GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**TBD**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think its part of our evolution. Otherwise, evolution would do it and we would all feel this way as a species.

Maybe you think our social / cultural evolution should do it - in that case, I hope you see that the culture that is always careful not to hurt a fly will always be overrun by the culture willing to sacrifice animals and even people on the altar of efficiency in any sort of direct competition.

Evolution isn't exactly an overnight process. The awareness of these things is much greater already than it was in the past, but we are not where we should be yet. If we are forever to be warmongering savages our future is as joyfull as 40K depicts it, but we will have destroyed ourselves long before that, so we better hope you are wrong.

There is a difference between not hurting a fly because you don't have any reason to, and being able and wiling to respond with utter deadly force to any such culture that tries to overrun you. "Turning the other cheek" is certainly not something I believe in.

**Eggs**

Sign language, mathematics, art, smoking cigars - also all human concepts, and all concepts that have been proven not just possible in other primates, but that there is inherent understanding and self awareness of what they are doing.

You say it's unscientific to ascribe human concepts to other creatures. I say it's unscientific to discount anything until there is concrete evidence either way.

An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?

**Davylove21**

I love that Chimps and Dolphins are being diagnosed with personality disorders on Dakka. They'll be pleased

**Grimtuff**

Eggs wrote:

An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?

They won't.

Like this for example.

Without much context you can see what emotion is going through their minds. To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.

**Eggs**

The dolphins would be more concerned if they had some useable tail fur...

**Davylove21**

Grimtuff wrote:
Eggs wrote:

An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?

They won't.

Like this for example.

Without much context you can see what emotion is going through their minds. To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.

They look intrigued by a chimp in a wheelbarrow.

**TBD**

sierra 1247 wrote:
TBD, im actually inclined to side with you, but throwing the brushes away doesnt solve anything, really its just a waste of that animals life as the reason it was killed was to make those brushes. all that throwing them away did was show the animal that its death was in vain.

I agree that is true about the brushes I already have now.

However if the reasoning of "the animal was already dead anyway, so might as well use the product" is kept being used that industry will stay afloat and the cycle is never broken, so it obviously doesn't hold up from now on (I know this is not what you were saying, but it is reasoning I have often seen used in general).

**Harriticus**

what other evil things with GW think of next.

This still doesn't beat finecast, though.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Eggs wrote:
Sign language, mathematics, art, smoking cigars - also all human concepts, and all concepts that have been proven not just possible in other primates, but that there is inherent understanding and self awareness of what they are doing.

You say it's unscientific to ascribe human concepts to other creatures. I say it's unscientific to discount anything until there is concrete evidence either way.

An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?

No, they are all actions. There is a massive difference between a chimp shooting a gun at a human being and a chimp committing murder, a person getting shot by an animal would be akin to being struck by lightning, unless you could prove another human trained the chimp to shoot at the victim, then the trainer would be the murderer. Our emotions and notions are governed by sociological structures built up over about 200,000 years, our emotional states and moral morays are our own, not that of other species.

The adult chimp isn't 'torturing' the young chimp from the other group, it's 'meeting out physical aggression on it that is releasing endorphin in it's brain, stimulating it to the experience'.
The young chimp isn't 'the victim of torture', it's just 'gak out of luck'.

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

**Eggs**

Since when was mathematics an action? Its one of the most abstract concepts there is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
See this scientific american article for evidence. Proof even...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/01/18/monkey-see-monkey-calculate-how-are-primates-brains-wired-for-math/

**Grimtuff**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The adult chimp isn't 'torturing' the young chimp from the other group, it's 'meeting out physical aggression on it that is releasing endorphin in it's brain, stimulating it to the experience'.
The young chimp isn't 'the victim of torture', it's just 'gak out of luck'.

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

And you know this how? Citation needed.

Unless you're actually a Chimp (which would explain a lot) and know 100% how said species thinks.

The best we can do is apply a human analog to their actions, you're just splitting hairs (possibly Weasel ones) for no apparent reason.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Grimtuff wrote:

Without much context you can see what emotion is going through their minds.

No, you really really can't, you can just take a look and imprint a human emotion onto what you're seeing.

Grimtuff wrote:

To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.

Pure speculative conjecture.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eggs wrote:Since when was mathematics an action? Its one of the most abstract concepts there is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Adding, subtracting etc is still an action, not a moral or emotive reaction.

Grimtuff wrote:
And you know this how? Citation needed. Unless you're actually a Chimp (which would explain a lot) and know 100% how said species thinks.

I'm so glad you're being an adult about this...

**TBD**

rigeld2 wrote:
TBD wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
TBD wrote:

I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.

As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel
The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.

I wish it was incorrect, but it really isn't.

Maybe that is where they get part of the hair too, but hair of farmed animals is also definitely used. You tell me which came from where?

The whole "this animal is a pest anyway" story isn't so clear cut either as long as there are commercial intersts involved, as always.

Many people have shown evidence that Kolinsky sable brushes are not made from farm bred animals.
You continue to assert ant isn't true.
Please show some evidence. Or prove that GW brushes use some other kind of fur. Because your assertion that "these brushes" come from something other than that would be false advertising and rather more trouble than just an accusation of animal cruelty.

No, what I am saying is that we don't know which brushes hold which truth.

You are assuming the animal friendly (friendlier) option is "true" and I am assuming most of this hair doesn't have an animal friendly origin at all, because sadly most of the time the unfriendly option is the cheapest and thus that option is being used, ESPECIALLY in countries like Russia and China.

Nothing has been proven either way, so I could say the exact same thing right back to you, but this is not about what I WANT. I would absolutely LOVE for someone to prove me wrong with undeniable facts that leave no room for any doubt whatsoever, as I actually WANT to be wrong on this. Do you seriously think that the flow of this multifaceted business depends on whatever they happen to catch out there in the wild? That they can regulate all the demand without knowing exactly when they will have what amount of hair X available to ship out? Really?

**Eggs**

So you expect me to take your pure conjecture over a Scientific American article that states monkeys have an inherent ability with abstract concepts?

Hmm. Let me think. Nah. I'd rather believe the actual, qualified scientists, who have, actual experience, and actual evidence.

**plastictrees**

TBD wrote:

You are assuming the animal friendly (friendlier) option is "true" and I am assuming most of this hair doesn't have an animal friendly origin at all, because sadly most of the time the unfriendly option is the cheapest and thus that option is being used, ESPECIALLY in countries like Russia and China.

Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "So, this is all shed hair you've collected right? No animals harmed here""
Russian 'Fur Collector': "Oh yes, absolutely...we use gigantic home made combs to collect the hair from the undergrowth."
Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "Amazing!"
Russian 'Fur Collector': "Yup, we're a hardy and ingenious people....want any weasel jerky?"
Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "I'm good thanks."

**nkelsch**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.

Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.

There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.

**snooggums**

Because it has been pointed out multiple times, but is being ignored:

The OP's thread title includes 'necessary animal cruelty'

The OP refers to the cruelty as "Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unneccesary."

That may apply to the Sable, but Kolinsky Sable hair brushes are made from the Siberian weasel which is not raised in captivity and instead are trapped from the wild and most likely killed.

However, since the OP has confused the two, it isn't clear what animal cruelty is specific to these animals that may or may not be different than other animals that are hunted/harvested/trapped in the wild.

For example, shark fins are collected by cutting the fin off a living shark and throwing the body back. I find this cruel because the animal suffers after the event because it is left to die. If they were killed and the fin removed I would find it a waste, but not cruel.

In the case of the Siberian weasel, the pelt as a whole is prized, so I'm not sure how trapping and killing would be considered cruel on its own. The fact that some of the pelt is used for paint brushes doesn't mean the whole process is inherently cruel.

**ArbitorIan**

TBD wrote:
This balance is incredibly hard to find.

It is almost impossible to live daily life 100% ethically safe and also in a normal fashion. Being aware of every single item you use & encounter day in day out.... subsequently avoiding (indirect) use of certain ingredients in certain products.... keeping it entirely oil-product free for example.... I can't imagine this reasonably possible. It probably is, but unless you get to the most basic hippy levels it is as good as undoable.

If you take it to the extreme you would never be able to safely eat anything anywhere that you didn't yourself grow or buy at the "safe" store. Are these fries made in vegetable oil or animal fat? Do I order fries at McDonalds? Could you use the phone at work, or is there an oil product used in it or somewhere in the production process? Toothpaste and shaving cream, soap... is it, or is there any ingredient that was animal tested? I did some research on that, and I can tell you it is incredibly hard to know. This brand/company that claims to be animal test free is owned by another parent company which also owns a third company that does involve animal testing. In the end your money goes into the pockets of the parent company. This product isn't tested on animals, but some of the ingredients might have been somewhere in the developmental process. Sometimes local restrictions are avoided by having things done elsewhere, down again to the level of individual ingredients so you never can be sure. It goes on and on and is extremely complicated.

So it basically comes down to drawing the line somewhere.

I have resigned to the fact that I can't be aware of everything, but I try to do the best I can. This thread for example has shown that the gaining of the brush hair isn't as clear cut as it seems, and some ways do definitely cross my line, but others don't necessarily have to. The problem remains that we often can't know without a shadow of a doubt.

I completely agree. I'm vegetarian. I realise it's impossible to be completely vegetarian, and I probably consume animal products anyway. But that's fine. More people start thinking like this every day, and the world is changing to accommodate it. If you don't have to use dead animals for stuff, then don't. If you live in a part of the world where you do have to, then do.

I hadn't really thought about it before, and (possibly like the OP) had just assumed GW were synthetic because it's GW. I might keep my eyes open for vegan brushes in the future. Useful thread, marred by the usual reactionary 'justify yourself for not being like me' crowd...

**WaaaaghLord**

Haven't any of you who've been to Warhammer World in Nottingham seen the gigantic slaughterhouse on the grounds? And of course, you're forgetting that all GW cavalry miniatures are made from 100% real horse(sometimes lizard, sometimes daemon).

**SoloFalcon1138**

TBD wrote:
Reading the description of the new Edge Paints set, I noticed the brush included in that set is made with Sable hair. After seeing that, I went over to the brush section of GW's site and found out most of their brushes are in fact made with (Kolinsky) Sable hair.

It is an understatement to say that I now feel quite stupid for never checking that out before, because I am very VERY much opposed to fur products. There is a significant difference between side products of the meat industry (whatever I and anyone else may think of that is an entirely different discussion), and a fur industry that is simply nothing more than a completely unnecessary, completely unethical & disgusting form of animal cruelty.

So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.

The (obvious) point of this thread:

I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.

Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.

So, have you complained to your local art store as well? Or is GW the only manufacturer of sable brushes in the whole world?

**Grimtuff**

WaaaaghLord wrote:
Haven't any of you who've been to Warhammer World in Nottingham seen the gigantic slaughterhouse on the grounds? And of course, you're forgetting that all GW cavalry miniatures are made from 100% real horse(sometimes lizard, sometimes daemon).

Of course.

If you go to Bugman's and ask them what the Vegetarian option is you will get the reply of "Make do or feth off!"

**MeanGreenStompa**

nkelsch wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.

Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.

There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/grieving-chimps-need-more-research

**Ratius**

Can you guys clarify for me:

Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:

A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.

Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.

**Squigsquasher**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.

Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.

There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/grieving-chimps-need-more-research

Sorry, I just can't get the image out of my head of a chimpanzee in a lab coat going "I'm sorry, you need to do more research, the results were inconclusive".

**Sean_OBrien**

TBD wrote:
Do you seriously think that the flow of this multifaceted business depends on whatever they happen to catch out there in the wild? That they can regulate all the demand without knowing exactly when they will have what amount of hair X available to ship out? Really?

While I can't specifically speak to the question of the weasel butt fur - I can say, yes...they can regulate the supplies to generally meet the needs when dealing with wild animal resources. Over centuries we have become fairly good at controlling how much we hunt, trap and fish and determining based on observations how much can be hunted, trapped or fished next year as well. We do it every year with the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses as well as monitoring commercial activity. It isn't really that difficult to do, and there are lots of indicators which allow you to predict future animal populations.

That said - shortages can and do happen. Back in the mid-1990s I recall a shortage in the sable brush supply and the price of a quality sable brush tripled for about a year. Some things go out of stock for a period of time...manufacturers then adjust their prices in order to maintain supply and demand balances over other brush fibers.

**Grimtuff**

Squigsquasher wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.

Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.

Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.

There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/grieving-chimps-need-more-research

Sorry, I just can't get the image out of my head of a chimpanzee in a lab coat going "I'm sorry, you need to do more research, the results were inconclusive".

I am disappoint you didn't google image search that...

This thread is providing a wonderful amount of entertainment this evening.

**PsychoticStorm**

So, GW finally uses in some of their brushes one of the finest materials (if not the finest) for watercolour painting, that should be great news.

For me it is a tool made from plentiful resources its not something made to show off and I have no issue with it.

I have issues with humans destroying the environment, driving species to extinction, shortsighted depleting natural resources, but no I do not have an issue in using nature as a resource.

On the subject, Nylon bristles are of worst quality, make average tools, get destroyed faster and are made from oil.

**Debbin**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/grieving-chimps-need-more-research

Did you read that article? It states pretty obviously in rigourus testing that

Bereaved baboons showed an increase in stress hormones and increased levels of social grooming: very similar responses to humans. "This kind of evidence is more compelling," says Semple. "It's rigorous and scientific. It allows us to speculate on what they are feeling or not."

It also says,

Being cautions about conflating animal and human emotions doesn't mean assuming the absence of emotions.

While it does say that more testing is needed to fully comprehend the depth of animal emotions, it also says

In the absence of certainty about what exactly animal emotions are, we should behave towards animals as if they do share emotions.

All of which suggests that investigating what exactly animals are feeling is one of the most pressing areas of contemporary research.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

Real Kolinsky sable comes from the winter coat of a wild animal that is considered a pest

Some is taken from live animals, some (i suspect most) comes from animals trapped and killed (often they would be killed to remove the pest anyway)

Some brushes labled as Kolinsky sable will contain hair from other animals either in whole or in part, possibly farmed, possibly wild. This is most likely to happen in no-brand brushes, or from very large manufacturers where they buy in hair from a wide variey of souces

**Lansirill**

Ratius wrote:
Can you guys clarify for me:

Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:

A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.

Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.

Going over the two kolinsky links on Wikipedia that were posted it sounds like the animals are not farm raised (A or B), but are rather trapped or hunted. There was no mention of combing or killing in either article, although since they apparently do not farm well I imagine that they're killed. Now if it's a particularly painful death or relatively humane I have absolutely no idea. On the animal cruelty scale it sounds right around in the hunting/fishing for sport and food range. I'd love to find some more detailed information though.