Can we make ecologically responsible synthetic garments? I certainly hope so, if only because we probably cannot trap enough wild fur to clothe everyone. I do not believe money or technology will resolve this problem, because I have no evidence it will, and because I have learned not to trust technology or wealth to eliminate moral dilemmas. Because we live, in such numbers, many animals, indeed many whole species, probably will not survive. And technology, by itself, won’t change this reality. That should explain why I enjoin respect for the indigenous cultures that, in my experience, have a deep rich understanding of the relationship between ourselves and the world that feeds, clothes, shelters and sustains us. I also appreciate Hugo for respecting a point of view so radically different from his own.

Your counterpoint would impress me a little more if you had addressed John’s point about the poisoned Belugas and how the manufacture of synthetics is harmful in a different way to wildlife.

Similar to the point you made weeks ago that any food production involves, ultimately, some degree of killing it would seem that the same is true of clothing.

So why is one more objectionable than the other?

BTW, you both know WAAAAAYYY more about this than I do so I’m asking this with a neutral mind.

I see fur as similar to cocaine and heroin; in going after Afghan poppy farmers or Colombian coca growers, there has to be a willingness to offer alternatives that can provide an equal level of prosperity. And the ecosystem has to be managed intelligently — the “fix” is long term.

In California, we permit gaming only on tribal Indian lands. As a short-term measure, I would be willing to see fur trapping and hunting coninue on First Nations lands, with the proviso that humane methods be used and that only First Nations people be allowed to take part in the hunting/trapping.

But selling it to rich ladies in Manhattan is not a traditional cultural practice…

First Nations people traded in ornaments and clothing for many thousands of years before Columbian contact. So selling furs and other adornments does constitute a traditional cultural practice. I have no brief for the fur industry, which has a long and ugly history of exploiting First Nations people, nor do I support fur farming. But for a First Nations community to make a wild fur garment and sell it does constitute a traditional cultural practice, and also, quite probably, one of the least ecologically intrusive ways of producing winter clothing.

For example, consider the St. Lawrence Gulf Belugas. Those unfortunate creatures have suffered such extensive poisoning that when they wash ashore, the authorities have to treat their carcasses as toxic waste. Those dying animals have a direct relationship to the polyester that goes into the North Face and other clothing that animal rights activists seem to consider humane. In the long run, wild fur trapping may provide one of the most, rather than one of the least humane methods of making warm clothes.

Talk about a false dichotomy you set up: kill animals for fur or have the forests clear-cut. There are more options.

I didn’t set up a dichotomy. I described what actually happened. I did not say, nor do I believe, that animal rights/animal welfare activists cannot work to reduce the non-indigenous fur industry in a way that respects indigenous and traditional cultures. I merely pointed out that, in the opinion of people I respect, that those who designed the campaigns that actually took place did so without taking indigenous people into account; that they actually did harm the interests of indigenous people, and that this process (again, in the opinion of people I respect) helped clear the way for much more serious and destructive assaults on the land, including clear-cutting; practices which also result in widespread habitat destruction.

Try “Acts of the Apostles.”

( I would but me dum dummmmm)

In practice, the indiscriminate fur boycott has brought severe economic hardship to cultures that have lived in balance, practically and spiritually, with the land for thousands of years. In many cases, this has left the land open for clear-cut logging, hydro-electric development, and various forms other industrial practices that have far more serious consequences for the ecosystem, including the animals, than hunting and trapping.