Who'd have thought it
apparently, money does carry the mark of the beast. £666 note next?
Slacktivist vegetarians and vegans have been writing strongly worded tweets after the Bank of England confirmed that there are animal fats in the new polymer £5 notes. The plastic fivers were introduced earlier this year to replace the UK’s battered and disintegrating stocks of paper £5 notes. While at the time the bank was …
Fuck sake. Do none of you know any vegans at all? It's not that obscure a lifestyle choice.
It's perfectly possible to get shoes and wallets that don't involve animal products. Many people do. There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money, and a lot of ethical vegetarians would be equally outraged. You don't have to be vegan to think that unnecessary cruelty should be avoided.
Who the fuck thinks "I'm making a more robust form of currency, what that needs is some dripping"?
I'd like to hear at what point in the animal hierarchy does the welfare of the animal become a primary concern?
For instance how many vegans "care" about the welfare of all the insects that get destroyed when their vegetables are harvested or pesticides applied? When do they "care" about the welfare of all the rodents that get viciously chopped up while still alive by harvesters, harvesting their corn/wheat/potatoes etc?
Or is it that the welfare of those animals isn't to be considered?
> Fruitarianism would be the appropriate choice of ethical food consumption
I'm not sure if you're joking, but believe it or not, that thing actually exists. Heard a bloke mention he was a "fruitarian" the other day. First I misheard it as "frittarian", as in someone who feeds exclusively on frittate (a sort of omelette), then I decided he was describing his occupation (we used to have barmen and now we have baristas [sic], so why not fruitarians instead of fruit sellers? At least the plural is not mangled).
But no, turns out the bloke actually lives on fruit.
Doesn't bother me, of course, it's his life, but I'm somewhat mystified by the seemingly random dietary choices that people would make. To me, if you do not eat something either because: a) you don't like it (shellfish!), or b) it's not accepted, or is forbidden, in your culture (insects). The rest strikes me as a bit fanciful. But hey, everyone is quite welcome to make their own rules in this respect.
Anyhow, back to my decaf organic cappuccino with gluten-free soya milk.
"Given those concerns, Fruitarianism would be the appropriate choice of ethical food consumption"
Does an Apple tree feel pain and distress when you snatch it's embryonic offspring away from it? And how does it feel knowing you'll only eat the casing and thrown the life-giving seed away?
I remember an SF story many years ago where one of the characters was from a society which refused to eat anything that had once been alive. Their only food was artificially manufactured from chemicals. A bit of a bummer when they got stranded in the wilderness with no supplies.
The propagation strategy of fruiting plants is for animals to eat the fruits and discard/excrete the seeds...
The plant actually benefits from feeding the animal by helping it spread the seeds further.
So...
working as intended..
Any ideology that denies reality is going to fall foul of reality.
My son is a staunch, nay crusading, vegan, and on getting the old questions about what they call "cross contamination" his response is something along the lines of "birds crap and insects die on the wheat fields, and the fuel that powers the (vegan) food delivery vans comes from dead animals, but if you think I give that a second thought then you're ****ing crazy"
Oh and he'd prefer his M&D not to have leather seats in their cars, but accepts that it's just not on to have cloth seats in any decent car (i.e. any car that can do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds, preferably German or Italian made or a "proper" 4x4 :rolleyes:)
There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money,
I suspect there's probably a very good and sensible reason. The Royal Mint are good at this. If they need tallow in there, it's because they need it.
Much the same as there is a move to stop plant cultivators using peat-based compost. Everyone agrees it's bad, but no one has yet managed to produce a compost that has the right water-retention and binding qualities the industry requires without mixing some peat in.
You don't have to be vegan to think that unnecessary cruelty should be avoided.
Certainly, cruelty should be avoided. I don't think there's even such a thing as necessary cruelty.
However, how do you know that cruelty is involved in production of the tallow in the notes? It sounds like what you are saying is that use of animal products is, by definition, cruel, and I would beg to differ on that.
If we look at the animal kingdom, most carnivores kill their prey in much more cruel manners than humans do. We generally take steps to ensure the animal is stunned before killing them.
In addition, AFAIK, tallow is generally produced as a by product of other industries, such as food production. There is logic to saying that, if the animal will be killed for food, anyway, why not make the best possible use of all parts of it?
I do believe the Royal Mint has made an error here, as there will be negative PR. However, if anyone wishes to stop accepting or using them, that is their right*. I'm sure it will be a massive inconvenience to them (for example, if they refuse a fiver as change in a shop, they'll either get a bunch of bulky, heavy coins or be told the transaction cannot be completed). But, then again, vegans are used to being inconvenienced (and inconveniencing others), so they probably won't mind that.
* WRT legal tender, see http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines
In short, it is only a legal requirement to accept legal tender as payment of a debt.
"I do believe the Royal Mint has made an error here, as there will be negative PR. "
Quick correction: If comments below are correct, the production of the vast majority of polymers uses animal products as a lubricant at some stage, so will contain trace amounts of them. So, if they are going to use polymers, they probably had no choice.
I'm a meat-eater, but I'd take issue with this.
If you accept other people eat meat (they do) then there's no unnecessary cruelty involved in fivers. Because no animal was killed for it's tallow. The animals were killed for meat or fabric, the tallow is a by-product.
If the animal has been kiilled, far better to make use of it than waste anything.
if the 5 pound note used PETROLEUM instead of animal fat, would it be "less bio-degradable" ? It's like you can't please one enviro/wacko group without angering the others... [so it's 'greens' vs 'vegans' now - can't do ANYTHING with 'political correctness' in the way!]
best thing to do: tell them ALL to go pleasure themselves, and just ignore their shrill noise. And if they riot, shoot them with beef-fat soaked rubber bullets, and put them in jail for a while without access to their "special dietary requirements". Joke-em if they can't take a @#$%.
> Fuck sake. Do none of you know any vegans at all? It's not that obscure a lifestyle choice.
Curiously enough, I do. They don't go ape at the slightest hint of meat, they don't proselytize, they don't participate in Twitter storms. You could say they lead by example.
Like you say, its a lifestyle choice. As for people swooning at the sight of new fivers if they have problems handling these notes then I'm prepared to do it for them.
No problem with the ones who follow their beliefs without trying to impose them on every other person in the entire world.
Its the radical militant true believers that cause the issue to become polarised, adopting a position that the majority of people can see is frankly fucking stupid, and discrediting any moderates.
"There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money,"
You don't actually thing there's a special farm somewhere fattening up animals for the slaughter just to make fivers and throwing away all that meaty and leathery by-product, do you?
If the fat is being used to make some plastics, it's most likely that it's "waste" product. Selling it for other uses instead of disposing of it (at a cost) means less waste so those of us who have chosen the blood thirsty, murdering lifestyle of eating meat can feel better that more of the animal is useful in death.
Yes - most of us have the displeasure of knowing at least one vegan. Thus we know they are a bunch of sanctimonious, puritanical hypocrites, who are more interested in proving their moral superiority than anything else.
If they took their nonsense seriously they would resemble Jain aesthetes and may even become nice people.
But many of the leather alternatives are man-made, perhaps polymer based and also incorporating animal derived elements. Anything machine made is potentially from a machine that uses animal derived lubrication or component release substances so that's out too. Bottom line is vegans are a tiny minority. Obsessive vegans even fewer and if we pander to the misguided perceptions of every tiny minority group human progress would cease. We live in a democracy and your route to change is through the ballot box not twitter.
Vegans: normal people don't give a s**t about your views, if you prefer to live in the stone-age, fine but you have no right to impose your lunacy on the rest of us. We are prepared to tolerate you but you are intolerant of our different views and intolerance is an evil.
As for "unnecessary cruelty should be avoided" my stance is a bit different: cruelty should be eliminated not just avoided and there's no space for the "necessary cruelty" you speak of. There are undoubtedly examples of bad practice, which I condemn, but I don't consider livestock farming and human use of animal derived materials to be intrinsically cruel.
As for "...what that needs is some dripping". No that's not how the decision is made. The plastic pellet manufacturer needs an additive to improve on the usability of his pellets, he searches for substances that deliver the required performance. He finds tallow. As it happens that ticks more boxes than just servicing his need, it's biodegradeable, it's essentially a waste product (so making better of animals cattle killed for food and saving it going to landfill), it's non-toxic, alternatives may be from polluting petrochemical industries or complex man-made organic chemicals with unknown toxicity. OK I doubt if those issues made any influence of his choice but they're valid issues. Next decision, the guys looking for materials to make the new notes. They identify a polymer that fits the bill (pun unintended). It's supplied as pellets. They will no doubt have required COSHH certification but do you really think every manufacturer of any non-foodstuff is going to enquire about (or care about) all the obsessions of a variety of lunatic fringe obsessives?
All that aside: who NEEDS cash these days? If you don't like plastic fivers pay by credit/debit card: don't ask too many questions about the plastic pellets used to make your plastic cards or you'll have to fall back on barter (and living in a world without plastic).
"Vegan to herd of cows: Sorry but you should never have experienced life at all, even for the brief time you are being fattened up."
Er, honestly? I'm not vegan (nor vegetarian), but this sort of reasoning is on pretty dubious ground from a purely logical point of view.
Does this mean (for example) that by not attempting to get a woman pregnant at every possible opportunity that I'm depriving those nonexistent children of life? Would it matter that they might have a pretty rotten life if that was better than "never having experienced life at all"?
Or (more in line with your reasoning), does this mean that anyone against reckless procreation like this is effectively saying to the children of such irresponsible people that they shouldn't have existed at all?
It's a philosophical can of worms (#) being misused by yourself as a form of smartass quasi-moral blackmail.
(#) I've no idea if the can of worms is vegan-friendly or not. Are they still meant to be alive when you open the can? What is their intended purpose? Are we intended to eat or exploit them? Do Heinz do a curry flavour version too?
Does this mean (for example) that by not attempting to get a woman pregnant at every possible opportunity that I'm depriving those nonexistent children of life?
I think it goes further than just attempting to not get a woman pregnant, if you oppose the use of animal products then you are committed to there being no farm animals at all. This is more like trying to stop all women becoming pregnant so that you can allow the human race to die out.
I think it goes further than just attempting to not get a woman pregnant, if you oppose the use of animal products then you are committed to there being no farm animals at all. This is more like trying to stop all women becoming pregnant so that you can allow the human race to die out.
So you're suggesting that before humans farmed animals, the said animals (e.g. cows) did not exist. How did the first farmers create them, I wonder?
"So you're suggesting that before humans farmed animals, the said animals (e.g. cows) did not exist"
Well, actually yes. Modern farm animals did not exist before humans farmed them. We MADE cows, by selectively breeding the meatiest and most docile wild aurochs over many generations. Much the same occurred with chickens from jungle fowl, pigs from wild boars, dogs from wolves, etc.