2 ms·
Well, no? That doesn't actually follow. This is akin to countering the claim that a dog is an animal by pointing out the absurdity that this would mean all an
by marginalia_nu 3y ago
Well, no? That doesn't actually follow. This is akin to countering the claim that a dog is an animal by pointing out the absurdity that this would mean all animals are dogs, when there clearly are cats and cows and so on.
These statements are true about the fast fashion industry. The clothes are cheap because these things are true, they aren't true because they are cheap.
They are accidental properties of cheap clothes, not necessary properties; but they are still properties of the fast fashion industry.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoThey are necessary properties of all cheap things. There are no cheap things for which the cost of production is not low.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoThere are many reasons production costs could be low though. I don't think it follows that the cheapest option by necessity the most inhumane and destructive. Perhaps a more effective means of production has been invented, a new more effective machine for example.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoThe output of that newer machine would still be subsidized by pollution. The claim wouldn't apply any less than it did to the earlier product.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoNot necessarily, especially not necessarily more so than the preceding process.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWhat claim are you trying to make? Our current machines are also better than what they replaced.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoMy claim is that a more effective method of production or may not pollute more than a less effective method. There is essentially no reason to assume that an increase in productivity comes at an increase in pollution. Foregoing environmental concerns may in some cases allow increased productivity, but that does not imply that all increases in productivity are increases in pollution, that would be affirming the consequent.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWhat does this comment have to do with your claim above that modern clothes are "subsidized by slave labor or pollution"? To the extent that that claim is true, it is equally true of future clothes, unless those clothes are very expensive. Nothing you've said here connects to what you said above. You appear to be arguing the position that, if this year we produce X tons of clothes at the cost of emitting Y tons of pollution, and next year we produce 2X tons of clothes at the cost of Y tons of pollution, next year's clothes are not being subsidized by pollution, even though this year's clothes are. But that position is self-evidently insane. Were you trying to say something different?
- achenet 3y agoif you'll excuse a cheeky well actually... you'll occasionally get things with high costs of production being cheap because they are subsidized [0][1]. Although I agree that in the general case, price reflects production costs :) [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/technology/farewell-millennial-lifestyle-subsidy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/technology/farewell-mille... [1] https://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-subsidies-developing-countries-costs-benefits-and-policy-options https://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-subsidies-developing-...