For what and for whom do fashion houses kill animals and engage in a bloody business?
The world of fashion is again turbulent: well-known brands, one after another, refuse to use natural fur in their collections. So what are these high-profile statements besides part of the advertising campaign?
Gucci, Versace and Maison Margiela joined the Fur Free Alliance among the latter. Prior to this, the fur rejection alliance included Stella McCartney, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss, DKNY and other clothing manufacturers. The change of orientation is accompanied by the slogans: "fur is old-fashioned", "I do not want to kill animals in order to create fashion."
More than two years ago, the famous Armani brand also announced that it would not use natural fur in its collections.
And everything would be fine, but before this statement, fur was not one of the materials necessary for the manufacture of fashion house products.
Many other fashion houses, local manufacturers of fur products are not members of this alliance. And, most likely, they realize that they get an increasing part of the market for those wishing to purchase natural fur products. And over the past few years, the variety of such products has only increased: hats, berets, jackets, coats, fur coats, winter and even summer shoes, children's and beauty products. Below are the official statistics for 2014. Actual indicators do not inspire optimism: more than 100,000,000 animal killings for fur are committed annually.
Experiments and experiments claim the lives of more than 150 million living things. The number of those killed for agricultural purposes is more than 70 billion.
Animal killing is a large-scale production that exists to meet the needs of different target audiences in differentiable price segments. And the refusal of fashion houses to use fur does not mean stopping the use of genuine leather.
This also does not mean an increase in the level of humanity in society, the cessation of the exploitation of living beings, and the halt of various, not always scientific, experiments. But animals do not care what part of their skins and what they use, for what cause they die.
Public opinions on this subject are as diverse and multifaceted as the existing problem. Someone, supporting rejection of fur, will never replace leather shoes and accessories with artificial ones. Another will vehemently advocate a ban on the use of natural materials, daily consuming kilograms of animal food.
And the answer to the question, why does a person knowingly support massacres lies in his unconscious desires. Let us not forget that sound arguments and reasoning may not have any advantages along with our unconscious need for a sense of self-worth. And the desire to wrap yourself in an expensive mink coat is not always a matter of convenience and comfort.