Hacker News Reader

Comment by matwood | Hacker News Reader

But, it only takes one big company like Apple to move some production and companies will start to pop up again.

Smaller companies are also bringing manufacturing back to the US. I've listened to podcasts where the https://originmaine.com owner discusses the local supply chain of leather and other material in order make clothing like jeans and boots.

View on HN

Leather has the advantage that one animal produces multiple things -- US beef and milk production produces leather as a byproduct. If people want local beef and milk, there's also going to be local leather. Leather keeps better than meat, so as long as the demand for beef (measured in cows) exceeds the demand for bovine leather (also measured in cows), stocks go up and prices go down until someone decides a local supply chain is worthwhile (or until someone decides it's not worth it to pay for the warehouse for unsold leather).

FYI: animals don’t “produce” leather, it’s their skin.

It always surprises me how humans collectively “mechanize” nature, so it’s easier to rationalize exploiting it.

What kind of lame attempt at policing and changing language is this? Yes, animals absolutely do produce leather. Go read a dictionary!

Similarly, my stomach produces stomach acid, my sweat glands produce sweat, etc., and none of that is "mechanized" or used for any kind of industry, it's just how my (and your) body works.

How would you have phrased his "US beef and milk production produces leather as a byproduct"?

“Produce: bring forth, yield; to bring into existence; give rise to; to make something“

So “FYI” yes they do.

We similarly mechanize the growing of organisims in their own biodegraded guts and eat them afterward. Everything sounds grusome when you frame it that way. Being an apex predator comes with advantages as well as responsibilities to best utilize ourselves as we nessarily consume other organisms and not dirt.

Animals are raised to be harvested for what they are, there is no moral component, provided we make some effort to limit the suffering.

If cattle benefitted from domesticating humans and could pull it off, they would do so with pride.

"Slaves are raised to work the fields, there is no moral component, provided we make some effort to limit the suffering."

Is this equally true to you?

Slaves are people, and like other people, at least in general tend to be capable of moral consideration. Your house cat will eat your dead body without considering the moral implications.

That's total BS.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/23/cats-bo...

The cat might eat your dead body because it's trying to avoid starvation (after all, your ghost presumably isn't continuing to feed it, and it's stuck inside with your corpse and doesn't know how to use your cellphone to call for help), just like humans did in the Andes mountains, as seen in the movie "Alive". There's nothing immoral about eating a dead animal to survive.

You missed the "without considering the moral implications" bit. Your house cat isn't even aware of the concept of morality, or any recognized expression of it, and will avoid eating your body mainly because it's gross.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com