretty damn outstanding record on conservation and the thought of some creep in the west in a bio tech lab growing fur freaks me out. Modern western civilisiation has a dreadful record. Ask the Buffalo; ask the Sioux.

 

Anyway. the Evenk; protectors of the Siberian Tiger, and farmers of fur for 60 000 years;

 

5.1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070220/wl_uk_afp/britainvenezuelaoilSample Pathfinder Assignment

Sample Library Pathfinder Part A

 

Evenkis: An Introduction to the People

David G. Anderson

 

Evenkis are one of the 28 officially-recognised "small peoples" who primarily inhabit the sub-Arctic forests of the Russian Federation. According to the most recent census (1989) there were over 27,000 Evenkis living in a wide band of eastern Russia from the Yenisei River watershed, to the Lake Baikal Region, to the northern edges of the Pacific Rim. Approximately another 14,000 Evenkis also live in the northern districts of China (Heilongjang Province) and Mongolia (districts unknown). Within the Russian Federation, there is one political-administrative district reserved for Evenkis known as the Evenki Autonomous Okrug. In China there are two Evenki national areas: the Eweqi and Oroqon National banners. The Russian term evenk [evenki] was adopted shortly after the Russian Revolution as the official term for people previously known as Tungus. Tungus [Tunguses] is still often used in English to denote this people. The term Tungus also embraces another people known as Evens. The post-revolutionary term was adopted from the word Evenkis use to call themselves aewenki [aewenkil]. In English anthropological literature, the singular form of the Russian word is often used: Evenk [Evenks]. Some regional groups of Evenkis call themselves orochen or bail. The Evenki language belongs to the Tungus-Manchurian language family.

Evenkis are classically known in the literature as the original domesticators of the reindeer. Evenki herdsmen use reindeer in harness in order to hunt fur-bearers (such as the Siberian sable), to transport fish, or to trade. Evenkis are also closely connected with the religious complex of shamanism - saman being an Evenki word. Finally, many authors speculate on the reasons for their vast distribution across eastern Asia. Soviet ethnographers tend to argue that Evenki culture was unable to progress past the stage of a loosely organised hunting community due to the influence of Russian taxation. Some archaeologists speculate about armed conflicts with Yakuts which reduced a once extensive Evenki empire to mere fragments. All authors currently characterise Evenki social organisation as "flexible" and "disperse".

 

Sample Library Pathfinder: Part B

 

Report on On-Line Reference Searches

 

In the following databases the keywords Evenki, Evenk*, Tungus, and Tungus* were used.

 

Keyword Searches

RAI Anthropological Index

Both the terms evenki and tungus brought up a good set of citations which stressed ritual, material culture, mythology, as well as physical anthropology. In this index there was a very good rare source on Evenki herders in China.

 

ZETOC British Library Title Index

The search term evenki brought up a scattering of German citations on physical anthropology as well as several recent articles on language. The term tungus brought up a wider range of articles on ethnography, geography, and history as well as language.

 

Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)

The search term evenks yields many citations on physical anthropology and blood types. The term tungus yields linguistic citations before 1992.

 

International Bibliography of Social Sciences

This index gave the richest variety of works on ritual, geography and economy when using the search terms evenki and tungus. Many of these sources were in German or Russian. Over 50 items were retrieved with little duplication with other lists.

 

British Index to Theses

Each search term brought up one doctoral dissertation at Cambridge, one on orok reindeer herders on Sakhalin and another on Evenki reindeeer herders in Taimyr.

 

Primary Library Search

Of the three primary libraries, the two keywords revealed a wealth of literature at the BLDSC, much of which was in Russian. However there were over 20 sources in English on a range of topics from ethnography to linguistics. At the QML, neither search term worked well in a title keyword search, however in working form the lists provided by other databases several books were found. However the term siberia revealed a large selection of books. COPAC had a large collection with both terms, most in English. The most successful term for these libraries was evenki. The term tungus generated mis-matches with a name of a meteorite

 

Citation Search

In using the Social Sciences Citation Index, the best results were used by searching references to Shirokogoroff. Searches using the name Vasilevich were not successful. Searches using the name Anderson generated too many mismatches.

 

 

Sample Library Pathfinder Part C

 

Annotated Bibliography on Evenkis

 

1. Reference Works

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000

[From the QML ]

 

This encyclopedia gives very up-to-date statistical and geographical information on Evenkis as a whole, although most of the ethnographic information is focussed on one region in northern Siberia. The article gives cross references to video and sound collections, as well as addresses to political organisations of the Evenki people. There is a good bibliography of the key ethnographic sources which was useful for conducting a citation search.

 

2. Ethnographic Sources

 

Anderson, David G. 2000. Identity & Ecology in Arctic Siberia Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[From QML]

This is a recent ethnography of Evenki reindeer herders in northern Siberia. It is based on fieldwork conducted in 1992 and 1993. The author argues that the kinships and identity structure of contemporary Evenkis has been heavily influenced by the distributive politics of the Soviet state such that nationalism has become an everyday feature of Evenki life. The book has chapters on ecological adaptation and on reindeer pastoralism. It is illustrated with maps and recent statistics from the region..

 

Kwon, Heonik. 1993 Maps and Actions: Nomadic and Sedentary Space in a Siberian Reindeer Farm. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation Department of Social Anthropology: University of Cambridge

[From British Theses database

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And an end to the myth of Russian Imperialism in the area, and some dates for the fur time line:

 

http://www.evenkya.ru/eng/?id=obsh&sid=hist

 

Though the communists made state fur farms the silver siberian fox is alleged by the Evenk to be the result of THEIR ancient breeding. Its noted domestication by animal welfare experts suggests COMPLETE and long term domestciation. As we now know that the celts were doing this 5000 years ago I think it is safe to assume the people in this area were doing it for longer. Conclusion?

 

Fur farming by humans is natural. Fur was the FIRST reason animals wee farmed. And as a result the fox and reindeer are still here. Shame the mammoth couldnt be domesticated huh?

Same story the arctic over:

http://www.npolar.no/ansipra/english/Indexpages/Ethnic_groups.html

 

It s as I said before in the time line thread the reason we are here; what makes us human, natural. Neandertahl could hunt but he couldnt domestciate animals or make their fur into sophisticated garmenst.

http://dl1.yukoncollege.yk.ca/agraham/2006/12/04

 

again there are several interesting articles there.

 

But my point is that the idea that there were only foxes bred for fur since communist times is preposterous and not born out by the Evenk whose shamen know their "fathers", as the reindeer, for thousands of years. It may not have been in buildings, but they wre selectively bred I believe nevertheless. What else accounts for their absolute domestication next to wild fox who have been farmed for hundereds, even thousands of years longer?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ants ranch aphids.

 

tell them they are flawed.

 

 

Yes ants to ranch aphids. They do it in a natural manner. They don't selective breed, cage or kill the aphid, nor do they wear it. It's milked, like we do a cow.

 

A live aphid is a productive aphid. It's not a good comparison for you to draw on.

 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/animal_magnetism/fourmis_pucerons.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes fair point but the point I am making is wider. Animals DO use other animals. We are maybe all "farmed" by bacteria and parasites.

 

Mostly they dont kill us. If they find out they dont need us God forbid.

 

What if the ants could synthesise aphid milk for instance/ And actually they do kill aphids who are weak: selective breeding.

 

It isnt a question of farms being buildings; or using them for fur or food.

 

It is a wider ethical question of synthesising.

 

If they synthesise fur they will first synthesise meat and milk...by growing it. And what horrors lie that way. We CANT grow animals. Its impossible to do it well. Such energy does not come from the circle of life . If you are sustained from something without natural energy it could be dangerous. How can it be possible? From where does the energy come? And it wont work and you will all end up eating soylent green.

 

Monsanto synthetic rare beef. Eat it if you want. Temperature changing synthetically grown fox skin. If there is energy there it will know waht abominable suffering there is within it. Imagine some small element of consciousness surviving in such a thing. It is life WITHOUT the seven vital functions. Wrong. Truly unatural. If you wish to imagine in some way if it is possible for some grain of conscious life to be there, read "Johnny Got his Gun". Or perhaps just like the nurse in that who "rleieves" him somehow the "entity" of synthetic fur could be calmed by stroking. AAARRRGH its too horrid to contemplate! Give me live as a hunted or farmed animal than a piece of skin. Or maybe we could grow human skin lampshades ethically and scientifically too.

 

And when they do that I am off to live off goats blood and ak al teke milk in Uzbekistan.

 

Anyway just exploring this ethically now so it could get a little unhinged . But certainly to say it is MORE ethical than real fur doesnt seem a won argument: especially if you accept the slightest notion of incentive conservation. And the truth is; much as PETA despise it; it is by far the best model results wise sustainably.

 

Again As i said before I want green fields lambs in spring and wildlife as a result. If we dont ned the sheep the land will get raped for other things. One thing that always worries me about Star Trek is that there are never many animals in their future.....because they can synthesise all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting posts ToS, but after I stripped out the anthropological history of half the tribes of the eastern world, which is irrelevant, all I'm left with is 2 paragraphs, and those hinge on the interpretation of farming.

 

The way I read "forest farming" is animal husbandry and trapping. I don't believe these were caged animals held in captivity on farms as is the modern practice. So in actual fact you are in agreement with me that trapping would continue to flourish as would habitat welfare and conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Creates man

 

God creates fur for man

 

Silly men create PETA

 

PETA destroys God and pre-historic survival

 

PETA tries to destroy FUR

 

Men enjoy FUR

 

Men Destroy PETA (A work in progress!)

 

(How Ian Malcom's speach will sound in Jurrasic Fur - How pre-historic man beat the Ice Age!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes as i said its interpretation. The native people however do breed selectively; leaving the large bold thick fur bearer to reproduce. Whn he is tame....as the silvers...they became domesticated. Maybe tied rather than caged, more likely peened and doted on like their reindeer. truth is there is no written history so we do not know HOW. Nevertheless the Evenk speak of them as domestciated not wild.

 

But REINDEER are herded; essentially farmed, domestciated. And we do have the celtic model from the iron age.

 

Anyway , the point is this way will NOT continue...and HERE is why:

 

http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?country_id=13

 

Now imagine if the oil companies can say:

 

"arrrr welll no problem now because we can GROW you fur. So get the hell out of here."

 

Because they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1951 the greatest modern gothic sci fi ever made was created. it was interpreted by the press as merely a predation on human scenario but it was far more than that for the clever eye. John Carpenter remade it and kicked in the idea a little more but still they dont get it. Its about a life form that can synthesise other life; neither plant or animal but something new. Something whose true for will never be seen; as it tries to recreate its host, travels from planet to planet in technology not its own; sometimes lying domant for centuries in ice.

 

Seems this would be a good idea for a product title to describe the grown fur:

 

http://www.shillpages.com/movies/thingfromanotherworld1951ld.gif

 

Lets go back further to Shelleys frankenstein. Oh yes; they did it...the story is based on truth. SSSHHHHH.

 

Or maybe you can call the synthetic fur:

 

"the creeping flesh"

 

maybe it too will need to be "fed" blood.

 

Because one thing for sure its fur will never have kept it warm, secured it a mate, genetically strong through success, proud and glorious. Never have been licked or mutuallly groomed by its mate, never felt the hot excited breath from its non existent mouth, never felt the surge of adrenalin make its hairs stand erect as it resists its rival or holds it prey; never felt exhaustion too strong to eat but adrenalin surge too powerful to stop the killing machine. Never have felt the pleasure of recreating itself and the male screaming in passion and pain as the vixen holds it in cleopatra grip. Never have this fundamental right of ALL life, even amoeba.

 

When the wind catches your fox, it still lives. It remembers and becomes one with you. It is proud and survives many lifetimes. THAT is what gives the fox fur power; its beauty in life surely? When you put on a mink YOU become a mink; a fox a fox; a leopard a leopard. For two million years it has been human understanding this is the case. The animal gives you energy. Because it had energy, beauty and spirit. Something without these attributes ? I can't see it.

 

And then there is the question of splicing animal dna with human. Human ears on mice. No; it cannot be correct. if you have mouse ears you CEASE to be human. And if you grow fur, you also cease to be what it is that bonds us with the animals that we have loved, needed, worshipped for all but the last couple of thousand years of human existence. And what do we do as fur wearrs? Do we not worship and value the animals beauty?

Its the spirit not the texture. AND YOU CANT GROW THAT.

 

Last time the bio tech companies offered us wonders and humane foods, they gave us gm modified soya. Bye bye Jaguar; the rainforest, native people and the glory of the gaucho. Gone forever. nice one monsanto. Now such companies promise us "grown" fur and meat. No.

 

Thanks Tryxie you have given me nightmares lol.

 

 

This is how I see it Coyote. Not disimilar actually.

 

Man lives for two million years off animals

 

Man survives aocalypse because he learns to sew furs into garments.

 

Then Man kills god in the 2oth century via nietsche and nazi/socialist ideology

 

Then man is enlightened, and not svage like nature

 

Then man seeks alternatives; synthetics. he finds oil . He creates synthetics.

 

Man laughs at such foolishsness. Bri nylon? crimplene?

 

So the captains of industry decide to rebrand it as humane, inexpensive, for all. They must sell it to the young because the older are too clever for it. Sportswear is born; and traditional clothing/couture/ethnic become gradually seen as "deviant". Suddenly there are bushmen in man utd shirts. Inuit in adidas.

 

THEY create GREENPEACE (ICI heir) AND PETA (Tides Foundation/Heinz) to attack traditional animal dependence as evil. They need sustainable resources by which they mean profits.

 

They rape the planet of non renewable resources to feed their profits and supply the vastness of mass markets.

 

And now hey have a fight on their hands as those of us who value animals and wilderness recognise what they do.

 

These "defenders" of animal and the planet will NOT accept the synthetic culture, made from non renewable resources. Nor will they accept crap tinned cereal.

 

The non renewables begin to run out. The global corporrations are desperate for land that they bleed dry with intensive arable produce, and the black death that is oil.

 

They need an excuse as the idea of resistance by native peoples, or even the traditional british land mangement, or gaucho or cowboy, or big game hunter, spreads and proves itself as the great protector of all. A cowboy shall never wear plastic boots and the cossack never synthetic fox and the inuit synthetic seal; or the foxhunter a false trail. And where they stand animal and forest are abundant. The idea of new traditionalism is born and the inuit and others go back to hunting. The people of the british countryside reject all non animal clothing. The internet means they can talk, and foxhunter talks to mongol and we hunt with eagle.

 

So they come up with this . Synthetically engineered fur. Its the equivalent of drag hunting: pointless. And if they win? No more need for animals. Extinction beckons for all. And they have the access to the land they crave....the socialist and the global capitalist up each others ass; with PETA and Greenpeace the gimps.

 

Land steamrollered with oil pipelines and intensive crops, the human population expands and the planet destroyed. And they walk in the malls, plugged into their ipods; zombies who do not question what was there before their "civilised" ways.

 

Or we fight for the real thing; and it aint coke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote tryxie:

Funnily ToS was outraged, he said unethical, immoral, he almost sounded like an animal rights activist for a moment.

 

No tryxie because I take a moral authority from observation of nature. The AR activist has no moral authority other than his own. NAture is the only true authority IF there is no God. And if there is a god i dont recall any of his incarnations mentioning anything about go forth and multiply and grow thine ear on the back of the vermin and thy coat the size of a football field". Nah I checked; not there. No moral/ ethical precendent. The day i accept moral authority from a HUMAN is the day I lie over and die. Hitler, himmler, stalin, nietsche mussolini, pol pot, blair newkirk dalai lama........nah . Stuff that kind of morality. GOD I can accept. But my own personal belief is to see what nature says. It doesnt grow ears on mice or create life without seven vital functions therefore it is immoral; unnatural to do so. We are NOT the only animal ever to wear fur however; there have been hundreds of animals that have done that. All bar us as far as we know extinct; but it demonstartes it was natures idea not mans.

 

Quote tryxie:

Fox, Mink, Chinchilla could be grow in sheets, bead spreads, carpet, or football field sizes and not a dead animal in sight

 

Sounds like:

 

"Imagine railroads and vast plains of wheat , and great cities, and not a savage or a dead buffalo in sight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW

Very interesting points her on all sides. I am reading a book for a book group at the moment about a family who has a third child so that she can be an exact donor match for a middle child who has cancer. The donor is now 13 and wants to stop being a donor...you get the picture.

I will say that I am uncomfortable with the notion of genetic engineering and all the potential ramifications, of which there are so many that have not even been considered yet. The bottom line for me at this point in time, is that one does not save another at the expense of still another.

That said, Tryxie has a very interesting idea here that I will need to think about further in order to make any further commennt on it. Touch of Sable's objections and points are duely noted for the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tryxie;

 

I think it was in Larry Niven's Ringworld he had some ideas similar to this. several other sci-fi writters have put forth similar ideas. Of course that is what "Blade Runner" was all about!!

 

A simple but very complex situation man finds himself/herself in with the onset of the Roman and Chinese Empires.

 

We had mastered the mechanical and agricultural control of our environment. From this point on Nature no longer ruled. Man ruled the world and has every since. Despite minor philosophical differences the desired goal ws to master the environment and all those in it.

 

Rather crude at first but effective. Then the Romans went mad and lost it all to a bunch of 'heathens' who went around killing and maming each other "In God's Name". Similarly the Chinese went through similar cultural roll-overs.

 

There were still many 'indigeonus' cultures around the world that were still living a 'Natural" existence but the vast majority have been gradually 'civilized'.

 

Like it or not, God died a long time ago and the Nature we so long for and romanticize over is long dead as well. The "Back to Nature" movement blew up.

 

So now we're in a state of transition from a Godless and Natureless species headed to either oblivion or self realization as a species.

 

Our abilities have outrun our moralities and perceptions of direction or destination since Roman times.

 

To farm or not to farm. To clone or not to clone. To fantasize a bygone existence or cope with the current situation. To make sense of our material production or wantonly create and consume.

 

Rational thought and the ability to make sense of the options available to us is the only plan for survival.

 

If in the earth's resources accounting farming makes the most sense or cloning huge blankets of designer furs makes the most sense is a discussion I don't think we are prepared to havewhen we can't rationally decide the best health plan or housing and feeding the exploding world population.

 

 

OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now imagine if the oil companies can say:

 

"arrrr welll no problem now because we can GROW you fur. So get the hell out of here."

 

Because they will.

 

I'm sorry ToS, but that has to be the most stupid thing you have ever said.

 

We already grow fur, the oil companies have not used that as an excuse for continued exploration. Activist groups regularly protest about the oil companies polution and never once have companies turned round and said because we can ranch fur there should be no protests at what they do. Just because an alternative means of fur production may be available it would not alter that perspective.

 

Actually what I was talking about would actually promote more animal husbandry which would place more pressure on oil companies to clean up their act and reduce pollution.

 

I'm bemused by your stance on this because so far your whole argument against me is in the support animal husbandry, which I am fully endorsing. My only suggestion is that instead of ranching a caged animal we grow skin cells. This in no way alters the balance of the current situation.

 

You try to argue against it on moral grounds, but the morality and ethics have already been debated and declared acceptable, hence the use of a donor/ recipient giving skin cells to be gown and grafted back. This is merely an extension of that acceptance.

 

You claim that you take a moral authority from observation of nature. But can you give morality to what is an amoral subject? If you are trying to proscribe it our morality then surely it must have the responsibility to exercise those morals and the rights to do so. This is animal rights issue! and you have expounded on numerous occasions that animals don't have rights. Even if they did, so what. Where would the rights violations be? No animals would die in this process, its better to keep the donors healthy and well looked after, isn't it? Harvesting a few cells from an animal in the wild would be less harmful than tagging it for research purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, all hail the king of rational debate.... Sorry, I meant Irrational dictation. Count yourself lucky Tryxie, at least you haven't been branded a Nazi or Racist yet..........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote tryxie:

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject:

 

touchofsable wrote:

 

Now imagine if the oil companies can say:

 

"arrrr welll no problem now because we can GROW you fur. So get the hell out of here."

 

Because they will.

 

 

I'm sorry ToS, but that has to be the most stupid thing you have ever said.

 

We already grow fur, the oil companies have not used that as an excuse for continued exploration. Activist groups regularly protest about the oil companies polution and never once have companies turned round and said because we can ranch fur there should be no protests at what they do. Just because an alternative means of fur production may be available it would not alter that perspective

 

end tryxie quote

 

Sorry tryxie that is an incorrect statement when I have given you several references where exactly that is happening re the Evenk, their fur industry and the oil companies. I suggest you take a tour of www.arcticphoto.co.uk to see this in all its reality.

 

It is a culture clash between indigenous peoples and western greed for non renewable resources. And throughout the 1970s all the companies like ICI did actually say that their new fabrics offered a new uncruel future. Indeed companies like BP are still saying that the are offering a "new" life to these people. All we see is alcoholism and misery as a result. So they stand.

 

The fact that these are non renewable tells us the folly of what we are headed for. As OFF says, many civilisations before ours have f***** things up by trying to maste nature. The sahara desert is a man made creation through gross stupidity and lack of foresight; and resulted in the decline of civilisation there.

 

But this is the first time we have threatened the entire planet. And it must stop there is no possible alternative. In the meantime indigenous peoples all over the planet are fighting this. Again the link:

 

http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?country_id=13

 

But it isnt just indigenous peoples. Its rural peoples everywhere. Several Labour mps in Wales have campaigned with vile lies about sheep farming for example; saying that it is a waste of land. Obviously they have other ideas for it demonstrated by their wanton and ruthless destruction of countryside; ironic that a party who banned foxhunting have effectively destroyed vast habitats.There is a huge backlash and a massive rural urban divide, demonstrated by the massive swing to the Conservatives in Monmouthshire because of the mp david davies campaigning on rural issues. In mid wales mps like Lembit Opik have been keen too to distance himself from the anti hunting stance of other members of his party, and has clung on by going for the middle way. Despite Labour dominance of the national assembly, nationalists, Tories and Libs have managed to unite against their exceses, and shown them up for what they are. Corrupt, wasteful and anti rural. They curently criticise monsanto for dumping agent orange but it is they who allowed them to do it nobody else.

 

Now Sta; as for the accusation of Nazism; all I have done is point out to all here that the only historical prcedent for hunting (and smoking) bans were the nazis. That they, through Hitler's praise of nitezche, and Himmler's buddhism, came up wih the idea of animal rights. The fact that

"moral authority" can be taken from Man and not God or nature has seen the vilest century ever for destruction and war. And still we allow certain people to argue from a moral platform that is wrong. Nature is ammoral. God may exist and therefore if he does he has moral authority. BUT people do not. And if you allow them to they become dictatorial. I am NOT a dictator since I do not wwant to force my views on others. I was asked if I wanted to be a mod here and nothing would I want less for example. It is NOT me who wants to force people to my morality; rather, that we all have respect for each others views UNTIL they try to opress us. A foxhunting ban, only ever before introduced by the nazis, is oppressive; dictatorial. And anyone who supports it cannot whinge when they ban fur....which they will.

 

What makes Blair's view of foxhunting more moral than mine? We are two people that is all. It is NOT me that is opressing people. What is more I look to nature for morality. It is amoral so therefore there is NO value or truth in morality of any kind, other than basic taboos held by most societies. As for two million years man has used animals, it is clearly not immoral to do so. Howver as no human society has ever held up young child sex as normal then it is safe to say that that is immoral. The fact that nature produces bad shit through interbreeding also suggests that inter family sex is not right. Yes there have been societies in which ritual murder have held, but this was based on religious doctrine not natural law.

Aztec sacrifice for example. But generally murder is considered wrong. So there is a basic morality which exists for human society. Hunting has only been considered immoral since Hitler. Hitler ...or Blair...or Ingrid Newkirk...are not people I believe should ever have been allowed to dictate human morality.

 

We must return to natural man to find out the real morality among humans; a moality with respect for nature and thanks for its ability to infinitely renew itself with careful stewardship. This is as true for foxhunting in the UK; which protects the only habitats left for many animals...red squirrel and songbirds for example.

 

If we continue on a path of use of non rennewable resources we will destroy the whole planet.

 

And if we dont not need animals any more then they will all die. At the moment, a society which considers the killing of polar bears immoral because we have alternatives to fur, is the exact same society wiping them out by causing global warming .

 

So a society that can grow its own synthetic meat and fur? fat chance animals have of a continued existence.

 

Waht would happen to the sheep and green fields of wales if we are not able to continue with this lifestyle? Even factory farming has made it difficult enough. The farmers will have to sell land to survive, and shopping malls and developments and intensive gm soya (the only thing that can grow here other than grass) will replace them. And as the sheep and green fields vanish, so will the red kite and the otter, the fox and the badger, the deer and the great crested newt. As I have already seen happen over and over again in my short life thanks to the evils of welsh socialism working hand in hand with global corporations raping the land.

 

Again back to morality. Quote tryxie;

You try to argue against it on moral grounds

 

Yes I do.....but my morality comes from natural law. If there is no such thing as morality, except in the minds of men, or the laws of god, then what are we left with? Nature. Nature is ammoral. However it DOES have law. And ALL life forms have seven viatl functions. The creeping flesh you advocate does not. It is therefore against natural law....rather than human morality. So for example, it is natural law that was actually only rediscovered in the late middle ages, that for land to be rich in nutrients you have to have animals shit on it once in a while. Now all your wonderful science FORGOT that; basic natural law. Hence monsanto and the eco disater in Argentina. Hence the use of ddt and other chemical on intensive crops to produce arteficailly high yields. The otter, eating poisoned fish was the first casualty. So yes; I am gettng pretty pissed off with all this wonderful science and what it is doing to my country and others because it continually IGNORES the law of nature. Producing something alive without seven vital functions is dangerous to say the least; not least of which is that it could produce microbes that do not have the same reliance on "life" essence too. Making them indestructable. Flesh eating viruses may well have resulted for example from graft technology. Nature has an uncanny way of producing adaptations.....and some of these are not pretty.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToS it's already too late I'm afraid, we are well over the tipping point.

 

Already the Uk requires four times its land mass world wide to support it. This means that we are already far far out on a limb. If imports crashed, we are instantly unsustainable.

 

Government arent thick, they most know this, but have done nothing about it because of "want it now" greed. Even at two times Uk footprint world wide, we would have been unsustainable. Action should have taken place decades ago.

 

Measures to reduce population could have been started 30 years ago and would have started to make a difference in about 20 years. It didnt happen, and no government has even talked about introducing population control measures, except maybe China who did it the wrong way. So now all we will do is carry on raping other countries for our benefit. Because government certainly let the country go back to relative poverty compared to a flourishing world outside.

 

This means money will go into other countries in exchange for imports and gradually these countries' economies will grow and they will develop lifestyle the same as West, which means All indegenous and nomadic people will eventually fall by the wayside , be absorbed and destroyed by greed.

 

No country is going to sacrificially take the fall and collapse economically as an example to others not to do the same. The world will contimue to expand until we all fall together.

 

Measures to curb CO2 emissions and global warming, if successfull, will only hasten the outcome not prevent it, because no one is looking at the cause, only the symptoms.

 

It's all very sad, for us, and especially nomadic people who have had this thrust upon them. But hey - the planet will survive, and carry on regardless on it's own path of evolution, and there will still be plenty of mankind around, and they will still innocently be thinking "why us?, What did we do wrong?"

 

As for Tryxie's idea of cultured fur. There is no true argument against it. I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference because it has come from the same source, and grown the same way (absorption of nutrients from a liquid etc.), and then cured and treated in the same way . it is the same "product".

 

Technology very difficult though, as you would be culturing several cell types which have to grow in accordance with each other, not just a single cell sheet which is what happens at the moment. Not sure now whether we will be around long enough to have time to develop this. And for those left behind, it wont be necessary to develop because there will be plenty of room for wild populations of fur bearers to flourish. And there wont be enough people with so much time on their hands that they are able to start developing PETA type thoughts in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just added an edit which actually adresed your latter point ravens...at the bottom.

 

As for the first thing of sustainability of the UK I agree. We have like the USA become parasitic on the rest of the planet.

 

We have a choice. We can wait for crooks like venezuela socialists to react, and do deals with us too but not the US. They...unhindered by respect for nature...will rape land faster than capitalism.

 

It simply has to stop.

 

David Cameron knows that; and he is from the rural culture in the UK that has known it for some time. We can be sustainable in the UK....but NOT at the rate which allows crooks to produce food and clothing from third world economies just to make the UK badly dressed, furnished and fed.

 

We require four times more than national yield because of the fat slovenly culture that Labour has supported for 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our society is NOT in a state of advancement scientifically and culturally. It is in divebombing decline. There is no solace in gameboys and ipods, and the youth mark themselves and commit sucided at a higher rate than ever. We cannot put a man back on the moon, and the posibility of advances in medicine has been betrayed by the ideology of prevention rather than cure and the pharmacutical companies . We drown in alcoholism and the streets are awash with vomit. London looks pretty at night if you like your shit disguised by clever lighting. Capitalism faces the gradual realisation that you can only return profit every year by cutting costs or quality; so those who do best sell us crap...but eventauuly the consumer is realising it. Britains economy, based on finacial services, hs survived by robbing people left right and centre...something that now they face paying for. This will bring the UK economy deservedly to its knees. We produce lower and lower quality culture for mass comnsumption by morons, and everyone looks and thinks the same.

 

This is your brave new world?

 

The new traditionalism is being manifest small but significant. Inuit society has drastically reduced youth deviance and suicide by returning their youth to hunting. The Evenk have gone back to reindeer farming and sable reserves encouraged by the WWF. Greenpeace are facing the realisation that they can only save the Sami forest by supporting the sami fur trade. But it is more than this. others in the west look for solace in traditional ways and by rejecting the culture of mediocrity.

The Kaiser Chiefs, the UKs most important band right now, have produced a vitriolic attack on blair's britain in their new album:

http://www.popworld.com/pages/newsitem?8F9FEA77-956D-4510-9031-5C1BADB5DCBA

 

Four hundred designers use fur on catwalks and lots used tweed. Julin Mcdonald has faced PETA criticism by recreating the 40s fox on the shoulder look that I actually saw girls in london wearing the other night.

 

The only chance that society in the west has is to realise what it is that makes us tick, what it it that we find beautiful, what it is that we enjoy. What it is that is real human nature. To realise that the culture of mediocrity is the prodct of bankrupt global capitalism which has to sacrifice on quality to rturn better dividends every year. Its over. They can do it no longer without something breaking. We simply must say no to this brave new world. Because it is crap and mediocre, and gives us no aspiration or liberty or fulfilment.

When two million people went hunting over christmas there is a clue there as to the real culture of these islands which will gradually assert itself. And grown fur is about as irrelevant as drag hunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it weird that people blow this out of proportion. Cultured fur, if it were possible, would NOT be genetic engineering. It would simply be allowing the skin and hair cells that occur naturally to grow in a laboratory environment. Skin and hair cells are NOT alive in the sense that an animal or human is alive. Yes, they metabolize nutrients, produce waste products and reproduce but they are not alive. They are just cellular "muck" that is molded into whatever form the scientists shape them into.

 

I, for one, find the idea of cultured fur QUITE intriguing!

 

I like the idea above where it was mentioned that the cells could be kept growing so that the fur could react to its environment. I think, not only would that be impractical, it would be unnecessary. Viable cells (aka: "living cells") would need to be fed nutrients and kept growing for a long time. If the nutrients stopped or if the growing conditions turned unfavorable, the cells would "die" and start to decompose. So, basically, your expensive cultured for would ROT!

 

The fur would need to be tanned just like normal fur or else it would be very expensive and difficult to care for and it would not last very long at all. Besides, with all the technology we have right now, it would be very short-sighted to keep the fur viable just for a few novel features like that.

 

Think about all the technology we have at our disposal, TODAY!

  • We have synthetic compounds that change change color in response to temperature or electrical signals.
  • We have orgainc polymers that shrink, expand and change shape in response to temperature, moisture or chemical signals.
  • We have all sorts of microelectronic gizmos that can send and receive electrical signals to carry out commands via wireless transmission.
  • We have all different kinds of nanotechnology (Sensors, actuators, motors, piezoelectric elements and other microscopic machines) which can do seemingly miraculous things yet remain virtually invisible to the unaided eye.

 

Just THINK of the possibilities!

  • Fur that changes color when it gets cold or hot.
  • The hairs can stand up on end or lie flat.
  • There can be miniature transmitters and receivers inside the fur that make the fur get bushier when another person wearing the same kind of coat approaches.

 

We also have the technology to grow skin in any shape we want by creating a 3 dimensional form called a "matrix" on which to grow the cells. We could be able to grow fur in any shape we want!

 

Imagine!

[*]A pair of cultured fur underwear. Grown in a laboratory and given special properties.

[*]Fur on both sides. Fox-like hair on the outside. Chinchilla-like hair on the inside, next to the wearer's skin!

[*]A perfectly seamless garment. No buttons. No zippers. No snaps. No Velcro. No drawstrings.

[*]Laced with temperature-sensitive polymers that shrink when they reach 98.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great results of modern technology just here locally produced by the main bio tech company include massive Agent orange dumping and the creation of GM soya that wiped out the Argentine rainforest while our wonderful honest media and PETAphiles lied in double speak and said it was beef farming that was doing it. Also this area was the first area in which otter vanished for no apparent reason; now proven without doubt to be the result of bio chem pesticides. PCBs produced by monsanto.

 

Now that is the people you are trusting with this?

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,2011024,00.html

 

As far as I know Monsanto are the only comapny that have ever mentioned the possibility of synthetically growing meat and fur. Not only should they not be allowed to do it; they should actually be wound up as a criminally negligent company; for real crimes against the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so far the discussion has been based on the notion that what makes fur the stuff we so admire is entirely given by nature or genetic. Therefore so long as a tissue culture has adequate nourishment it could generate the same effect.

 

But I'm wondering how an animal's environment shapes what we know as fur. Could it grow right if there's no animal inside that knows where it needs to be scratched and licked to maintain its loft?

 

Assuming that these environmental influences wouldn't significantly compromise the product, it does indeed raise the possibility of realigning current alliances by bluring current distinctions. One couldn't very easily distinguish cultured and skinned furs. There'd be a new faux that couldn't very readily be told for such.

 

Some antis might applaud the alternative. Others would be appalled because furs obtained from killed animals could so easily be taken for cultured ones. Since the goal of anti fur is fur abolition, they'd have to take arms against cultured furs in hopes of getting back to the way it was when you could easily tell what was made of animal skins.

 

You can already see that our own community would be split in new and unaccustomed ways, some of us questioning the biotech shortcut, others enthusiastically wearing it.

 

Interesting idea Tryxie, thanks for tossing it out.

 

frugalfurguy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...