Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimi | Hacker News Reader

All the industries are competing to be the one by which you display your worth to society. The order as I see it is: House, Car, Clothes, Phone. Jewelry goes in there somewhere.

Each of these products is trying to convince you of their value, excess value really, so you will spend your money on them, yet the expense of the product isn't worth much. You need a house to protect you from the weather and other people. After having done that, the rest is extravagance. Jewelry is absolutely no value. If you can call, text, and browse the internet, you're good. If a car gets you from A to B and doesn't need a lot of maintenance, that's sufficient.

I remember a Sex in the City scene where Carrie was talking about her $40,000 worth of shoes.

Beyond providing the basics, these products aren't worth more except for their display of wealth.

Meanwhile, we destroy the planet a little more each day to prove we are worth mating.

View on HN

They look beautiful. You know, like art. Is that also of no value?

That said, is art (or having a beautiful environment) worth, in this particular case, filling the oceans with junk and killing people, probably not.

But let's not pretend that fashion is a worthless status-seeking endeavor but playing video games is a window to a new world here.

> They look beautiful. You know, like art. Is that also of no value?

Ecologically speaking, yes, there is zero value whatsoever in aesthetics.

And yes, I do understand I look like an insane homeless man with my unkempt hair and decade old college outfit :)

Not all aesthetic creations are valuable art. If you want to buy ever more clothing because the designer created art, then pay the designer the same, produce one piece and put it in a museum; then we can get on with economising to reduce or negative impact on the planet sufficiently so it race might just survive the next few centuries.

What's the relative pollution of production of an article of fashion wear vs a game download? It's going to be something like a 100k times more pollution from the clothing, surely?

I'm basically on board with you but I think we're conflating two things here.

Fashion, by which I include clothes, jewellery, accessories, etc., is not a single uniform thing. Fast-fashion, in particular, is categorically not art, and is particularly egregious in terms of the environment.

But, on the other hand, I just got a sweet deal on an absolutely beautiful motorcycle jacket (that I will wear whilst motorcycling, not just for show!) that, even on sale, was as expensive as my my winter jacket and trousers combined, but will probably last me a decade or more if I stay roughly the same shape.

Is that art?

I don't know, it might be: it definitely looks really awesome, and it's probably still going to look awesome in 10 years' time.

Then you've got handmade stuff, in terms of both clothing and jewellery. I don't tend to go there because it's generally way beyond my budget, but it becomes hard to deny that it's not art.

And whatever you may think about the value of it, there is something to be said for wearing nice stuff: the trick is to reach the point where you can do it for yourself without caring what anyone else thinks, and to make sure you buy things that are going to last, and ideally have a certain amount of timelessness to them.

I would argue the issue with clothing is the opposite: you can buy very cheap clothes now. H&M,Zara,C&A,Terranova etc all allow you to get a t-shirt, skirt, dress or whatever for ten bucks.

It's cheap synthetic and won't last long but who cares, you paid ten bucks for it.

And so each season you buy 3-4 new ones...

Kohl's brand clothes are even more bottom barrel and last for years. Durability isn't the issue.

The clothes being cheap here is not the problem although it definitely does not help. The problem here is fast fashion and the constant recycling of fashion trends. I'd argue that this is more of a cultural problem. If the clothes are cheap but the trend changes biannually instead of annually, you're going to see a drop in purchases.

The diktat should be "Buy cheap clothes but not very often". You don't have to go all the way to a suit with matching tie and shoes. Polos, shirts, jeans, chinos can be had for cheap too, and they last long.

Who is to say that $40,000 in shoes is any worse than $100 in shoes constantly used and abused? In that extreme of a case I would say it's most likely worse, but there's something to be said for more expensive and longer-lasting.

In Carrie's case I would say it's worse just because she never struck me as the type to wear them for more than a single fashion season. Love the show, hate the movies.

I buy $100 shoes. They typically last me about 3 years. $40,000 worth of shoes assuming they last just as long per $ (Wrong but its the only way this comparison works) would last me many lifetimes.

There is simply no way that a person could spend that much on shoes in a lifetime and it be a good idea. One thing I am considering is going slightly up and getting a pair of $600 leather boots since I know someone who has been wearing the same pair for 10 years now and just has the sole replaced.

But that doesn't mean that they do any more damage to the environment in their production. If they last just as long then they are no worse than the $100 shoes.

I did the $600 leather boot thing. They've lasted me 4 years so far, and look almost brand new. I mostly wear them in fall,winter and spring. (They're a little heavy for summer).

I'd wager 1 pair of $600 boots removes the need to buy 4 or 5 pairs of cheaper boots – and lessens the impact on the environment.

It's difficult though for the majority of people to afford $600 up front; so the argument of eco-friendly vs economics is not a choice for most people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com