Brief Ethical Notes on Plant and Animal Fibres
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Trusted Clothes (Unpublished)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016
I hesitated a bit on the title of this piece as “Plant vs. Animal Fibres” or “Plant versus Animal Fibres” because these do not seem at odds to me, but, rather, at differences with the massive synthetic or man-made fibre industry.[i],[ii] ,[iii],[iv],[v] ,[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix] All under the rubric of textiles and fibres. And I only intend this as a general comparison and reflection between the two general categories with respect to sustainability. No okie dokie this time (you’re welcome!), just kidding okie dokie here we go:
Natural fibres themselves are very hairlike material from an animal, vegetable, or mineral (!), which can then be turned into various fabrics and yarns.[x] And this breaks up into the plant and animal fibres, as a general principle of division or classification. If you take the title “natural fibres,” then you can imagine two divergent branching lines for “animal fibres” and “plant fibres.” Subtleties follow from there. Some redundant starters are plant fibres come from plants and animal fibres come from animals, but what animals? What are the main ones in other words?
For the animal fibres, the core ones are alpaca wool, angora wool, camel hair, cashmere, mohair, silk, and wool; for the plant fibres, the central fibres are abaca, coir, cotton, flax, hemp, jute, ramie, and sisal.[xi],[xii] ,[xiii],[xiv],[xv],[xvi]
Plant fibres, as pointed out to me by a more knowledgeable-on-the-subject woman friend, have a lower carbon output in the whole harvest and production cycle, which makes sense, I guess.[xvii],[xviii],[xix],[xx] I think about cows and methane output, whereas plants, I would think, do not have that level of output.[xxi] That does a few points to plant fibres over animal fibres right off the bat.
Some concerns to my mind with the animal fibres is that you’re dealing with, though generally cognitively limited, a somewhat thinking, instinctive, and feeling being with pain receptors, a central nervous system, and so on and so forth, and this leads right into proper treatment of animals.[xxii],[xxiii]
They’re de-haired and sheared by the professionals, the farmers, and then the particular proteins are gather from the batches. And we here at Trusted Clothes do have concerns about the nature of the ethical acquisition and creation of fashionable goods. Cognizant, more or less, animals deserve due consideration.
Plant fibres, on the other hand, do not have issues to do with pain – no nervous system and no pain to be felt.[xxiv] By that moral calculus, it matters less, and only matters insofar as it’s a resource for other living things with a strong preference for cognizant beings. It’s an argument for tacit expansion of the moral sphere. But since animal fibres might cause less suffering, then plant fibres might be the more ethical choice in the decisions over the sustainable.
Animal and plant fibres come in many shapes and sizes – no surprise plus and even with the bonus cliché. But their uses can differ, and they’re being seen, together, as increased replacements for the synthetic fibres based on increased knowledge about the pollution in the environment.
So even under and below the synthetic versus natural fibres aspects of the industries, millions of tons of the man-made fibres, or synthetic fibres, thrown into the trash heap and not recycled to ruin possible decent life for our collective descendants, the natural fibre basic divisions, animal and plant fibres, might have additional ethical consideration based on the potential for pain of farming animals rather than plants for fibres. We have the technology. We have the demand. Can we make the consideration?
[i] natural fibre. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[ii] man-made fibre. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[iii] Wild Fibres. (2016, February 15). Animal Fibres.
[iv] Wild Fibres. (2016, February 15). Plant Fibres.
[v] Bailey, R. (2016, April 25). Plant Cells.
[vi] eukaryote. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[vii] prokaryote. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[viii] Bailey, R. (2016, April 25). Plant Cells.
[ix] University of Illinois Board of Trustees. (2016). The Science of Composting
[x] natural fibre. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[xi] natural fibre. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[xii] man-made fibre. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[xiii] Wild Fibres. (2016, February 15). Animal Fibres.
[xiv] Wild Fibres. (2016, February 15). Plant Fibres.
[xv] Bailey, R. (2016, April 25). Plant Cells.
[xvi] Bailey, R. (2016, April 25). Plant Cells.
[xvii] University of Michigan: Centre for Sustainable Systems. (n.d.). SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS SELECTION TOOL: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL FIBERS FOR AUTO APPLICATIONS.
[xviii] Time for Change. (n.d.). What is a carbon footprint – definition.
[xix] Bio-based News. (2015, April 8). Carbon Footprint and Sustainability of Different Natural Fibres for Biocomposites and Insulation Material.
[xx] O Ecotextiles. (2011, January 19). Estimating the carbon footprint of a fabric.
[xxi] US EPA. (2016, April 15). Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
[xxii] nervous system. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[xxiii] pain. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
[xxiv] Wild Fibres. (2016, February 15). Plant Fibres.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
