Sustainable fashion

[Ahimsa]

From a biological point of view: no. pesticides only have no effect on plants itself, therefore no effect on the quality of the cotton. However it can happen that you select for insects or other plants that are resistant against the substance and then get contamination/pests that might get difficult to get rid of...

About bamboo, I have no experience about the longevity of the derived products. But generally I think the requirements of the bamboo plant (climate and nutrient wise) is limiting the widespread cultivation (they grow so slow that it isn't cost-effective).

Nay sir, I would say that pesticides do have an affect on cotton's quality. As mentioned before it weakens the soil. This in and of itself prevents the cotton from growing to its maximum potential and strength, similar to a growing boy who does not get proper nutrients. The pesticides do in fact seep into the cotton's pores and remain in the end product which is doubly harmful to the wearer. To say pesticides do nothing to the health of a plant is to say the same for all other life.

Your point about the insects is very true however. Pesticides very often, inadvertently, kill predators and allow others to thrive and wreck havoc on cotton.

As for bamboo, straight from the wiki:"Bamboo has many advantages over cotton as a raw material for textiles. Reaching up to 35 metres tall, bamboos are the largest members of the grass family. They are the fastest growing woody plants in the world. One Japanese species has been recorded as growing over 1 metre in a day. There are over 1600 species of bamboo found in diverse climates from cold mountains to hot tropical regions. About 40 million hectares of the earth is covered with bamboo, mostly in Asia .The high growth rate of bamboo and the fact that bamboo can grow in such diverse climates makes the bamboo plant a sustainable and versatile resource. The bamboo species used for clothing is called Moso bamboo. Moso bamboo is the most important bamboo in China, where it covers about 3 million hectares (about 2% of the total Chinese forest area). It is the main species for bamboo timber and plays an important role for the ecological environment "

Rad Hourani and Odyn Vovk have both used bamboo in some of their recent collections as well.

[ErnstLudwig]

Nay sir, I would say that pesticides do have an affect on cotton's quality. As mentioned before it weakens the soil. This in and of itself prevents the cotton from growing to its maximum potential and strength, similar to a growing boy who does not get proper nutrients. The pesticides do in fact seep into the cotton's pores and remain in the end product which is doubly harmful to the wearer. To say pesticides do nothing to the health of a plant is to say the same for all other life.

Ok I should have been more specific, fungicides and pesticides do 0 to the plant. Herbicides do, type depended and to a certain extend, affect all plants. The effect is often a slight impairment of the growth rate, I'm not aware of an effect on quality of food or cotton (they are optimized for that through years and years of breeding anyway). Or simply use GMO crops to get rid of this prob
None of the pesticides damage humans in the concentrations that are left (in fact most of them can't even target homolog proteins), additionally they are all water soluble and the half life is limited as well.

And about bamboo, try to grow multiple species at a different climate, then the growth rate will exponentially slow down. Not every place on the earth is like certain areas in China, there it really makes sense! The blooming is another prob, because it eradicates a whole population.

[Ahimsa]

Ok I should have been more specific, fungicides and pesticides do 0 to the plant. Herbicides do, type depended and to a certain extend, affect all plants. The effect is often a slight impairment of the growth rate, I'm not aware of an effect on quality of food or cotton (they are optimized for that through years and years of breeding anyway). Or simply use GMO crops to get rid of this prob
None of the pesticides damage humans in the concentrations that are left (in fact most of them can't even target homolog proteins), additionally they are all water soluble and the half life is limited as well.

And about bamboo, try to grow multiple species at a different climate, then the growth rate will exponentially slow down. Not every place on the earth is like certain areas in China, there it really makes sense! The blooming is another prob, because it eradicates a whole population.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with foodies or the slow food movement, but many now go for organic food solely because it reportedly tastes better, which I would concur with. The way in which conventional crops are bred is exactly the reason for their inferiority. Monoculture is a very big reason why plants need pesticides etc, in the first place, because they are not allowed to adapt to predators and disease strains on their own. Thus they use GMOs which just perpetuates the cycle and one gets further and further from the original crop, which has been denatured significantly. Are you aware that breeding plants to be bigger does not necessarily give them more nutrients?
Now my point is is that by breeding and tampering with cotton like this, one denatures the quality of said cotton as it is not allowed to evolve naturally and thus becomes weaker.

Once again with bamboo, I feel like you're trolling me with it now XD
Many species of bamboo can be found in South America. The U.S. even has 3 native species. One of these species is known to grow extremely rampant and sometimes becomes an issue. In NY for instance, bamboo grows extremely well. My father once had to dig down 16 feet in order to get the bamboo out of a friends lawn. It came back two years with a vengeance. Now there are also breeds of bamboo that can survive below 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The U.S. has a cold weathered one as well.
If need be, bamboo could be selectively bred to grow in pretty much anywhere but Antarctica...or maybe it could...>.>
It's kinda like how people have managed to breed Cannabis plants purely for being grown indoors. Cannabis by the way, is said to have come from East Asia (China/India). Even vikings have been found with the seeds.
And no, I do not partake, I just happen to be well versed in the subject because I know many who do.

[Ahimsa]

Wooden frames.
Waiting for the Sun

W-eye

Shwood

[ErnstLudwig]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with foodies or the slow food movement, but many now go for organic food solely because it reportedly tastes better, which I would concur with.

I'm aware of tests with star cooks, its all imagination... similar to wine. You can have shitty organic stuff as well. However I normally prefer organic food as well, but partly I doubt the "sense" of it. In Europe it is heavily subsidized, that why it makes sense to produce it in masses.

The way in which conventional crops are bred is exactly the reason for their inferiority. Monoculture is a very big reason why plants need pesticides etc, in the first place, because they are not allowed to adapt to predators and disease strains on their own.

It's more the other way around. If there is a perfect predator for the plant of the monoculture, it will take some time for it to develop a resistance against it. And the insect/weed will reproduce exponentially because of the excess supply of food.

Thus they use GMOs which just perpetuates the cycle and one gets further and further from the original crop, which has been denatured significantly. Are you aware that breeding plants to be bigger does not necessarily give them more nutrients?

Mostly it's a single gene which makes them resistant against the pesticide, no big deal if you consider that they have 20.000+. But it's an arms race with insects and weeds getting resistant .
The GMO plant has the possibility to grow bigger, be more resistant against storms / shitty weather... nutrients are the requirement to grow, the genetic makeup only enables the plant to do so and perform better then the wildtype (natural) plant. Hail to Haber–Bosch without it this amount of people on Earth are unthinkable, but we will run low on phosphate if we continue like this.

Now my point is is that by breeding and tampering with cotton like this, one denatures the quality of said cotton as it is not allowed to evolve naturally and thus becomes weaker.

Look at the "natural" cotton strains, corn, apples, bananas, horses, cows, dogs... we have been optimizing them for "our needs" since the appearance of agriculture. Nothing has become "weaker" the evolutionary pressure simply shifted (we got rid of some of the natural threats like predators and supplied more nutrients then in the natural environment)


My main argument about bamboo is that it will be unprofitable to grow in many regions, even the species which can manage 20 cm a day only do 1-2 cm in optimized green houses on a different spot on earth.

[Liquid]

Well I've been vegan (plant-based whole foodist) for 5 years and my favorite fabrics are wool and leather. They just seem so pure and eco-friendly, compared to things like petroleum derived synthetic nonsense. I do have a lot of issues with the meat industry, but can we talk about wool again?

Have you guys tried those merino wool sport/hiking clothes? They are so good I will never look at anything made of cotton again. It's naturally antimicrobial, doesn't smell, resistant to water damage, easy to wash.

There are these "exofficio" underwear people are touting as "eco", like you can travel the world with just 2 pairs of underwear since you can wash one in a sink and wear the other. Well backpacking travelers have been doing that very same thing with wool clothing for years. Look how they compare:

exofficio - nylon fabric, with chemical antimicrobial treatment, which will eventually fade away.
merino wool- just wool. naturally antimicrobial.

When you think sustainable you have to think holistic but also little details. You have to think of stuff like extra trips to the cleaners for fabrics like cotton.

To me a big part of sustainability is cleaning up the mess we made by divorcing from nature, and to return to it. It seems like many attempts at sustainability are misguided journeys separating us from nature ever more.

[Liquid]

Look, until we turn ourselves into self-repairing androids we're gonna have to depend on nature. Like I said nature is only a part of sustainability, we don't have to be naked and live in tribes. Even plastic can be sustainable, if used wisely.

When a major contribution to our un-sustainability has been replacing naturals with synthetics, the immediate conclusion is to take a step backward before going further forward.

[Ahimsa]

Rilu that's extremely true about the dyes, I just never got around to mentioning it XD. One of the advantages of organic cotton actually is that one can get natural colorations out of them and not have to use dyes in certain cases. They pretty much don't do that with conventional cotton because hey, why have a variable product when it can be dyed?
But ethics and sustainability together?...makes perfect sense. I feel like to believe in sustainability one should have morals and an ethical attitude. For instance, would someone be okay if something is made from recycled material yet made in a sweatshop?
Eating mass produced meat and buying sustainable clothing is like saying that the lettuce and tomato on that bacon-cheeseburger cancels out the unhealthy cholesterol laden portion. Double standards.

Liquid. Wool?
"The world’s sheep population is just over one billion – one for roughly every six people. Nearly half are in Asia and the Near and Middle East. Sheep are the species with the highest number of recorded breeds – contributing 25 percent to the global total for mammals."
And livestock account for 18% of all CO2 emissions.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

"New Zealand is unique amongst developed countries as agriculture is the source of nearly 50 per cent of total emissions, whereas in other developed countries such emissions are typically less than 10 per cent of the total." http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...hot/index.html
There's a very good reason why some European countries (*cough* Scotland/Ireland *cough*) don't really have forests anymore. Though the Rainforest deforestation is for cattle and cattle food.
I know what you may be thinking, but what about locally sourced wool?That's all fine and dandy in theory, but one must realize what message they are giving when they wear clothing. By wearing wool people perceive it as okay. This is under the assumption of no interaction taking place or one not mentioning said wool is sustainable etc. That's why I'm not a big fan of faux fur, it kind of sends the wrong message unless you have a FUR IS MURDER pin on at all times. Or someone might just perceive it as an ironic hipster statement too...
Whenever someone comments on my clothing I always find a way to point out their sustainability or vegan-ness.

By the way, I can't stand the feeling of wool.

[Heirloom]

comparing wool and fur is a little wrong in my view, as wool is harvested from the animals in symbiosis with their natural function, not actually amputating or killing them to get it. (with the exception of the merino scandal in australia)

[Ahimsa]

^My deal with wool is that there is just way too much sheep in the world to put up with the people and that they pollute a ton. We need less people too, but how do we do that?

[Ahimsa]

To steer more towards the conversational debate at hand though. I do think there are some social influences attached to things like fur. Generally fur is perceived as something expensive and luxurious to many people. It's got kind of a "Look at my expensive car" vibe to it. So people with money might buy fur if they come into some wealth to flaunt said wealth. But what needs to happen is that fur needs to be viewed socially as what it is, with all of it's cruelty attached. San Francisco just banned fur actually, and Oslo Fashion Week banned it in their shows, so there are some strides being taken because people are starting to realize what it is.
It's similar to diamonds in a way. Diamonds are expensive. Wealthy people may(or may not) wear diamonds to show said wealth. But blood diamonds are also purchased. Now diamonds are not rare, like lobsters. Both are quite plentiful to some regard. The key is is that the amount that's put out into the market keeps the prices high.
I was going somewhere with this but I think I lost my train of thought...

[Heirloom]

I would also suggest that wool visually is more anonymous than fur, as fur usually is visibly fur-like, where wool is just a material used in otherwise ordinary looking fabrics. Faux fur will still keep the idea of wearing animal alive, wether it's real or fake. I don't know if it's been brought up, but I believe faux fur is really toxic to make.

[Ahimsa]

I would also suggest that wool visually is more anonymous than fur, as fur usually is visibly fur-like, where wool is just a material used in otherwise ordinary looking fabrics. Faux fur will still keep the idea of wearing animal alive, wether it's real or fake. I don't know if it's been brought up, but I believe faux fur is really toxic to make.

Yes, it totally is. I don't believe as bad as real fur but still pretty bad.
Loyale is the only eco-friendly faux fur brand I can think of at the moment.

Cool bag Rilu! I feel like I've seen it somewhere before but I have no idea where.

Now does anyone know where I could find and eco-friendly vegan black trench coat? Unfortunately Thieves is only left with size large and tan =/.

[Ahimsa]

Rilu, that would be awesome. I'll pm you.

Linda Loudermilk


I think she's best known for her denim though.

[gone]

Regarding the bamboo discussion on the last page: Bamboo fabric is usually just a viscose fabric made from bamboo pulp, and even though growing bamboo can be very sustainable, the production of viscose usually is quite polluting. I don't think viscose can ever be called organic, even when made from organic raw materials.

I also think I have read that in some jurisdictions viscose has to be labeled as viscose no matter what plant is the source of the cellulose. So even if the viscose may be made from bamboo, it might not be labeled bamboo.