Vegan Mountaineering/Alpine climbing gear

Michael C wrote:You know, I respect life. And if you respect life, you got to respect that lions, wolves, sharks and the like are 100% carnivorious. Humans evolved from hunting. Meat = fat and protein, = higher brain function, stronger body. Language evolved from hunting...man standing around a fire telling stories about hunting. Society evolved from hunting. Meat ain't a sin...it's who we are. But I totally understand people turned off by things like brutal factory farming and freak-breasted chickens with no beaks. I think if you really want to help animals, spend your money at sustainable farms where animals get to live like animals. Ever see free-range meat? You know why it's "dense" that's muscle! That's a healthy animal. Talk to a farmer who employs traditional and sustanaible practices. Talk to a hunter (yes, a hunter) who can explain conservation and habitat. Don't get your info from a Hipster. Ok, back to work...

The evolutionary argument against veganism is so incredibly flawed that it's not worth discussing, though I agree 100% that if you're going to eat meat you should be supporting people and farms that are doing things right. I think in general looking at what you eat leads you down a road where you start to find out who is growing your food and I think regardless of your diet it's a great exercise in finding out what companies you're supporting with your meals. bummed your comment ended with a meaningless jab about hipsters, but such is mp.com I guess.

back to the supposed topic:

I was looking for gloves for longer rappels a few months ago and couldn't find anything well made that wasn't made with leather. I bought some cheap ones from a hardware store and wasn't happy with them. I don't really need rapp gloves, it was more that I was going to potrero and wouldn't mind having some. Anyone have some non-leather gloves for rappelling or should I Just do what I've done my whole life, and not bother getting rappel gloves.

Rob D. wrote: back to the supposed topic: I was looking for gloves for longer rappels a few months ago and couldn't find anything well made that wasn't made with leather. I bought some cheap ones from a hardware store and wasn't happy with them. I don't really need rapp gloves, it was more that I was going to potrero and wouldn't mind having some. Anyone have some non-leather gloves for rappelling or should I Just do what I've done my whole life, and not bother getting rappel gloves.

I never used gloves for rapping, but one cold day I belayed with a pair of Mechanix Wear gloves. I would try them for rappelling. mechanix.com/automotive/the…

Oh man! What a great thread this has turned in to. I'm wondering if any one has tested Mountain Hardware's products with ThermalQ synethic filling? Supposedly it's basically a synthetic down. But I also think that could be marketing hype. I have the opportunity to enjoy Columbia employee store, and am just wondering if I should pull the trigger? Thanks

Trying not to be a jerk; genuinely curious.

Why can't you use wool? It doesn't kill or harm the animal to shear their wool.

Or is part of your vegan ethic to avoid the practice of keeping animals in any kind of captivity at all?

Anyway thanks for answering.

Also, I second the use of Mechanix gloves. Have belayed and rappelled with them. It's some kind of synthetic imitation leather. I really enjoy the dexterity they offer.

SteveMarshall, for me personally, not using wool is about not dictating ownership of other beings, then exploiting said beings for our personal gain. Who decided that we had more right to a sheep's wool than the sheep itself? Who decided that humans were more important, thus in more need of the sheep's wool?
WE ARE ALL ANIMALS.
Let's see if this example helps. I'm going to use your words, just substituting animal and wool for hair and womaen (because woman generally have long hair, not men).
Why can't you use hair? It doesn't kill or harm the women to shear their hair.
All of the sudden, that's a fucked up statement, right?
The reality is, it's the same question you asked. You just didn't consider your's fucked up because of your beliefs. Take some time to think about it. Follow the logical road to its end.

Tim Sipe wrote:Who decided that we had more right to a sheep's wool than the sheep itself? Who decided that humans were more important, thus in more need of the sheep's wool? WE ARE ALL ANIMALS.

Well, nature actually. Who decided killer whales had ownership over seals? Who decided tigers had ownership over wildebeest?

Welcome to the food chain, its great to be at the top...just ask this frog:

youtube.com/watch?v=bBrf5Ys…

Tim Sipe wrote:Let's see if this example helps. I'm going to use your words, just substituting animal and wool for hair and womaen (because woman generally have long hair, not men). Why can't you use hair? It doesn't kill or harm the women to shear their hair. All of the sudden, that's a fucked up statement, right? The reality is, it's the same question you asked. You just didn't consider your's fucked up because of your beliefs. Take some time to think about it. Follow the logical road to its end.

http://www.ewigsna.com/c/human-hair-wigs.html?gclid=CPmC6sjN_cQCFdKIfgod7RQA_Q

Your logical road has some potholes it seems.

Dylan B. wrote: Tim, I'm not arguing against your point of view because I respect earnest efforts to act ethically. But I'd put out a counterpoint. These sheep are domesticated--born and bred to live in captivity. If they were left to their own devices, they'd be subjected to terrifying and horrible deaths at the hands of predators, starvation, illness and injury. Now I don't know the details of the treatment of domestic sheep and the wool industry--it may be horrifying, in which case it's certainly worthy of boycott. But at least in theory, a domestic sheep's life could be far more safe, satisfying and lengthy and healthy than these sheep in the wild. In exchange for feeding and protecting, we take the wool, which they don't really miss all that much anyhow. In fact, arguably that trade-off is how sheep came to be domesticated in the first place. The ancestors of these sheep were living in the wild, where life is nasty, brutish and short. They lived in constant fear of predators, suffered horrible deaths by disease, injury, starvation; indeed, humans seeking animal skins to keep ourselves warm must have been among those predators. But by becoming domesticated and giving wool and milk, the sheep also became protected and fed and cared for. Might that not be a worthy trade-off?

totally understand and respect this point of view but like I said above, I don't buy or wear wool because I don't want to support using a living animal as a commodity. I can totally appreciate that in general, using wool is less harmful to sheep than most other animal products that we take from animals, but prefer to stay away.

That human hair pothole thing posted before yours is silly. The hair used in those wigs was given by consenting humans, not by animals living in captivity and treated as an object.

As for any "food chain"/"it's natural"/evolutionary arguments against vegetarianism/veganism my response has always been the same: There are lots of things that humans do naturally and that we did for thousands of years that we now collectively have decided are morally reprehensible. At some point people in a community and then a society figure out that living a certain way isn't in line with their morals even if it's natural. A very easy (and disgusting) example of this is reading about evolutionary theories around rape. There was a book a few years ago called "A Natural History of Rape" that covers this pretty extensively. This isn't to say that I believe eating animals or consuming animal products is in any way as reprehensible as rape, but it's simply to point out (in an over the top way) that any sort of "We're born to eat meat, don't you know we have teeth made for?!" and "It's the food chain!" arguments are about as flawed as saying "I raped her because it's evolutionarily appropriate". Societal norms change over time and because we are humans, we have the ability to live beyond pure-instict.

Tim Sipe wrote:SteveMarshall, for me personally, not using wool is about not dictating ownership of other beings, then exploiting said beings for our personal gain. Who decided that we had more right to a sheep's wool than the sheep itself? Who decided that humans were more important, thus in more need of the sheep's wool? WE ARE ALL ANIMALS. Let's see if this example helps. I'm going to use your words, just substituting animal and wool for hair and womaen (because woman generally have long hair, not men). Why can't you use hair? It doesn't kill or harm the women to shear their hair. All of the sudden, that's a fucked up statement, right? The reality is, it's the same question you asked. You just didn't consider your's fucked up because of your beliefs. Take some time to think about it. Follow the logical road to its end.

This thread is "great." Well, amusing anyway. If you'll allow me to derail it further, since I have no other recommendations on gear other than "they make a synthetic version of everything, sleeping bags to boots to gloves."

The only reason we don't think it's appropriate to shave women's hair is because they actually have agency (and productive value as human beings) and started to complain about it. I like to think my ethics are because I'm such a sophisticated, moral individual but it's due to our cultural circumstances. the reality is if I was born in 1350 in Arabia I'd have a 12 year old wife who was sold to me by her dad for 4 sheckles and a goat and think it was the greatest.

Basically, women actually have enough agency, power, and value to society to defend themselves from wanton shaving assaults. Sheep do not. We win.

Anyways, at Rob D. I'm not saying "its natural and therefore OK." I just dont see it as a morally reprehensible way to behave. I don't see the societal value that strict veganism gives to humanity, and therefore don't choose to promote it.

These are always interesting discussions. I love being challenged just enough to entrench myself further into my existing worldview ;)

SteveMarshall wrote: I just dont see it as a morally reprehensible way to behave. I don't see the societal value that strict veganism gives to humanity, and therefore don't choose to promote it.

see this is totally fine. I do see societal value and view animal life in a different way than you do. I have zero issue with this. However, I find issue with the snarky, reasonably rude, and sometimes belittling comments that tend to follow any sort of discussion around animal rights on this website. It's funny that the wool comment has been asked twice in this thread, answered both times completely reasonably without any sort of rudeness, and then almost immediately followed with a half dozen baiting comments that really serve no purpose other than being people that disagree and therefore want to belittle instead of discuss.

back semi on topic:

what are everyone's all-day rock shoes? I was using anasazi's for a long time and just got some 5.10 verde's on clearance and didn't realize how much more comfortable they were.

I really lost it when the response to that was a video of a chimp screwing a frog. Agree or disagree, that is hilariously flippant.

Anasazi lace ups are my all-day-everywhere-everything-crack-face-slab-overhung-gym shoe but i gotta pop em off every second belay or so. i dont have any gym-roof-hooks aka solutions though. looking for velcro anasazi for the gym so they're easier to take off

doing real easy stuff i wear mythos...

I thought the verde was literally just a green version of the anasazi?

Cunning Linguist wrote:There are people who eat plants for ethical and moral reasons, and many more who do so for health and longevity. The real victory is still fucking like rabbits and being able to climb into your 80s when the vast majority of atherosclerotic Jack In The Box "cuisinards" are in their graves years hence or so impaired that it makes no difference.

Hmmmm... there is a pretty huge gap between those two philosophies. Not being vegetarian does not mean being a "jack in the box 'cuisinard'"

cunning linguist wins. lock the thread now, it has no more value.

Does this count?