Um, cotton comes from a plant.
To expand on Rickjay eloquent point, whenever we have some genius start yet another “Hey! Guess what! You vegitarians are killing bugs! How ya like them apples?” type thread, half a dozen people chime in to point out that a great many vegitarians are vegitarians for health/taste/even more obscure reasons. I have to agree that you can’t really use “vegitarian” as a short-hand for anything outside of specialized enviroments where everyone agrees upon a more specialized usage.
I suggest we just assume that the OP began: “What alternitives exisit fora person who loves fine books but who refuses to particpate in animal explotation?” and go from there.
Well, whaddaya say I toss it into the Pit then?
This is certainly not Cafe Society material…I don’t care what format the books come in, I care about the content…and I was going to send the thread over to IMHO or MPSIMS, but due to the content of a certain percentage of posts plus the Holocaust comment, I think the BBQ Pit will do nicely.
Have at it.
Nice post, mhendo. Especially with that sig following it. 
ok, a preface:
assuming we are not talking of veggies that do not eat meat for health reasons.
and
assuming that we are talking about vegans who abhore all animal suffering for human use.
some comments first:
I don’t think Opal can go to a custom binder. I THINK she is referring to books that have copyrights, such as Jayne Eyre. Besides, the cost of a onetime printing specifically for OPal is going to be astronomical. If she meant blank books or journals, that would be another thing all together.
I think that as Vegans (or whatever you choose to follow in life) you need to make choices and stick with them. maybe you are a hypocrite, maybe not. you are the one who has to deal with your conscience not anyone else. so fuck what any one thinks.
that said, I think that MandaJo and Mhendo made some good comments. I am a partial veggie (meaning I eat a burger every now and then) and I guess I could say I have one foot in each camp.
I have never understood extreme vegans because I don’t think it can be done. Because despite what someone said about Bugs up above, well, what of them? do they not count?
Who is it that decides what living creature is worthy of destroying?
If you use a tree, does it not displace living creatures? Does the chemicals (used in its making) use not kill fish?
Stop and think of how MANY products contain gelatin (altoids, most lite foods, etc) are they ALL avoided? WHERE does one stop?
But I think Opal is just asking for a nice series of books published by animal friendly publishers.
In which case, I would suggest haunting some other message board that deals specifically with veagn type issues (maybe peta?). They can probably point to a source.
Sadly, I don’t think it can be found.
If it isn’t leather, you still have problems with glues and inks etc, as some may contain animal products.
Kind of a sidepoint, now that this is in the Pit, but dust covers can and often do lend greater value to the estimated worth of a book, particularly a first edition and even special editions. Opal, I’m not sure how concerned you are about the rest of your library as an heirloom to be passed down as a thing of both sentimental and monetary value, but dust covers are important for protecting the book as well as making it more valuable to collectors.
I must chime in as this question falls in my minute area of expertise. I am a professional antiquarian book dealer and symapthize with Opal’s problem.
First I must say I have no problem understanding where she is coming from even thought I am not a vegetarian or vegan. It logically follows that if one is morally uneasy with the use of animals for human benefit, a book bound in dead animal would not be an ideal choice.
I have books bound in every material known to man. If the titles you are looking for are not terribly recent you might look for titles by private presses. For decades silk and fine cloth was more desirable than leather and there are some wonderful examples of fine binding with nary an animal part to be found.
I know for example the Grabhorn press, Nonesuch press, and the Trianon press to name a few rarely used leather and they are prized for their quality.
I also have, of course, books bound in: pig, cow, horse, goat, seal, and elephant skin. All of these are well over 100 years old and many date several centuries back. I must admit though the idea has given me pause as well.
I, will rebind books that are falling apart otherwise. I cannot find it in my heart to rebind a beautiful old book that is in perfectly good condition rather than just repair it. I will be more clear in future postings. I rebind when a: she bought a regular hard back or paper back (perfect binding less than desirable but what the heck ELSE are you going to find these days?) and wanted the book block bound in a special way b: she has an old edition she is emotionaly attached to and cannot bear to see it fall apart.( i would re-bind preserving as much of the original covers as possible with the clear understanding that it depreciates the value on the old book market.) Vanity yes, but i couldnt let people go on thinking that i would rip an original cover off and antique book on a whim of my own. I dont eat beef or pork for dietary reasons and cant say i live an animal product free life. I enjoy leather bound books myself; I will not remove a cover just because it is leather. I can bind animal product free and mostly do because im not terribly attracted to leather working. I wanted to give opal cat an option most people dont consider when buying books or journals. (Ps: its not a terribly expensive option either really. it all depends on what you want and how much i like you 
j/k )
When I typed “Cotton,” I was using an archaic spelling of “Wool.” Yeah… that’s the ticket.
fruitbat…i am fairly new to the board. I dont know how one goes about contacting another member with out just posting an email address for all to see. I am really really interested in your books. do you have a shop anywhere? or a method to contact you?
im sorry for the hijack folks. back to posting on the topic.
Oh dear I just read your post about dust jacket removal Opal. Please send me the dustjackets. It is silly, but to collectors and dealers the majority of the value resides in the jacket.
Two frightening examples:
First edition Great Gatsby w/out jacket =$1000-2000
with jacket $20000-50000 depending on condition.
First edition of One Hundred Years of Solitude w/out $100
with $1000+
Granted its silly but to a dealer its a bit like buying a new sports car and running into a telephone pole because you think the dent looks cool.
Although this thread has been moved to The Pit (an unwarranted action on the part of an oversensitive moderator, in my view), i will try to keep my observations civil and rational.
I would like to address those who have ripped into OpalCat for his/her reference to lampshades made of human skin. It seems to me that, in flaming OpalCat, many people on this thread have avoided addressing the very issue that some vegetarians find extremely important - the extent to which we animals deserve similar consideration to human beings. I think MGibson put the question most plainly, although no-one has really attempted to answer it:
This issue is not as cut and dried as some people might suppose, and some animal rights supporters would say that there is in fact moral equivalency, while others would abjure any such association.
Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, which i recommended in my last post, spends a considerable amount of time addressing these issues and exploring some of the logical contradictions that can arise when we draw up moral hierarchies with people on top. For example, if we justify killing animals based on some Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest, then why is it considered morally wrong for a strong person to kill a weak person, as this happens within other animal species all the time? Or if we justify using animals, as some vivisectionists and meat-eaters often do, using criteria such as humans’ ability to reason and to articulate their thoughts using language, then why not also experiment on babies or on people with dementia, who often display no more self-awareness or problem-solving skills than many animals?
I should add here that, despite being a vegetarian, i do not draw such absolute moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals, but i also realise that there are logical difficulties in taking such a position.
Interestingly, it seems to me that this problem is particularly acute for an atheist like me. If one is, for example, a Christian, it is relatively simple to justify eating meat etc. based on God’s instructions in Genesis regarding the primacy of man and the fact that animals are made for humans’ benefit. Many religions have strong foundational reasons for believing that humans can use animals as they see fit, but i rest my ethics on far more slippery foundations that are personal and social rather than religious.
This is not to say, of course, that the Bible (or any other religious document - the Q’uran, the Talmud etc.) is open to only a single interpretation, and i’m sure there are religious vegetarians who see much justification for their vegetarianism in their theology. And many Eastern religions have far different attitudes to the use of animals - Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
So, although i think OpalCat’s reference to Holocaust victims was rather intemperate and likely to raise the ire of many people, the question itself contains an ethical dilemma that calls into question some things that we often take for granted but which, on further reflection, might actually require more thought on the part of many people.
Hmmmm . . . So everyone makes hugely insulting and inappropriate comments and dogpiles each other in Cafe Society . . . The minute this moves to the Pit we are all suggesting bookbinders and pouring tea for one another . …
Nope, it doesn’t. It does not contain an ethical dilemma because people are more important to me than animals. Also, it does not make me call anything into question…except the poster’s rationality at the moment the comparison was made.
The equating of Jews and other Holocaust victims to cattle and animals is so obscenely inappropriate that, had the poster been someone I didn’t have respect for based on past behavior, I’d have simply filed them in the “kook” drawer and ignored them from that point on. I’m willing to give Opal the benefit of the doubt, but…
Fenris
I don’t know about you people, but I suffer from a similar quandary. I am still losing sleep over the guilt of how many little naugas had to give up their precious hides to upholster my Lay-Z-Boy.
Seriously however, OpalCat, you had no right to attack Darwin’s Finch like that. I think you owe him an apology.
“I am still losing sleep over the guilt of how many little naugas had to give up their precious hides to upholster my Lay-Z-Boy.”
—I know how you feel. I have a Mohair jacket, and I can’t even bring myself to watch Three Stooges movies anymore . . .
I stopped eating Curly fries for this same reason.
You know, something odd just occured to me. If vegans do not make a distinction as to how or when an animal is killed (and I honestly don’t know if they do or not), then they must refrain from using gasoline or plastics.
These are petroleum products. Think about it.
[sub]Bronto burger, anyone?[/sub]
The Nazi comparision was stunningly offensive and stupid.
I personally find most Vegans and ideological Vegitarians to be drooling morons or naive, misinformed imbeciles but if they want to indulge in a self-indulgent avoidance of animal products, that’s up to them.(*) I don’t usually eat meat for my own reasons and impute nothing on others that so desire.
To imply that others have some moral connection to Nazis is disgusting.
(*: The natural world is an ugly place, it ain’t fucking Disney. I am all for humane treatment to be best degree possible, but this nonesense about exploitation is just anti-rational and ignores the reality of other options, e.g. production of faux leather from plastics, cotton growing, etc. is as harmful or rather more so than say leather production to a larger body of the environment and thus animals. Self-indulgent idiocy on the part of comfortable 1st worlders nicely insulated from the rigors of the environment.)
While I understand that bookjackets can effect hte value of a book, I really don’t think of my $10 used bookclub edition ofa bodice-ripper as an investment. The utility of the book it the important thing.