Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvaldes | Hacker News Reader

Still needs to be tanned and dyed. With the same products. As a lot of the problem with the leather is that tanning products and inks are poisonous, IMHO probably is not a solution for this problem. Mycelium is more porous than leather (probably), so it could absorb more product.

But I could be wrong. Just speculating. Better than plastic for sure if enough strong and can be certified non-allergenig or a cause of asthma.

View on HN

A lot of the benefit hopefully comes from reducing the carbon footprint that would have gone into a cow.

That cow will still be raised unless the higher cost of the meat (via a lower demand for leather due to mycelium) drives down demand (for meat).

For now. But it removes yet another barrier to consume less cows. Humanity solves problems step by step. It's ok if it takes a century.

I don’t think we have a century to solve the problem with greenhouse gases.

A lot of the problem with the leather is that you have to kill cows, lambs, etc. for fashion.

But on the plus side a leather jacket can last a lifetime. And they cost mid-hundreds to low-thousands for a decent one so people aren’t buying as many of them as they would a $15 plastic / polyester throwaway jacket from wal mart.

Presumably we're killing the cows and lambs for fashion AND food? Even if we stopped using animal leather materials tomorrow, I doubt it would put much of a dent in the industry.

(For the record I'm all for eating meat, but I agree that beef is unsustainably bad for the environment compared to other animal options like poultry and eggs.)

But leather subsidises the cost of raising animals for meat so reduced demand for it should raise the price of beef. Ideally that would encourage people to eat less beef, and eat more sustainable meats (or no meat at all).

If livestock ranchers cannot sell the skins as leather, they can sell them as cracklings. Or as parchment. Or as gelatin. Or as pet food. Or as fertilizer.

As long as the demand for some product causes the animal to be raised, the undesirable parts will become by-products.

A competitor for leather would depress the price of animal leather, which would tend to raise the price of meat, probably disproportionately for the best cuts. Forelegs, brains, and chitterlings would go up a few cents a pound, while tongues and tenderloins would go up by dollars per pound.

That might encourage people to eat less meat, but it might also encourage them to substitute the cheaper cuts of meat--which include the skins. Rawhide soup, anyone?

It wouldn't put a dent in the industry at all. We raise and kill cows for their meat, not their skins. Their skins are just a handy byproduct. Eliminating the cow-leather market won't change that at all; it might make beef slightly more expensive (I imagine most of the cost of leather is in the processing, not the raw hide), but that's not going to affect beef consumption.

If we mostly eliminate beef (in favor of artificially-grown beef, for instance, which might be a reality in 10-20 years), that'll make cowhides much, much more expensive, so people simply won't be getting leather car seats, leather coats, etc., except maybe for extremely high-end markets.

Putting personal preference (taste, price, etc.) aside, I'm curious what other reasoning is behind your position of being "all for eating meat" (if any)?

I'm assuming here that by mentioning it in the same sentence as you say beef is bad for the environment, you are talking about being for meat production on a global scale, and not just for your personal preference.

yes I too would like to know the reason for being "all for eating meat". I think most reasonable people wouldn't eat meat (provided reasonable food alternatives) if they got to know the animals and how much they suffer. (just like most Americans would refuse to eat dogs or cats)

> ... the problem is that we have to kill cows for fashion

This is a false problem.

Clothes are more than fashion. Leather extracted from dead animals is a big ally against animal cruelty and I'm not trolling. Lets remember why we use it. It saves millions of worker humans from having horrible injuries, painful deep cuts and mutilations.

Could workers rely equally in mycelium for not losing a finger or a leg by a saw if they stumble?

Is mycelium flammable? When I'm using an arc welding torch I want to wear a solid >1mm leather apron. If something goes wrong, leather will save my arms and body from a severe burning. Can filosophy or whisful thinking do the same for me?.

I would not hire a vegan worker if they stubbornly refuse to wear protective clothes arguing that we have pleather that "looks the same" (and burns like gasoline). Would be really irresponsible on my part to hire them.

> on the plus side a leather jacket can last a lifetime, vs polyester throwaway...

100% agree with this

Firemen haven't worn leather as primary protection for a very long time. In fact, I wear a fireman's Kevlar turnout when I weld.

I wear leather gloves, but wouldn't hesitate to use a knitted Kevlar alternative, especially since it would insulate much better.

I'm not very familiar with non-leather options for welding, but looking around I see fire proofed cotton and kevlar based garments as alternatives. Would you not be willing to hire a vegan welder if they provided their own protective gear that wasn't leather?

Here are some options I've seen but I really have no idea if they're good enough:

* https://www.amazon.com/Ironclad-HW6X-04-L-Heatworx-Heavy-Glo...

* https://www.amazon.com/ThxToms-932%C2%B0F-Resistant-Kevlar-G...

* https://apparelsolutionsinternational.com/products/fr-covera...

To me, the question is not whether the alternatives would be as good as leather but would be a good enough alternative to leather.

I wear Kevlar, but I'll note one great advantage to leather: it abrades and tears somewhat like skin and doesn't really catch like woven Kevlar can. If you're welding, you're likely also in the vicinity of spinning things, like cutting and grinding disks.

Obviously, it all comes down to balancing needs and risks. I just thought I'd point out how you can meet or exceed one requirement (flameproofing) but potentially create a new risk in the process.

> Would you not be willing to hire a vegan welder if they provided their own protective gear that wasn't leather?

It depends of what she/he consider protective gear. Kevlar is fine. Anything that is regulated, lawful, well tested, reliable and covered by the assurance is fine. Those new materials can't still be trusted at the same level and you don't want to be the first to discover in your company that they are acid permeable or burn like a torch when react with some chemical

To let some of your employees work with a lower protection against accidents than other employees, would be negligent and easily prosecutable in court. The non-vegane parents of a vegane killed in an accident would not doubt a second to sue you in this case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com