178
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
178 points (87.1% liked)
Apple
17435 readers
25 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Leather is a byproduct of the beef industry.
At no point will any fewer cattle be 'processed' for meat because of this decision.
What does change is the utility ratio of the beasts. Well use less of each beast making the tragedy of their death more meaningless.
Leather is far more environmentally friendly than plastics, with a small caveat for the tanning process' chemicals, and emissions from the beasts themselves (though that's attributable to beef production.)
Leather doesn't degrade into micro plastics.
So unless Apple is also reducing its beef consumption* by the equivalent amount it's pointless.
* yes, it'll be non-zero.
This is wrong in so many ways.
Making cows(not beasts) less viable to grow because they are more expensive because the farmers aren't getting money for their other body parts is a win!
Less leather bought = more expensive cows = less people able to afford cows = less cows murdered.
You're not considering that the meat will still be sold, and the leather doesn't actually decide how many cows are killed more than the meat does.
You're not understanding what I said at all.