• AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A better approach is probably to focus on clothes that last, and keep them longer. Of course those are also more expensive but it should even out over the long run

    • penguin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone can only do the best they can. Anyone who expects everyone to have zero impact is an idiot. Even a salad involved death and cruelty somewhere (animals caught in farm equipment, underpaid immigrant farmers who get abandoned if injured, etc).

      So really, all you can do in your life if you care about these things is minimize your impact as much as you can based on what you know.

      Similar to people who value giving to charity. Do they give all of their spare money to charity? No and no one should expect them to. Just giving anything to charity regularly has a positive impact and the whole “you’re not doing enough” does much more damage than good.

      Reminds me of vegetarians/vegans. I’m not really either, but I don’t eat meat. And I’m just happy when I hear people say they want to eat less meat. Whereas most people who are against meat are only happy if someone else is also against it completely.

    • speff@disc.0x-ia.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Got it. People on this site are stupid idealistic as hell, so it’s probably good that I spelled out why these things are expensive. I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks thought animal cruelty exists in these industries because people are mean.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You could afford to, if companies were forced to go cruelty free. Clothing manufacturing is currently one of the most profitable industries, outpacing energy, fossil fuels, and technology industries while producing more new billionaires.

      Do you really think that if they were forced to stop abusing animals, those companies would close shop and stop trying to sell textiles? That they would suddenly try to charge absurd prices for the same clothing you buy now?

      Prices aren’t set by costs, they are set by what the market will beat. Profits are the difference between costs and what the market will bear. Clothing companies charge exactly as much as they can to generate the sales volume they want, and nothing less. They want to sell you cheap clothes.

      This applies to every industry. Nestle would find a way to sell chocolate even if they were forced to stop using child slave labor.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, and? What do you want us to do about it? Those companies are never willingly going to become cruelty free, and the government will never force them to while the bribery, I mean, lobbying continues.

        The only way these companies will go cruelty free is if people totally stop buying non-cruelty free products, which again won’t happen because most people can’t afford cruelty free products.