3 ms·
There's an article floating around from Patagonia that basically says: look we're trying as hard as anyone but frankly it's impossible. you can at best pick yo
by Avshalom 9y ago
There's an article floating around from Patagonia that basically says: look we're trying as hard as anyone but frankly it's impossible.
you can at best pick your threshold but it is almost guaranteed that somewhere in the supply chain is something awful.
- gt_ 9y agoIf that is true, I guess all the “sustainable clothing” brands are just achieving the impossible.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Avshalom 9y agoNo, they're just choosing where they decide sustainable such that it doesn't strictly require every body in the supply chain earning at least (ppp adjusted) poverty wages. I don't mean this as like a nihilistic "buy anything because it's all awful" sort of thing it's just that we live in an inescapably mutual world so there is basically no direct line or direct chain from the base inputs to the consumer outputs and somewhere in that tree is a leaf that is terrible. We can choose the best that we can but there is no perfect and its a stretch to even claim there's a good. this is the how capitalism kills us all. we cannot be ethical and so every day we betray our ethics until we begin to betray them as a matter of course instead of a matter of necessity.
- stevenwoo 9y agoI don't get this from that vibe from this older interview - it sounds almost hopeful: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/24/patagonia-ethical-outdoor-clothing-interview https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/24/patagon... And the current corporate statement says they are continually working to improve on this very topic. http://www.patagonia.com/corporate-responsibility-history.html http://www.patagonia.com/corporate-responsibility-history.ht...
- Avshalom 9y ago"continually working to improve" means "we haven't actually gotten there yet". And that's from one if the few companies that is actively trying.