Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdpi | Hacker News Reader

“I created a fire hazard and put my personal beliefs ahead of my (and my neighbours’) safety”.

I agree that there are ethical concerns around animal products, and I can see why you would try to DIY your way out of those concerns, but animal welfare isn’t the only ethical concern in the world. Deliberately, knowingly circumventing fire safety standards puts you and others at risk, and that is a pretty non-trivial ethical problem of its own.

It’s somewhat dispiriting to see somebody specifically acknowledge that they know what the wool or synthetic materials are there for, then completely fail to address it.

View on HN

My guess though, is that the fire safety requirements of mattresses are almost entirely aimed at curbing the risk from smoking in bed.

If the author of the article doesn't smoke in bed, then they are circumventing the risk in a different way.

In the UK, the label that shows soft furnishings are fire retardant has a picture of a cigarette and match, which is what leads me to believe this was the primary risk.

And candles!

> But while smoking materials continue to be the leading source of deadly home fires, incidents involving candles have steadily increased. Candle fires have quadrupled to 16 400 a year over the last decade

https://www.flameretardants-online.com/news/archive?showid=1...

I’m not an expert in fire safety. I don’t have an opinion on how safe it is to ignore the flame retardant layer, but your argument is at least sane enough to pass the smell test. If the author had said that, I’d have been satisfied.

They didn’t even do that, though. They said “I don’t like my options for fire retardant, so here’s how I built a mattress without it”, with zero justification for why they thought it was acceptable, zero assurances that they put any thought into it.

> zero assurances

It is a personal, minimalistic blog that someone else submitted to HN. The argument that the bed fire risk comes mostly from smoking in bed seems straightforward so maybe they did not feel a need to spell it out.

While on the topic of fire hazards "[s]heep farming emits high volumes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and also drives carbon-emitting deforestation"[0] both which, I add, contributes to climate change which increases the likelihood and impact of forest fires which put human lives at risk.

[0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-e...

It's also interesting to see that they firmly state wool is not vegan. This while linking to an article that very clearly state that is not as black and white. In fact, wool can be vegan. Now, I understand that finding a layer of wool sourced from sheep kept as pets is probably next to impossible. But I feel like the author didn't even give it a go.

Side note, the article they link to about alternatives states

> The most common vegan alternative to wool is organic cotton. Now cotton is not perfect, as it requires a lot of water to produce, but I’ve found it to be the best functional alternative.

Which for clothes I guess is true. But it also is interesting to me how easily they brush past the water issue.

It is the sort of thing I personally often get stuck on as a consumer trying to do the right thing. There are so many things to weigh against each other that sometimes it seems like it is impossible to make the right choice.

I suppose making any choice is better than making no choices though. I just wish it was easier for me in these type of situations.

If you're uncertain about the environmental impact you could decide based on the many well-documented harms in all stages of the animal industry.

This is exactly what I mean. Why would I ignore the potential environmental impact so easily? What you just wrote reads to me as "Don't bother actually trying to figure out what impact your choice has, just choose on other factors and therefore still feel good about yourself".

Now, in this case, I know the amount of water used in the production of cotton is huge. Just look at the Aral sea (or rather what is left of it).

In the article it says this

> Farmed sheep don’t live as long as they naturally would and experience varying degrees of exploitation in their lifetime.

Okay, fair enough. Now suppose I source my wool from sheep that are kept well, but have shorter lifespans. If I'd then switch to cotton, I'd contribute to entire ecosystems being impacted due to water usage.

So what is the morally correct choice? Is there one? Can we as consumers even actually make an educated call here? I really do hope the answer to the latter is yes, but certainly isn't straightforward to me.

> reads to me as

That was not the intention with that claim. I meant to convey something more minimal: if you after investigation have no strong reason to think either is environmentally worse then let animal harm considerations break the tie.

> suppose I source my wool from sheep that are kept well, but have shorter lifespans. If I'd then switch to cotton, I'd contribute to entire ecosystems being impacted due to water usage.

What does "kept well" mean? If a sheep was really treated well in the sense of it not being subjected to the many harms that 99% of all sheep currently are subjected to and was individually cared for, including appropriate food and veterinary attention, then it would likely live much longer, unless someone kills it while still healthy and with years left to live, which does not sound like "kept well". Also, the water usage comparison depends on what type of cotton production you're comparing to, since there exists recycled cotton and various smaller scale production methods geared to reduce water usage.

As for the climate impact of wool see https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-e...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com