Fashion and climate crisis

[Anonymous No.14555906]

Can fashion exist outside of a capitalist world? If we are going to tackle our current climate emergency, it would no doubt mean an enormous reduction in creating products and the consumption of products. How would this affect the fashion industry? It is infamous for waste and excessive production. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14555918]

>>14555906
nice reddit thread

but fashion long preceded the capitalist mode of production, to answer your question. commercial fast-paced fashion isn't a necessary requirement for the existence of fashion.

[Anonymous No.14555919]

Fashion is determined by the material conditions of the time. If there are less resources, fashion will adapt accordingly.
But it is true that the industry, specially luxury brands that incinerate their old lineup, produce an excessive amount of waste, but regulations and the development of customer standards will likely ammend the situation.

[Anonymous No.14555998]

Muh capitalism
> You have to go back

[Anonymous No.14556020]

>>14555998
dumb

[Anonymous No.14556077]

>>14555906
>our current climate emergency
stop

[Anonymous No.14556086]

Traditional dress>capitalist fashion

[Anonymous No.14556100]

>>14556077
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.14556124]

I was thinking more along the lines of am I going to be able to wear jackets in the future?

[Anonymous No.14556485]

>>14555998
very dumb

[Anonymous No.14556719]

>>14555906
idk, looks pretty /fa/ to me

[Anonymous No.14556728]

>>14555906
yes

[Anonymous No.14556733]

>>14555918
>commercial fast-paced fashion isn't a necessary requirement for the existence of fashion.
I'd argue it's an existential threat to the existence of fashion desu. Fast Fashion is like OD'ing on heroin, meth, and cocaine all at once in terms of environmental damage (transport, labor, waste, and materials all contribute to the damage)

[Anonymous No.14556759]

I actually think a centrally planned economy would be beneficial to fashion, if anything. Patents and competition are pretty demonstrably slowing down material development. Look at the current state of UHMWPE. Despite being faster/cheaper/more environmentally friendly to produce than polyamide, closer to polyester in costs, it's only available through 2 brands: Dyneema and Spectra, and costs more than twice as much as high-end polyamide. While textile development with it is genuinely more expensive (due to the need to upgrade to titanium blades), it's still an obviously better option that should be much more common than it is already, but is being blocked by the patent system. If instead the material manufacturers and textile manufacturers were planned, we would've transitioned most current polyamide and polyester to UHMWPE, and seen a massive increase in product durability. Instead, we just see more and more <100gsm cotton/polyester mixes pop up that all end up in a landfill. Thanks, market forces.

[Anonymous No.14556783]

>>14556759
>centrally planned economy would be beneficial to fashion
>centrally planned economies
>having a wide range of consumer goods
Maybe with networked computers things would run more smoothly today than in the Warsaw Pact, but a wider variety of goods means more supply chains for planners to keep track of and when you have multi-step manufacturing processes all sorts of bottlenecks and shortages can develop.

[Anonymous No.14556806]

>>14555998
>posts wojak
>telling others to go back
Like pottery.

[Anonymous No.14556822]

>>14556783
I don't think there'd be a wider variety; that much is obvious just by looking at the way the system functions. I was arguing for higher quality items, because the current glut of variety we have has too many negative side effects, including a total lack of quality staples within most people's budgets. Staples are how people build styles, not high variety. Besides, how much of our current market variety is indistinguishable? How many jeans with the exact same cut and slightly different label do you see in the average clothing store? In my experience, it's at least double digits in just jeans, let alone underwear/leggings/etc. Additionally, the high variety we have leads to many, many hyper-low-quality items, which break within 2-3 uses, which is good for literally nobody's wardrobe. Hence, markets being bad at fashion.

[Anonymous No.14556848]

>>14556822
I agree about quality and expect that when it came to clothing most people wouldn't notice a tremendous difference besides the disappearance of logos if a western country switched to a planned economy today. But for those that really care about what they wear, like the denizens of this board, I think that the elimination of competing, slightly variant products and possibly of entire sorts of clothing altogether (how many types of jacket do the people really need, comrade?) would be very disappointing.

[Anonymous No.14556864]

>>14555906
>If we are going to tackle our current climate emergency
Reminder that "OMG dangerous climate change!!" is a myth peddled by fraudulent charlatans.

[Anonymous No.14556871]

>>14556864
ebin :DDDDDD

[Anonymous No.14556879]

>>14556848
Probably, but just like the Russian economy (Kolkhoz markets for agriculture as an example) during the USSR, I imagine the cheapening and easy distribution of raw material would lead to a huge explosion of DIY/smaller sellers with higher-quality materials that would pretty easily be able to fulfill specific needs like /fa/'s. Also, a huge number of luxury textile products were created under the USSR anyway; I think the worst case scenario for variety consolidation, given western culture on variety, is just a localization of specific products.

[Anonymous No.14556918]

>>14556871
Excellent rebuttal

[Anonymous No.14556959]

>>14556864
> is a retard
oof would ya look at that

[Anonymous No.14556969]

>>14556959
>He unironically believes in global warming

[Anonymous No.14556989]

>>14556969
climate change is most definitely a thing but man made climate change is yet to be observed and the levels of disaster scientists are screaming about are exaggerations built upon false models

[Anonymous No.14557294]

>>14556918
Your argument is based on a political cartoon and pure denial.

[Anonymous No.14558165]

>>14556864
yikes, go commit die

[Anonymous No.14559626]

>>14556864