Hi, my name is Dawn. I am a junior textile design major and a member of the of the SOSA leadership team. I want to take this opportunity to share with you my perspective. I am someone who is a strong advocate for change within my industry. I understand that textiles have been a great contributor to worldwide pollution. But I believe that we can make an effort to conserve and recycle more materials as I did in my first hand-weaving class. In that class, I experimented with reused materials like bubble wrap, plastic bags, and used stockings, so that they would not join the waste stream.
Concerning the first chapter of Cradle to Cradle, the Industrial Revolution is mentioned. As you will read, The Industrial Revolution was a significant period in American History and has had both positive and negative global effects. The Industrial Revolution created more jobs but also created hazardous working conditions for the workers and the environment. Some textile factories, in this country, are still emitting harmful chemicals into the air, water and soil.
Speaking on the subject of textiles, It is difficult for me to admit that the industry already heavily impacts the health of our planet. The production, distribution, and disposal of textiles greatly harms the workers who manufacture them, the consumers who buy them, and, after a while, the environment that is left to absorb them as waste. That is why textiles designers should use a 'Universal design' thought process.'Universal design' requires designers to think about the local and global effects of their creations. A thought process that anticipates future needs while not sacrificing the those resources that are available in the present.
Since the U.S. imports most of it's textiles, we do not see the worst effects. Read the tag attached to the inside of your clothes carefully. Depending on where it was made, the garment could have been constructed in harmful working conditions and with sub-standard or inhumane processes. As consumers of clothes made in these conditions, we can have great influence over the success of these foreign producers with our purchase power. In plainer terms, if you do not work for or buy from the company that produces such products, you are effectively boycotting, and forcing a hand in the methods and practices that they use.
I hope that others purchase with a conscience. By your contribution The Green Movement could become a beacon for those in the textile design and manufacturing industry to follow. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
I couldn't agree with you more. As consumers we certainly hold the power. We can choose to buy products from companies that do no use harmful chemicals and that treat their employees in a humane way. Of course it is initially more expensive to purchase the eco-friendly product, but in the long run what is worth more? This is something the first chapter really emphasizes. What has historically been seen as the best way to run a business (and the best way to go about purchasing goods), is actually the worst way, because it focuses on economic well-being rather than the overall well-being of the world at large, and the majority of the population is just beginning to realize this.
Our entire system (industry/commerce) has historically, and continues to run by a "cradle to grave" mindset, mainly because it maximizes profits. Not purchasing certain goods is definitely a huge part of it, because the consumers are the majority but more needs to be done. We need to revise the interests by which our system functions and begin to design all of our products in a sustainable way. This is not only textiles but houses, electronics-everything we use!
Dawn, I very much enjoyed reading about your profound thoughts, ideas and personal drive to transform your industry and the way consumers perceive it. I offered my input only to help you carry those thoughts and ideas even further!
Please consider creating a presentation for the AASHE Conference! It will give you a chance to travel and have a larger platform from which to share SOSA's grawith and development since you have taken on your leadership role.
Anytime you need a second pair of eyes again, do not hesitate!
-Terd
So I think I am the first freshman to leave a comment, but I disagree with you a little bit Dawn. Yes, it is bad to buy products that are being made in harmful conditions, but no, not buying the products does not help prevent the use of harmful chemicals in production. I hate to compare this to dieting, but I will. When you diet you start to count calories and you find yourself not eating anything with a flavor, this is when you realize that in some way EVERYTHING is bad for you. Well, the same goes for this. We shouldn't buy things made with harmful chemicals, but if we do that we really aren't buying anything. Think about when you get ready in the morning, the hair spray you use, the face wash and shampoo, those are all made with chemicals, maybe not harmful ones, but chemicals. And in order to get a shampoo that works they probably messed up more than once. That means they wasted resources, and it means they probably harmed the planet. So, what I have to say about watching what you buy is, just like dieting, the most important thing is portion control. So as a consumer we should only buy things when we need them and we should buy things that harm the planet (and ourselves)the least.
maritote0941@philau.edu
Dawn, I thought your drive to help change your industry was really cool. I do have to disagree with one thing that you said. I do not believe that if we stop buying a product that its going to stop the company from using harmful chemicals. I just think that when it comes to buying products with chemicals in them, not every product that was made from a chemical is bad for you. It is true that most stuff that you do buy, eat or even drink have harmful chemicals in them, pretty much anything that you buy is bad for you. Its really hard to stop buying those certain products because some products with chemicals you need. For example, the acne products that I use have chemicals in them but that dosen't stop me from using them because the product is helping my face, so I really can't stop using it or stop buying it. You have convinced me in your blog to watch what I buy and start buying things that will help the enviroment and not hurt it. It's going to be hard but Ill try.
Freshie #2 posting.
While I of course agree with the general point of your post, the key problem with the "consumer revolution" that ultimately needs to take place in order for the eco-friendly goods to become a competitve and relevant entity in the American marketplace is tradition. Americans are notorious (in my experience) for sticking to certain brands, that have certain smells, tastes, feels, and in some cases nostalgia. Just because a commercial advertising an eco-minded solvent saying it is eco-minded, doesn't at all mean people will listen. Granted, some forms of marketing work unprecedentedly better when it comes to buying the next bigger, better techno-toy. The president himself can advocate the 'green' movement, yet isn't it our duty as Americans to question our government? The point is I believe the actual development, production, and distribution of such eco-minded products will be far easier than truly getting the American consumer to whole-heartedly believe what they are spending the extra dime for will do the planet good. In essence, proof. We as humans have got ourselves used to the idea of instant gratification. If results, even subtle results, couldn't be presented within a couple years, the faith in said eco-goods would wither. That could subsequently cause some consumers to cross back over to the "dark side" of their traditional brands. If the barrier of human stubbornness and tradition could be breached, I believe the eco-minded fever could spread like wildfire.
I would have to say that I agree with Maritote0941; in reading the first chapter the author describes a quiet relaxing scene and then messes it up with saying the chemicals that are used and people who are exploited to make them. If we really think about it everything around us is bad for us to a certain extent, but they are sometimes essential to our survival. I find it ironic how the author mentions everything harmful in the way carpets and things like that are made, but he fails to go into detail on what it took to make plastic paper. Yes it is remarkable that he went through the trouble of printing his prose on this kind of parchment but it could have used as much energy and as much wast as paper (as he used an example for recycled carpet). As for his talk on the industrial revolution, I actually do like how he explained it as a sort of ironic accident, that the damaging affects on the earth and our environment were all unintentional. So far the book is a pretty enjoyable read, the author's sarcastic whit and sense of humor makes up for the disheartening facts he lays out for us.
*FRESHMAN <3
james7425@PhilaU.edu
Dawn, I was very interested while reading your thoughts on the “Universal Design.” I think it is very smart to make housing that is good for the environment, but is it smart for the country culturally? Culture is what makes China different from the United States. Countries spend thousands and thousands of years forming their culture in food, clothes, and even design, to make them different from the next country. On page 29 in the first chapter of Cradle to Cradle, it says, “Today the International Style has evolved into something less ambitious: a bland, uniform structure isolated from the particulars of place- from local culture, nature, energy, and material flows.” It is a designer’s job to create structures that fit in with the surroundings of a nation. Inspiration comes from the country’s style and creativity. There should not be a world-wide quota for the design of Universal Designs. The book goes on to say that the sealed windows allow the daylight to be limited and fresh air nearly non existent in the houses, which contradict the idea that we are trying to figure out ways to make industries more humane.
I fully agree with making environmentally safe houses, but as a future designer myself, I think it is important that the housing show off the county’s ideas of style. All current and upcoming designers should take on the job of making a sustainable house that reuses resources and fits in with the culture of the nation in which it will be placed.
As for the statement that Dawn said that we as consumers have the power to buy what we see as safe for ourselves and the environment, I couldn’t agree more. I would double check when buying a house that the design is attempting to do good for the environment and not harming it. Although, I think when buying products such as clothes, that will be more difficult and expensive. Living in a time when “green” is beginning to become more and more popular I think it is still rare to find garments that are safe; but as Dawn has said, we as consumers have the power to change that.
We also have the power to change the way industries produce their products. The way industries currently work, they are harming surrounding communities, the people that work there, and the wildlife. The emissions let off by the factories are causing long-term health defects, they are sticking to plants that animals consume, and they are adding to the Greenhouse Effect. We know that there are things being done to try to solve this problem, but is everything being done? We do not know for sure. The best we can do is keep coming up with ideas to solve the destruction of our world. With the right knowledge and understanding the harm that the industries are currently sending off to the rest of the world can be stopped for good and not just slowed down.
Butera8987@philau.edu
Dawn,
I completely agree with your statement that, as consumers, we have the ability to change the way that these companies are manufacturing their products. It is disgusting to think that the new shirt that you just bought could be slowly killing you and exposing you to harmful chemicals. Any economy cannot function without jobs, but at when will the conditions get to a point where people will finally say "stop"?
During the time of the Industrial Revolution there was so much harm being done to the environment. For example, in New York City the trees in the park turned black from all of the pollution being released into the air. This process not only caused harm to the plants, but the animals and humans as well. If a chemical plant releases their toxic waste into rivers and streams, eventually not only the water will be polluted, but the air we breathe will be as well.
Relating this back to your example of how the textile industry is slowly, but surely, harming our planet is easy. It is all about how we produce, use, and dispose of the items that we have created. If all companies used the "Universal Design" thought process then the world would be a much cleaner, and efficient place.
I will now be reading all of the labels on my clothes and boycotting companies that use harmful labor, and materials to create the things that I wear.
i agree with you dawn. i think its awesome that your so motivated to try and change the industry. i was shocked when i read the book and learned about how basic everyday objects that i deemed harmless, are actually killing me. despite the negative facts i have just read about the products and objects i use in my life, i unfortunately will not stop using them. i may cut back on somethings, but it is nearly impossible for me to change my daily routine, something that i have grown accustom too.
Catherine2662,
I agree with you Dawn in that we need to start becoming more aware when we purchase certain products. But how can we be aware of whats being hidden from us? The consumers are not the ones to blame if the producers know of the hazardous products and continue to use and produce them. Scientist and Researchers already stated that problems arose from the Industrial Revolution, yet producers are not doing anything to help the environment, they are just continuing to destroy it. I think the government needs to put in a deeper concern and attention towards trade. Toys from China containing lead paint killed innocent children because the toys were not checked properly when it came into this country. We are in a recession, and yet everything you pick up states "Made in China". If America starts making there own products using "go green" products, we might have a chance at saving the economy
After reading the first chapter of Cradle to Cradle I agree with you Dawn that many of the products we use are harmful, created with cheap labor, or are down-right wasteful to the environment. Chapter one's motive is a 'Question of Design' and I feel that this ultimately needs to be changed in everything that we use and the buildings we live in. I am a freshman Architect major and already I see that over the next few years a multitude of green-concepts will have to be applied in order for sustainable living.
However, I do not feel that 'Universial Design' is present in current building construction. Many buildings, including the home I live in now, stemmed from a pre-fabrication plan from an architect that most likely never took into account the surrounding landscape or wildlife. By taking into account 'Universial Design' the architect lays the foundation for a sustainable building that produces positive effects instead of negative ones. Second, the architect's influence and creativity are captured in a beautifully asetethic work of art instead of a boring, repetative, and unattractive building.
By applying 'Universial Design' from whatever major it may be, everyone has the ability to voice how green the world will be in five to ten years. As Dawn said, "By your contribution The Green Movement could become a beacon."
Rich9533@philau.edu
I appreciate Dawn's enthusiasm and ideas but I do not believe consumers are the sole ones which possess the power to change the way companies manufacture goods. I believe there must be total cooperation between everyone. Currently, I view this as a vicious cycle. The first part are the workers in these foreign countries. They work in these harmful areas with harmful substances and are slowly gaining some type of disease. One of the authors recalls visiting, "the largest chromium extraction factory in Europe-chromium is a heavy metal used in large-scale leather tanning processes-and noticed that only older men were working there, all of them in gas masks. The supervisor had explained that it took an average about twenty years for workers to develop cancer from chromium exposure, so the company had to make the decision to allow only workers older than fifty to work" (13). All of this for little pay. The companies make up the second part. They pay a small sum to these workers but, once they receive the goods in the US and place them in the market, they hike up the price and gain a huge profit. The consumers make up the third part. Consumers, to me, is a very general term. There are some who are shopaholics, others who are uneducated, and those who are the 'smart' consumers. Those who are shopaholics can not help themselves but buy what ever they desire, whether it is manufactured in the US or China. Those who are uneducated may not realize that their purchase is a sign that they support the company in its harmful deeds to the environment and workers. These type of consumers purchase the "products plus: as a buyer one got the item or service one wanted, plus additives that one didn't ask for and didn't know were included and that may be harmful" (38). The 'smart' consumer possesses different meanings. It may be the one who is environmentally conscious or the one who purchases his or her goods for less and saves his or her money. By dividing this cycle into three parts: consumers, the company, and workers, one must see that all parts must cooperate in order to create change. The consumers may be able to boycott, by not purchasing items for these companies, but the company must also make the effort of not manufacturing these goods in foreign countries. The companies must be willing to "put capital on the bench" and place the well-being of consumers and the environment on their agenda. Although, the partnership of only these two will not succeed in change but also the workers must perform their part as well. They must take a risk by fighting, non-violently, in these foreign countries for better working conditions and better wages from the companies. Like Barack Obama won the presidency with the aid of voters, consumers, companies, and workers must come together to protect the environment and future generations.
I must agree that a "Universal design" should be a part of various designers' thought processes. Although, I hope this thought process does not transform into the something like the "mass-produced detergent" (29). The reason being one area may not have a similar environment like another area and so the products which they receive should differ. Like for the detergent, "customers in places with soft water need only small amounts of detergent. Those where the water is hard need more" (29). Besides a "Universal design," I think there should be a "Universal law." The reason being so that chemicals which are prohibited in manufacturing in the US will also be prohibited in other countries. With this in effect, I believe working conditions will improve, the amount of harm might decrease toward the environment, and consumers will live in healthier environments, indoors or outdoors.
degaga0152@philau.edu
I agree with these blog posts completely. After reading the first chapter, I feel like I became more aware of the products I was using. I had no idea everyday products were actually so harmful to us as consumers. Swimmies that release Hydrochloric acid? I thought that was insane! The way we choose to live as consumers will definitely effect the world. We just need to decide whether we will have a negative or positive effect.
I completely agree with you. As consumers we need to be more conscious of what products we are buying and the conditions and the chemicals that go into these goods. A good way to start this would be using recycled materials and reusable products to prevent added trash to our already overflowing landfills.
However, I don’t feel that refusing to buy products from companies that use dangerous working conditions and harmful chemicals is an effective way to force the policies that we want. By trying to starve the companies of our money, we are inadvertently starving the workers of their pay, and in a time were our economy is falling below GDP, we also end up hurting ourselves. Point-and-case, we need a more effective way of going about our Green Revolution without hurting others.
And while the Industrial Revolution did ultimately put us in this position where we are taking a harsh toll on our planet, it eventually leads us to discover more about our world and how it works. However, somewhere along the way, someone should have realized how degrading our actions were to the planet and put a stop to it. But, no one did, so I guess it’s up to us. No pressure.
I agree with the statement that the power for change resides with the consumer. It is a fact that the common consumer is a potent force in this world of an ever-changing global economy, and it is because of the consumer that certain products and new ideas are followed up on and improved upon whereas others are left in the dust. As I read this first chapter, my mind immediately went back to the history of the electric car; perhaps one of the most intriguing "green technologies" of the 20th century, and how greatly "Eco-friendly" technologies are affected by economical factors. We can start with the very first cars, which were being made during the Industrial Revolution. "Cradle to Cradle" made a large reference to the development of the car, which was led by Henry Ford, and his efforts to effectively create his own market, by raising the minimum wage of his assembly line workers and cutting the work day hours, all using the philosophy "cars cannot buy cars". At the time of the Revolution and the Model T, there were great advances being made in the field of electricity and batteries. The progress had gained so much ground in fact that a "modern day car's" engine could easily last a good 30 years. However, seeing the higher price tag on a vehicle that would simply not break down often enough for a company to deem it "of value", the idea of an electric car was scraped. Just as reference, Jay Leno has a 1912 "Stanley Steamer" which is still in working order and is actually the oldest car to have a speeding ticket. This is just an example of how business views a "green technology"... as an inhibition to its current wealth. The unwillingness for companies as well as the regular consumer/person to adjust to more green alternatives is simply a matter of humanity stepping out of its "comfort zone". As a species, humans have always sought ways to live and work comfortably, and ever since the industrial revolution, humanity found itself well inside of a comfort zone. The new ability to mass produce created a stronger middle class and blurred the lines between classes, and brought a new level of comfort. The Industrial Revolution revolutionized the work place, the ride to work, and the home front with new appliances (everything from refrigerators to dishwashers). Because of all the new innovations that are continually making our lives easier and less stress-filled, we have in a sense fallen and can't get up. In America, we are seeing nations around the world sprouting up with new budding technological innovations. Yet, even when presented with new "green technologies", we refuse to take them. WHY??? The Chevy Volt, the newest attempt at marketing the electric car since the conspiracy ridden GMC EV-1 release and collection... is a purely electric car, which can go 40 miles on a charge and a combo gas/electric engine which boosts it's range to around 300-400 miles. However, this car is already being ridiculed because it ONLY has a 40 mile pure electric range. Building on this, the American public has heard for several years about the bonuses of placing solar panels on the roof of their houses... that being no electric bill... ever... Now, why would we want to continue paying for that electric bill every month? I can't explain it. The price has come down drastically for solar panels, and yet their popularity has barely risen for residential properties. Clearly, it is up to the consumer to look past the "shortcomings" of the new wave of technological innovations and embrace the same spirit of those in the Industrial Revolution. As referenced in "Cradle to Cradle", "The general spirit of early industrialists – and of many others at the time – was one of great optimism and faith in the progress of humankind." It is now time for humanity to remember the wonder of creativity and dreams for a better world, one with less impact on the environment. It is time for us to put aside our lack of motivation for taking that step towards change and instead go sprinting for it.
ritsko8728@philau.edu
"The prime responsibility of the consuming public is its own ignorance."
- Florence Kelley, 1908
Consumers have the power to guide industry. This power is born from being educated. It is a common misconception that to be eco-conscious we must sacrifice our ways of life, our belongings, our routines and ourselves. In fact, we need only adapt them intelligently.
It may be true that everything is bad for humans - in that time is bad for us or oxygen can kill us - but pragmatically, everything is not bad. The infamous and ambiguous Chemical has been mislabeled. Life is a chemical reaction. One does not have to abandon proper hygiene or skin care to be green, just be knowledgeable. For example, consumers can chose products without Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (a component found in toothpaste, shampoos and shaving foams). Although SLS may make our shampoos lather beautifully, companies destroy palm groves and native orangutans for the treasured palm oil extract. The assertion that instead of abandoning such products, we just use them less is diametrically opposite the authors' admonition that "less bad in no good."
As is can be seen, the American spirit can quite literally be described as 'revolutionary.' This is not to say America is responsible for managing a global paradigm shift, however. The 'Universal design' is not uni-cultural but pan-cultural. 'Universal design' may better be described of 'Universal truth' or 'Universal Morality.' We may all recognize and celebrate our cultures, while too seeing our commonality of being humans of this earth.
Rethink the way we think things. The Native Americans' ecological concept of the seventh-generation can be reborn and renovated. The Natives acted with foresight. Natives hunted Bison, used the meat for food, the pelt for warmth, and the bones for ceremony, always respected the animal and assured there would be Bison available for future generations. During the time of Settlement and Industry and the Trans-continental Railway; however, the Bison were led to near extinction.
Similarly, the American car industry's troubles were a reflection of corporate leaders' refusal to rethink. The leaders of these companies were the problem, not the workers, warehouses or market. Instead of bail-outs, change leadership. If Tesla motors had been given control of the staff and facilities of the unsuccessful companies, workers could keep working, the government could save money and consumers could safely purchase a domestic and environmental product.
The Authors of Cradle to Cradle are not merely trying to frighten us, make us conform, or make us settle for a lesser existence. We are being asked to think.
"Once you understand the destruction taking place, unless you do something to change it, even if you never intended to cause such destruction, you become involved in a strategy of tragedy. You can continue to be engaged in that strategy of tragedy, or you can design and implement a strategy of change."(44)
The audience is not only consumers but producers, businesses, governments, individuals and cultures. Better oneself to better the collective.
After reading chaperter one what stood out to me the most was the fact tht we do not live in harmony with nature ever since the industrial revolution and even earlier we have viewed nature as an enemy, as something that only got in our way. i think this is very true and needs to stop. As the book says we as people use "brute force" to acomplish the things we want with total disregard to the environment. Weather it be chemical brute force as in pesticiedes or some mechine that whipes out trees by the thousands for new homes. Without our environment we could not survive. We Need to stop using "Brute Force" and look for ways to embrace our surroundings. Our planet provides us with everything we need and we are destroying it to make a profit. Instead of viewing our environment as an obstical to our own gains I think we should start veiwing it as a partner to help us, and give us what we need to create something great, healthy, and safe for "all children of all species of all time"(14)
riedinger5205@philau.edu
Chapter 1 of Cradle to Cradle definitely focused on the negative consequences of the industrial revolution. As humans, we all want items right away and don't necessarily care about how it is made or what it is made out of. We have become more relaxed (some people prefer the term lazy)throughout the years since the peak of the industrial revolution and the assembly line. As consumers, we know that purchasing items is faster and easier than ever before. Life seemed good, until the term "global warming" came into play. More and more people are taking a closer look as to where their clothes/items came from, how it was made, and what exactly is it made out of? The term "going green" sparked the interest of many people. Slowly, our society is taking a step back. A step back and into the right direction.
I believe that we have the responsibility to take care of the Earth. So far, we have only thought about ourselves and our own personal desires to receive items fast and easy. However, that put the Earth in a bad state. But as we all know, the first step is awareness of the problem. All we have to do now is find a solution.
The authors point out all of the negative effects that the industrial revolution caused in chapter on. Although stated and implied, that the overall outcome of the revolution was nothing short of positive. It sparked an incredible economic uprising in the country for both the consumer and the business. The industry will continue to pump out products as long as the consumers continue to buy, but the industry has to produce to the consumers wants and needs. I agree with Dawn, if consumers do stop purchasing from a particular business that business will have to alter its was of producing to satisfy, or they will obviously continue to lose business or ultimately go out of business.
Hi my name is Will Samtur and I am an incoming freshman. My perspective is very similar to yours Dawn. I am also going to be part of a group who contributes to the degradation of the environment and who uses large amounts of the earth’s resources; architects. I look positively at the future however, considering the world of architecture today has evolved a great amount. The health of the planet and preserving its beauty will all be considered when designing a building. The concept of Green Architecture is beginning to be introduced, using passive solar and less energy consuming designs, all of which include comfort and beauty.
It is truly amazing to know that what is kept hidden from us is what’s harming us. A large positive global perspective on the environment is what we need to overcome the issues that are present today. The world must be aware of the consequences of global resource depletion and the toxins and pollution that are being emitted into the air and bodies daily. An appreciation of what the world has to offer will encourage those who are not conscious about environmental damage to take a stand and fight for the health of the planet.
Hey Dawn,
I enjoyed reading your post on the first chapter of Cradle to Cradle and your ideas about aiding the environment. Your experimentation with hand-weaving materials is wonderful and opens the door for the utilization of even more innovative textile-making materials and techniques. For instance, now that you have experimented with products that would have been thrown away, why not begin experimenting with new materials that, like the “paper” of Cradle to Cradle, can be recycled continuously and infinitely once the textile is thrown away? I am sure that some day these materials will be discovered (if they haven’t been already) and used widely in textiles around the world; it is a heartening and exciting prospect. For these textiles to exist, their components would need to be safe and to contain no harmful chemicals or additives. This would greatly decrease (if done right, even eliminate) the harmful effects of textiles on the environment, consumers, and those who dispose of textiles: the very people you worried about in your post. If these new textiles were tied in with the utilization of green energy sources to power factories, the entire textile industry may no longer cause harm.
However, I disagree with you when you state that a “universal design” mentality is needed. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote about this mindset; I am sorry if I did. I interpreted the “universal design” mentality as one where the same regulations on, methods of producing, etcetera, textiles are the same everywhere in the world. Cradle to Cradle spoke about this occurrence, and I agree with the authors. Instead of necessitating the consideration of the local and global consequence of products, a universal design would eliminate the ability for this consideration. Designers and producers would not be able to consider the local effects at all, since they would have to be concerned only with the worst-case scenario of anywhere in the world. These designs and regulations would not suit most localities. In addition, the designs and regulations would not focus on global health, but still on the one worst-case scenario.
I agree with your statement of boycotting the clothing that contains harmful chemicals and that was created in areas with low or non-existent restrictions on these chemicals. These addititives are harmful to the individuals that wear the clothing the chemicals are contained in, and are also harmful to the workers who had to deal with the chemicals in the factory. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that simply boycotting this clothing could change the methods and practices that companies use. If enough people boycott (a difficult event to bring about), a company’s revenue will fall, and its success will be lessened. However, the company will not know the reason for the change in success. There would be know stimulus, therefore, for the company to change. If the company is aware of the reason for its dwindling revenue, it may not have the resources, knowledge, money, or power to change its ways. Something more than simply boycotting must be done in order to truly make a difference. We need new designs that are available to many, more spreading of information and knowledge about harmful industrial practices, money to implement new designs and practices, etcetera. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.
Thank you to all who have commented! This was a great way to start the blog.I hope all of these comments shape the rest of the blog. Ted - thank you for helping me edit my post.
I am very pleased to see such an enthusiastic discussion! It was not easy to pick a winner. Keep reading and keep posting!
Post a Comment