Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to people.
PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles around people and look like an idiot". People are social animals, and they care about how they look.
I don't think we're obsessed over almonds and yet their production is wastingso much water in critical regions.
Right now it's cheaper to buy a new trouser than to have it repair by a local craftsman, and the fashion trends you are observing are also engineered and managed at an industry level, down to the color they'll want to push the next year.
TBH he answer could simply be regulation and bake the externalities in the price of the clothes. Some people will still change wardrobe every 3 months, but most won't have that luxury, and our views will adapt to that new reality.
that would explain the drop in extreme fashion's popularity also as people become educated.
Rational and animalistic are usually synonymous. Humans, on the other hand, tend to be far less rational.
Thus, the more rational we are, the more fashion matters to us. Or vice versa.
For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets, saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul searching and realizations/some new medication, I have discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on.
Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a skirt was quite literally life changing.
Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?
More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would be like eliminating art as impractical.
Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales.
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe". They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which definitely communicates something.
Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit, because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least some desire to emulate an Einstein.
Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my kids. Of course what this means is different for different animals, and in the case of humans different styles of raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one happens), and then society would raise the child (in some cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or similar) - the important point is in this case the man only minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being (as opposed to all too common dies at birth).
Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential mate - anything else will die before the child is born and thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have different warmth and dry needs.
By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are sending your own message to people about what's important to you.
Aesthetic contemplations are never an afterthought.
I think it’s the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have come later.
Though I’m no historian so this is just speculation.
Is that what you do?
If not, then that's a bold move setting up a strawman as you try to start a flamewar.
Clothes, as with many things in life, can be a form of artistic expression. What's so wrong with that?