Capitalism is on of many different systems of government that has been created on this planet. It also happens to be one of the most wasteful. It is an economic system that was created in a different time when resources were in abundance and people were not. In today’s world it is the exact opposite. Although Capitalism is wasting our natural resources, it is still one of the top economies and because of that we need to come up with a better system of government that is not as wasteful. Although Capitalism is an outdated system of economics, it still can function in today’s society. It allows for private companies to become huge multi national conglomerates without the government stepping in and controlling production of their goods. This allows for a free market in which anyone can play a part. There are no rules for how an item is to be made. The company has the right to waste as much of a resource as they want. Environmentalists might protest the company, but the company can still do whatever it likes. Modern capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses, as stated by the famous economist Ludwig Von Mises. This means that the people that buy the products of capitalism are the same people that cooperate in the production of those products. Despite the economic burden capitalism has on our planet it is still one of the most widely used, even though it is bad for the environment. Capitalism is a hazard to our planet for multiple reasons but mostly because of the pollution and waste that it creates. According to Hawkin, a notable environmentalist, for every 100 pounds of product we manufacture in the United States, we create at least 3,200 pounds of waste. The human race cannot continue to thrive if we continue to waste all those natural resources. As explained by Herman E. Daily, a known economist, we are now facing a historic juncture in which the limits to increased prosperity are not the lack of man-made capital but the lack of natural capital. If the countries in the world continue to waste natural resources at the same rate that we are now we will use up all the natural resources that are on this planet, and if that happens it will be a very sad day for humanity. When that happens, the end of civilization, as we know it will cease to exist. Just doing the morally correct thing can solve many problems associated with capitalism. The waste of natural resources can be prevented by creating new techniques for manufacturing goods so that not as much of a resource is needed to create the same item. The company can also try to find a substitute material so that they don’t need to use all of resource, but split the product half and half. The United States and other countries must band together to make changes in our system of economics. The governments must step in and enforce laws against the wasting of natural resources in such a flagrant manner. The future is not too late to change, and with the proper steps it is easily avoidable. In fact some steps have already been taken, but many more are still necessary to make sure that the human race lives on long after our generation is gone.
Originally posted by ark13Wow, you do put in a lot of effort. I am impressed. It won't help you, though. 😀
Capitalism is on of many different systems of government that has been created on this planet. It also happens to be one of the most wasteful. It is an economic system that was created in a different time when resources were in abundance and people were not. In today’s world it is the exact opposite. Although Capitalism is wasting our natural resources, ...[text shortened]... are still necessary to make sure that the human race lives on long after our generation is gone.
Originally posted by ark13Hogwash and a strawman.
Capitalism is on of many different systems of government that has been created on this planet. It also happens to be one of the most wasteful. It is an economic system that was created in a different time when resources were in abundance and people were not. In today’s world it is the exact opposite. Although Capitalism is wasting our natural resources, it is ...[text shortened]... are still necessary to make sure that the human race lives on long after our generation is gone.
Computer Crime It's the weekend, you have nothing to do so you decide to play around on your computer. You turn it on and then start up, you start calling people with your modem, connecting to another world, with people just like you at a button press away. This is all fine but what happens when you start getting into other peoples computer files. Then it becomes a crime, but what is a computer crime really, obviously it involves the use of a computer but what are these crimes. Well they are: Hacking, Phreaking, & Software Piracy. To begin I will start with Hacking, what is hacking. Hacking is basically using your computer to Hack your way into another. They use programs called scanners which randomly dials numbers any generating tones or carriers are recorded. These numbers are looked at by hackers and then used again, when the hacker calls up the number and gets on he's presented with a logon prompt, this is where the hacking really begins, the hacker tries to bypass this anyway he knows how to and tries to gain access to the system. Why do they do it, well lets go to a book and see Avid young computer hackers in their preteens and teens are frequently involved in computer crimes that take the form of trespassing, invasion of privacy, or vandalism. Quite often they are mearly out for a fun and games evening, and they get entangled in the illegal use of their machines without realizing the full import of what they are doing , I have a hard time believing that so lets see what a hacker has to say about what he does Just as they were enthraled with their pursuit of information, so are we. The thrill of the hack is not in breaking the law, it's in the pursuit and capture of knowledge. , as you can see the hacker doesn't go out to do destroy things although some do. It's in the pursuit of knowledge. Of course this is still against the law. But where did all of this start, MIT is where hacking started the people there would learn and explore computer systems all around the world. In the views of professional hacking is like drugs or any other addictive substance, it's an addiction for the mind and once started it's difficult to stop. This could be true, as hackers know what they are doing is wrong and they know odds are they will be caught. But as I mentioned some hackers are just above average criminals, using there skills to break in banks and other places where they can get money, or where they can destroy information. What a hacker does at a bank is take a few cents or even a few fractions of a cents from many different accounts this may seem like nothing but when all compiled can be alot. A stick up robber averages about $8,000 each job, and he has to put his life and personal freedom on the line to do it while the computer hacker in the comfort of his own living room averages $500,000 a job. As for people destroying information, this is for taking some one down, destruction of data could end a business which for some is very attractive. It can cost a company thousands of dollars to restore the damage done. Now that you have an understanding of what a hacker is, it time to move on to someone closely associates with a hacker. This is a Phreak, but what is that. For the answer we turn to the what is known as the Official Phreakers Manual Phreak [fr'eek] 1. The action of using mischievous and mostly illegal ways in order to not pay for some sort of telecommunications bill, order, transfer, or other service. It often involves usage of highly illegal boxes and machines in order to defeat the security that is set up to avoid this sort of happening. [fr'eaking] v. 2. A person who uses the above methods of destruction and chaos in order to make a better life for all. A true phreaker will not go against his fellows or narc on people who have ragged on him or do anything termed to be dishonourable to phreaks. [fr'eek] n. 3. A certain code or dialup useful in the action of being a phreak. (Example: I hacked a new metro phreak last night.) The latter 2 ideas of what a phreak is, is rather weird. A Phreak like the hacker likes to explore and experiment, however his choice of exploring is not other computer but the phone system as a whole. Phreaks explore the phone system finding many different ways to do things, most often make free calls. Why do they do this, A hacker and phreaker will have need to use telephone systems much more than an average individual, therefore, methods which can be used to avoid toll charges are in order. . A phreak has two basic ways of making free calls, he can call up codes or PBXs on his phone and then enter a code and make his call or he can use Electronic Toll Fraud Devices. Codes are rather easy to get the phreak will scan for them, but unlike a hacker will only save the tone(s) number instead of the carrier(s). Then he will attempt to hack the code to use it, these codes range from numbers 0 - 9 and can be any length, although most are not more than 10. Electronic Toll Fraud Devices are known as Boxes in the underground. Most are the size of a pack of smokes, or than can be smaller or bigger. I will not go too deep. They are electronic devices than do various things, such as make outgoing calls free, make incoming calls free, simulate coins dropping in a phone, etc. People who Phreak are caught alot these days thanks to the new technology. Software Piracy is the most common computer crime, it is the illegal coping of software. People wouldn't think of shoplifting software from a retail store, but don't think twice about going home and making several illegal copies of the same software. and this is true because I myself am guilty of this. The major problem is not people going out and buying the software then making copies for everyone, it's the Bulletin Boards that cater to pirating software, that really cause the problem. On anyone one of these boards one can find an upwards of 300 - 1000+ of pirated software open for anyone to take. This is a problem and nothing can really be done about it. Few arrests are made in this area of computer crime. I will now devote a brief section to the above mentioned BBS' , most are legal and do nothing wrong. However there are many more that do accept pirated software, pornographic pictures, animations , and texts. As well as a trading area for phone codes, other BBS', Credit Card numbers, etc. This is where a majority of Hackers and Phreaks come, as well as those who continue to pirate software come to meet and share stories. In this is a new world, where you can do anything, there are groups that get, crack, and courier software all over the world some of them are called: INC: International Network Of Crackers, THG: The Humble Guys, TDT: The Dream Team. As well a number of other groups have followed suit such as Phalcon/SKISM (Smart Kids Into Sick Methods), NuKE, and YAM (Youngsters Against McAfee) these are virus groups who write and courier their work anywhere they can, they just send it somewhere, where anyone can take it and use it in any manner they wish, such as getting even with someone. All of these activities are illegal but nothing can be done, the people running these boards know what they are doing. As it stands right now, the BBS world is in two parts Pirating and the Underground, which consists of Hackers/Phreaks/Anarchists/Carders(Credit Card Fraud)/Virus programmers. All have different boards and offer a variety of information on virtually any subject. Well from all of this reading you just did you should have a fairly good idea of what computer crime is. I didn't mention it in the sections but the police, phone companies are arresting and stopping alot of things every day. With the new technology today it is easier to catch these criminals then it was before. With the exception of the BBS' the police have made some major blows busting a few BBS', arresting hackers and phreaks. All of which were very looked up to for knowledge in their areas of specialty. If I had more time I could go into these arrests but I must finish by saying that these are real crimes and the sentences are getting harsher, with alot of the older people getting out the newer people are getting arrested and being made examples of. This will deter alot of would-be computer criminal away.
Political Theories of Locke and Hobbes John Locke influenced Western political thought immensely. He lived during the age of political upheaval, the Glorious Revolution. During this time, the Tories and the Whigs, England’s first two political parties, joined together to rid their country of the tyrannical James II and welcomed as their new co-rulers his daughter, Mary, and her Dutch husband, William. Locke witnessed these events from the Netherlands, where he had fled in 1683 because he foresaw the accession of the absolutist and Catholic-leaning James II. These events greatly influenced his political theories. Throughout his writings, Locke argued that people had the gift of reason. Locke thought they had the natural ability to govern themselves and to look after the well being of society. He wrote, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which treats everyone equally. Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind…that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health or possessions.” Locke did not believe that God had chosen a group or family of people to rule countries. He rejected the “Divine Right,” which many kings and queens used to justify their right to rule. Instead, he argued that governments should only operate with the consent of the people they are governing. In this way, Locke supported democracy as a form of government. Locke wrote, “We have learned from history we have reason to conclude that all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in consent of the people.” Governments were formed, according to Locke, to protect the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right to property. Their rights were absolute, belonging to all the people. Locke also believed that government power should be divided equally into three branches of government so that politicians will not face the “temptation… to grasp at absolute power.” If any government abused these rights instead of protecting them, then the people had the right to rebel and form a new government. John Locke spoke out against the control of any man against his will. This control was acceptable neither in the form of an unfair government, nor in slavery. Locke wrote, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only have the law of nature for his rule.” In addition, Locke felt that women had the ability to reason, which entitled them to an equal voice- an unpopular idea during this time in history. Despite fearing that he might be censored, he wrote, “It may not be wrong to offer new ideas when the old traditions are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this idea of fatherly power’s probably has done, which seems so eager to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it: whereas if we consult reason or the Bible, we shall find she has an equal title.” Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, had a completely different view of human beings and how government should function. This is due to his background of growing up in England, during a time of religious, social, and political discord. Hobbes, was very interested in why people allowed themselves to be ruled and what would be the best form of government for England. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous work, entitled Leviathan. In it, he argued that people were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. Therefore, Hobbes believed that an absolute monarchy- a government that gave all power to a king or queen- was best. Hobbes believed that humans were basically selfish creatures who would do anything to better their position. Left to themselves, he thought, people would act on their evil impulses. According to Hobbes, people therefore should not be trusted to make decisions on their own. In addition, Hobbes felt that nations, like people, were selfishly motivated. To Hobbes, each country was in a constant battle for power and wealth. To prove his point, Hobbes wrote, “If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors?” Government were created, according to Hobbes, to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. The best government was one that had the great power of a leviathan. Hobbes believed in the rule of a king because he felt a country needed an authority figure to provide direction and leadership. Because the people were only interested in promoting their own self-interests, Hobbes believed democracy would never work. Hobbes wrote, “All man kind is in a perpetual and restless desire for power… that stops only in death.” Consequently, giving power to the individual would create a dangerous situation that would start a “war of every man against every man” and make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Despite his distrust in democracy, Hobbes believed that a diverse group of representatives presenting the problems of the common person, would hopefully, prevent a king from being cruel and unfair. During Hobbes’ lifetime, business began to have a big influence on government. Those who could contribute money to the government were given great status, and business interests were very powerful. In order to offset the growing power of business, Hobbes believed that an individual could be heard in government by authorizing a representative to speak on their behalf. In fact, Hobbes came up with the phrase “voice of the people,” which meant that one person could be chosen to represent a group with similar views. However, this “voice” was merely heard and not necessarily listened to- final decisions lay with the king.
Out of sight, out of mind. California’s “Three Strikes” law is based loosely on that very philosophy. When someone is a repeat violator of the criminal justice system, the best solution is to just lock him or her away for a life term without the possibility of parole. We should disregard any of the positive accomplishments these individuals have possibly made to society, their families and their ability to change their lives. Possibly the next step is to simply execute these repeat offenders. Why continue to spend the tax money of hard working Americans to support these criminals? Unfortunately, attitudes like the one just conveyed are too common and are fueling the fire of the “Three Strikes” law. Out of sight, out of mind has never been a sound solution to any problem, and the “Three Strikes” law is not a solution. The idea of locking up a repeat offender of the criminal justice system for life is incredibly too convenient. As human beings, most of us will respond to nurture and education. When dealing with criminals, this becomes known as rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is not something that always comes on the first try. In a very broad sense, it is like learning how to ride a bicycle. You try, and try again until you eventually are riding smoothly and freely down the street. Of course, you fall off. You might even fall twice, or three times, but eventually you do get it. Alcoholics do not always get sober the first time they attend Alcoholics Anonymous. Very often, it takes several attempts; this means several relapses into their dependency on alcohol. Once they are sober, they need to continue their rehabilitation for life. They need to continue with their weekly meetings and with the interaction of other rehabilitated alcoholics. These are the principals that need to be applied to criminals. The argument could be made that some crimes do not merit a second chance at freedom or even rehabilitation. This is true. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles and other violent offenders are an exclusive group of criminals who should serve a severe prison sentence. Repeat offenders of these crimes should absolutely be locked away for life. The “Three Strikes” law does not consider this. The circumstances of these offenses are never taken into consideration. Michael Riggs stole twenty dollars worth of vitamins and received a sentence of twenty-five years to life. He also had a criminal record and it was his past offenses not his current one that got him the lengthy sentence. Non-violent offenders need rehabilitation, not permanent captivity. The underlying idea here is that these criminals need help and rehabilitation at the very first offense. There is no denying that a criminal owes a debt to society and that jail time should be served. Programs need to be set up to rehabilitate criminals the first time they stray from justice. Prison to work programs will also create opportunities for these criminals to be able to find work after prison and have a purpose. A human being can not be put out of sight or out of mind, because we as Americans are not blind nor are we unforgiving.
Democracy Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and has been the primary goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman Empire, all the way to the government of the United States today. There are a few essential characteristics which must be present in a political system for it to be even considered democratic. One essential characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows people to freely make choices without government intervention. Another necessary characteristic which legitimates government is that every vote must count equally: one vote for every person. For this equality to occur, all people must be subject to the same laws, have equal civil rights, and be allowed to freely express their ideas. Minority rights are also crucial in a legitimate democracy. No matter how unpopular their views, all people should enjoy the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Public policy should be made publicly, not secretly, and regularly scheduled elections should be held. All of these elements and government processes are a regular part of the American government. Yet, even with all the above elements present in the governmental operations of our country, numerous aspects of the governmental process undermine its legitimacy, and bring to question if United States government is really a true democracy. Considering the achievement of complete democracy is most likely impossible, the political system of American government is democratic, but its democratic legitimacy is clearly limited in many respects. One of the first notable aspects of the United States government which brings the democratic legitimacy into question is the ever-occurring bias between classes of people that participate in the electoral voting. Class is determined by income and education, and differing levels of these two factors can help explain why class bias occurs. For example, because educated people tend to understand politics more, they are more likely to vote. In fact, political studies done at Princeton in 1995 clearly showed that 76 percent of all voters had college degrees. The same studies have been done in the next three years and showed the percentage steadily holding at 76 percent, except in 1997, when it dropped down by two percent (Avirett 11). This four to one ration of college educated voters versus non-college educated voters shows a clear inequality and bias in the American voting system. This also brings about the aspect of income. People with high income and education have more resources, while poor people do not, and instead, tend to have low political efficacy. This efficacy has been interpreted as feelings of low self-worth in the world of politics. “Vast majority of the lower class simply feels they do not have enough power or influence to make a change, thus choosing to exclude themselves from the electoral process” (Fox 13). Turnout, therefore, is low and since the early 1960s, has been declining overall (Fox 17). Although in theory the American system calls for one vote per person, the low rate of turnout results in the upper and middle classes ultimately choosing candidates for the entire nation. This concludes that because voting is class-biased, it may not be classified as a completely legitimate process. The winner-take-all system in elections may also be criticized for being undemocratic because the proportion of people agreeing with a particular candidate on a certain issue may not be adequately represented under this system. For example, “a candidate who gets forty percent of the vote, as long as he gets more votes than any other candidate, can be elected—even though sixty percent of the voters voted against him(Lind, 314). Such was the case with president Carter and the opposing Republican candidate Ford in the 1972 presidential election. Carter won the presidency by only one percent in the people’s pole, as well as just barely managing to get by in the electoral college with 297 votes over Ford’s 241 (Lind 321). This meant that almost fifty percent of the voting population did not agree with Carter’s views, yet had to endure them for at least next four years. Even though democracy is based on the principle of the majority rule, such close elections make the majority not that major at all, and seriously put a question mark on the democratic legitimacy of the United States government. Another element of the United State government that brings controversy to the democratic process and its legitimacy are the political parties. “Political parties in America are weak due to the anti-party, anti-organization, and anti-politics cultural prejudices of the Classical Liberals” (Avirett 23). Because there is no national discipline in the United States that forces citizens into identifying with a political party, partisan identification tends to be an informal psychological commitment to a party. This informality allows people to be apathetic if they wish, and willingly giving up their input into the political process. For the past fifty years, the Democratic party has been associated with the lower class people and minorities, while the Republicans have been supported mainly by upper class whites (Avirett 28). Still, there is absolutely no substantial stance that each party takes to show its allegiance to their “assigned” classes. In fact, Republican presidents like Ronald Regan and George Bush were credited with major accomplishments in cutting the tax for the lower income families and boosting the health reforms (Avirett 37). This contradicts the idea that Republicans only benefit the interests of the upper class citizens, and clearly shows the apathy of people giving up their input into the political process due to their partisan identification to a certain party. Though this apathy is the result of a greater freedom in America than in other countries, it ultimately decreases citizens’ incentive to express their opinions about issues, therefore making democracy less legitimate. Private interests are probably the strongest indicators of illegitimate democracy in the United State government. Private interests distort public policy making because, when making decisions, politicians must take account of campaign contributors. An interest may be defined as any involvement in anything that affects the economic, social, or emotional well-being of a person (Cerent 9). When interests become organized into groups, then politicians may become biased due to their influences. Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups—can pool their money and give up to ten thousand dollars per election to each House and Senate candidate (Lind 157). Consequently, those people who do not become organized into interest groups are likely to be underrepresented financially. This leads to further inequality and, therefore, greater illegitimacy in the democratic system. The most noted recent example of a politician being influenced by private interests is none other than president Bill Clinton. Just three months after winning his second term over Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential elections, Clinton was under the investigation under suspicion of acquiring campaign money by renting historical presidential rooms to wealthy businessmen (Avirett 18). Although he was acquitted of the charges, the scandal showed that private interest is a serious issue, and a clear problem in the political system of the United States. Regan’s administration was known for raising its campaign money from weapon-oriented factories, which made about 32 percent of his total campaign collection in the early 1980s (Avirett 15). George Bush’s campaign money came mainly from the Northern industrial cities, while Carter accepted majority of his money from the farmers in the South, promising them better trade relations with the troubled Asian markets in the 1970s (Avirett 22). All these are just a few examples of politicians taking every advantage possible to gain more money for their campaigns, undermining the legitimacy of the American government. The method in which we elect the President, on the other hand, is fairly legitimate. The electoral college consists of representatives who we elect, who then elect the President. Because this fills the requirement of regularly scheduled elections, it is a legitimate process. The President is extremely powerful in foreign policy making; so powerful that scholars now speak of the Imperial Presidency, implying that the President runs foreign policy as an emperor. The President is the chief diplomat, negotiator of treaties, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. There has been a steady growth of the President’s power since World War II. This abundance of foreign Presidential power may cause one to believe that our democratic system is not legitimate. However, Presidential power in domestic affairs is limited. Therefore, though the President is very powerful in certain areas, the term Imperial Presidency is not applicable in all areas. This was particularly evident in the last decade, with President Bush and Clinton exercising the “Imperial Presidency” as far as international affairs were concerned, yet being limited when it came to domestic issues and approval from the House and the Senate. Although Bush had strong control over military measures taken against Sadam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait, he was still in “check” by congress as far as the oil market was concerned, particularly the domestic oil production in the United States (Cerent 44). Clinton also had the power, along with the leaders of NATO, to declare and execute war against raging Serbia. Still, he was bound by Senate regarding the expenses put into the Balkan conflict, and had to rely on the congress to approve further monetary transactions (Cer
Analysis of President Bush's post-cold war intervention policy What Leads to Intervention?: A Case Study of Intervention During the Bush Administration As Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful armed force in a world plagued by small military crises, the question ultimately becomes: when does a crisis call for intervention? From 1988 to 1992, this was President George Bush’s dilemma. The days of the United States fearing embroilment in international affairs due to the towering menace of the USSR and global destruction ended at about the same time as Bush ascended the Presidency. However, with the threat of the USSR gone, the importance of small scale conflicts had taken priority in maintaining world peace. Further, the fall of communism had left the United States with a leading role in world politics. In that position, with a powerful armed force behind it, the United States carried the heavy responsibility of how and why to use it’s new found eminence. That responsibility fell onto the shoulders of Mr. George Bush as the first American President to sit in that exalted position. His actions would determine the United States’ place in the new world order and set the path that future Presidents would have to carefully tread. The world order that President Bush inherited was of a vastly different character then that of all his predecessors. The Cold War environment that the world had just left behind had provided a clear framework for national security policy and the use of the US military. The environment that Bush walked into was an environment filled with disagreement and confusion over the new framework with which the US should operate. It was also an environment with which the role of Congress was almost eliminated as President Bush continually authorized military operations without the full consent of Congress. It was an environment where the executive held the power to use the military based on his own intent. During his term in the Presidency, George Bush was confronted with many opportunities to demonstrate his intent for the US military. The four years while Bush was President saw crisis situations occur with alarming frequency. In each of these crisis areas, gross human rights violations were committed. In some cases he reacted with swift military action, in the name of humanitarianism, while in other cases he allowed sanctions to do the job. If anyone is still reading this, you need to get a life. But you deserve a prize for your perserverance. So if you mention it, I'll give you a recomendation. The crisis situations where he advocated a military intervention and the situations where he did not both tell the whole story. In analyzing these actions, it can be ascertained which variables promoted a military intervention and which did not. The Variables There are many variables that could influence the United States’ decision to send a military intervention, however very few are relevant, quantifiable or could possibly have a strong influence over such an important decision. Therefore, based on published literature and observation there appear to be five compelling variables which would have
La opinión pública condena rotundamente el uso de animales por su piel (pelaje). Pocas explicaciones se necesitan para razonar por qué. Las pieles se consideran como un cruel símbolo de status lujoso y poco más. Pero el cuero no siempre recibe tal condena. De hecho a menudo se considera como un práctico subproducto de la industria cárnica; ecológicamente correcto; un producto de calidad fácilmente disponible para todos. Sin embargo, el mito y la ignorancia rodean su producción. Proporcionamos las razones por las que deberíamos condenar el cuero tan apasionadamente como condenamos las pieles.
Hechos sobre las pieles
Alrededor de 30 millones de animales, principalmente visón y zorro - pero también chinchilla, marta e incluso lince - son mantenidos en cautividad en jaulas de alambre apiladas en filas, donde son incapaces de seguir sus instintos naturales y por tanto recurren a comportamientos estereotipados, automutilación y canibalismo. La muerte les llega por gaseado, electrocución, inyección letal o desnucados. Existen unas 12 criaderos en Gran Bretaña (todos de visón), recluyendo entre 50.000 y 100.000 animales. La caza con trampas se estima que asciende a unos 5 millones de animales en todo el mundo, generalmente mediante trampas-cepo de acero que ahora son ilegales en Gran Bretaña.
El Cuero y el Mito del 'Subproducto'
Quienes compran productos de cuero pueden intentar tranquilizarse pensando que el animal del cual proceden ya había muerto para carne, de modo que poco importa que "utilicen" la piel restante para hacer un par de zapatos o una chaqueta. Sin embargo, sí importa porque haciendo esto estarán ayudando a subvencionar la industria cárnica. Comprar cuero asegura la continuidad de la industria masiva basada en el sufrimiento animal. No sólo el cuero, sino hasta la última parte del animal es vendida para hacer posible el sangriento negocio en su conjunto. La sangre se convierte en fertilizante o se usa como ingrediente de alimentos para mascotas. El pelo se saca para fabricar pinceles. Los huesos, pezuñas y cuernos se hierven para obtener gelatina que se usa para hacer jalea, cápsulas para medicamentos y vitaminas, dulces, galletas, película fotográfica, artículos de tocador, cosméticos y cerillas.
Derribando el Mito "Biodegradable"
La industria del cuero intenta lavar el cerebro del público haciéndoles creer que su producto es biodegradable y un compra realmente positiva para los que se preocupan por el medio ambiente. Después de todo, ¿alguien ha oido hablar de un plástico amistoso con el medio ambiente?
Sin embargo, lo que la industria del cuero no menciona es que en su estado natural el cuero no podría ser utilizado para hacer zapatos, botas, bolsos o cualquier cosa parecida. ¿Por qué? Porque en su estado 'natural' se pudriría extremadamente deprisa. No obstante, incluso antes de que se descompusiera, ¡tampoco podría ser usado porque en invierno se quedaría rígidamente duro y se rompería, o en verano muy suave y flexible! Al final del día esos zapatos de cuero no durarían mucho tiempo en su estado 'natural'.
¿Qué hacen los fabricantes de cuero sobre esto? Tratan el cuero de diversas formas anti-ecológicas para asegurarse de que no se pondrá rígido con el frío o fláccido con el calor y, lo que es más importante, ¡no se pudrirá! Si el cuero es tan biodegradable y ecológico, ¿qué hay de las muestras de cuero halladas en el norte de Alemania que se estimaron tener 12.000 años de antigüedad o los artefactos de cuero que se cree que datan del Neolítico y la Edad del Bronce en Europa?
Cueros exóticos
La mayoría del cuero en el Reino Unido se obtiene de pellejos de vacuno, ternera, oveja, cabra y cerdo. Sin embargo, muchas otras especies son cazadas y matadas en todo el mundo específicamente por sus pieles. Entre ellas las cebras, bisontes, búfalos, jabalíes, ciervos, canguros, caimanes, elefantes, anguilas, tiburones, delfines, focas, morsas, ranas, cocodrilos, lagartos y serpientes. Miles de tortugas marinas "Lepodochelys olivacea" en peligro de extinción son capturadas y despellejadas ilegalmente en México, únicamente para obtener su piel. Se estima que el 25-30% de la piel de cocodrilo para zapatos importada en EE.UU. y otros artículos de fauna salvaje están obtenidos de animales en peligro de extinción capturados ilegalmente.
Cuero y Medio Ambiente
La cantidad de residuos y contaminación generada por la industria de elaboración de cuero es sorprendente. El hedor de una curtiduría es insoportable. No sólo contaminan el aire, sino que también contaminan el resto del entorno con el uso de una multitud de sustancias químicas muy tóxicas. Una estimación sitúa el coste potencial de una planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales de una curtiduría en el 30% de la inversión total demostrando que se trata de un problema importante.
Entre las sustancias usadas en la confección del cuero están: cal, sulfato sódico, emulsionantes, agentes desengrasantes no solventes, sal, ácido fórmico, ácido sulfúrico, sales de sulfato de cromo, plomo, zinc, formaldehido, grasas, alcohol, bicarbonato sódico, tintes, colas de resina, ceras, derivados de alquitrán vegetal y acabados basados en cianuro. Las aguas residuales de una curtiduría también contienen grandes cantidades de otros contaminantes como proteínas, pelo y sal.
La industria del cuero también usa una tremenda cantidad de energía. De hecho, sobre la base de cantidad de energía consumida por unidad producida, la industria del cuero se situaría junto a las industrias de obtención de papel, acero, cemento y petróleo como gran consumidora de energía.
Volviendo al inicio de la terrible cadena de sucesos que concluyen en un producto de cuero, encontramos problemas ambientales ya muy evidentes. Las granjas que crían los animales son de hecho un problema ambiental por sí mismas. Las reses expulsan metano (por la boca y el ano), que se produce durante la fermentación en sus intestinos. Cada animal emite una media de 48 kg de metano por año, y más que se produce de sus excrementos. De hecho, cerca de la mitad del metano de la Unión Europea procede de la digestión y los excrementos de rumiantes.
La producción lechera comercial no es sinónima de prácticas ecológicamente aceptables. Las granjas lecheras son a menudo unidades especializadas con altos aportes de nitrógeno y fósforo - como fertilizante y como pienso comprado. Los costes de almacenaje son elevados, a menudo no existe tierra arable sobre la que aplicar los desechos y el agua sucia, y muchas unidades también cultivan maíz que puede provocar elevadas pérdidas de nitrógeno y fósforo por lixiviación, arrastre y erosión.
Las vacas que producen una media de 35 litros diarios de leche puede llegar a necesitar hasta 100 litros de agua potable por día. Este requisito aumentará en condiciones calurosas.
La ganadería vacuna tiene otras contribuciones indirectas al efecto invernadero. Por ejemplo, los combustibles fósiles que son quemados para generar energía destinada a la obtención de fertilizantes, con los que se abonarán las cosechas de forraje con las que muchos animales son alimentados. La cría de vacuno es también intensiva en cuanto a tierras, con unas 340.000 hectáreas de tierras de labranza destinadas a cultivar alimento para el ganado en Gran Bretaña, y los pastos para el ganado ocupan más de un millón de hectáreas. Si parte de esta tierra estuviese plantada de árboles en su lugar, éstos absorberían CO2 de la atmósfera mientras crecen.
El informe "Crisis en las Colinas" de Wildlife Trusts demuestra que la biodiversidad en las tierras altas está siendo literalmente corroida por la ganadería ovina. Sobre un 70% de los brezales de Inglaterra y Gales están en peligro y la mitad de las aves que se reproducen en las tierras altas están en descenso. Se han realizado estudios cuantitativos en las principales áreas de tierras altas en el Reino Unido que señalan que la pérdida de biodiversidad ha alcanzado niveles nacionales inaceptables.
Carne y Cuero
El tipo de carne que se adquiere en el Reino Unido tiene un efecto directo sobre el tipo de cuero disponible para la industria de manufacturas de cuero. Si todo el mundo decidiera que sólo quiere comer corderos jóvenes de menos de un mes, la piel a disposición de la industria del cuero sería muy fina, suave y flexible.
Productos suaves o Mejor Cuero de Crías
Cuanto más joven sea el animal a la hora del sacrificio, más suave y delicada será la estructura de la flor y menor es la probabilidad de deterioro por arañazos, parásitos, tiña, contaminación por estiércol, despellejado incorrecto o salado inadecuado. La piel de una hembra presenta normalmente una flor más fina que la de un macho y posee una estructura de fibras más suelta obteniéndose un cuero más suave y elástico.
Cuero = Sufrimiento Animal
Las industrias ganaderas producen el cuero que emplean las industrias manufactureras. Para empezar los animales son criados en sistemas intensivos, semi-intensivos o extensivos. En otras palabras pueden proceder de granjas industriales como es el caso de los terneros (los cajones para terneros están prohibidos en este país pero los terneros todavía son criados en interior en grupos) o por el contrario otros animales (como las ovejas) pueden ser criados extensivamente en áreas de tierras altas montañosas donde se les deja más o menos a su aire sufriendo los extremos del clima, enfermedades y falta de alimento adecuado. Incluso las apacibles vacas lecheras que a menudo pueden ser observadas pastando en la campiña inglesa durante el verano, pasan 6 meses encerradas durante el invierno. Algunas vacas lecheras están realmente encerradas durante todo el año.
Tanto el vacuno como las ovejas sufren diversos problemas de salud y son sometidos a diversos procedimientos dolorosos según su especie y sexo, como la castración, el marcado en la oreja, el corte del rabo, la inseminación artificial, las laparoscopi