[0xbadcafebee]

> I wonder where the biggest opportunities are to get people reusing and repairing their things rather than buying new ones.

Back in the day you repaired things because a really well made thing would last a lifetime with proper care. But Amazon and Walmart made it their mission to get people to keep buying clothes, so now clothes are cheaper and more disposable.

I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. Maybe encourage manufacturers to have a warranty program that works with independent repair shops. You spend more with the intention of keeping it longer, and can get it repaired if needed.

[mellavora]

And less repairable. Fabrics are more often a blend.

However, we are fighting against the market on this. It is the same as the software subscription vs one-time-purchase model.

The economy depends on people constantly consuming, buying new things. Trend started long before Amazon and Wallmart; they just accelerated it.

[0xbadcafebee]

Well I think we can change that. There's no constitutional proclamation that says we have to be a consumer society. gen Z are much more conscious of these issues, we could help guide them towards more responsible purchases and intentional living, and the market should slowly follow

[Annatar]

Only the American economy depends on the constant consumption, and we can clearly see how that ended: with riots and looting in the streets, a true beacon, pinnacle of success.

Other economies are much more content to pay for reuse and repair.

[coryfklein]

> I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality.

I would LOVE to do this, but I have absolutely no idea how to identify quality. Is the $50 t-shirt at Macy's actually going to last me longer than the $10 that looks identical at The Gap?

Since I don't even know, I usually end up taking the $10 safer choice.

[robocat]

> I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality.

I’m unsure whether this would be good for the environment. What are the risks of not using it, or damaging it? Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn, so deciding if the environment is better off for that choice is not obvious.

I just buy good second-hand clothes since that is more likely to be good for my pocket (and perhaps with luck, the environment).

[0xbadcafebee]

Second-hand clothes have a huge positive effect on the environment! It's the "Re-use" in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/environmental-benefits-of-...

[robocat]

It really feels like it should be positive, but I am very unsure it is.

1. Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn. I spend less money buying second hand clothes, but I spend those savings elsewhere in the economy.

2. The revenue of a second-hand clothes dealer is spent in the economy, likely causing the average environmental impact of the economy where the store is located.

3. My marginal increase in second-hand clothing usage might cause a marginal increase in new clothes purchases. More likely for expensive “vintage” clothes since they have a limited supply, and vintage goods more likely cause a substitute goods effect for new clothes. Less likely for very low demand undesirable clothes (cheap thrift store clothes that would otherwise just be recycled).

Generally I think that most things make little difference. To make a positive environmental impact I suspect requires one to do something that has a fairly direct effect (plant some trees, change legislation), or reduces societies total impact (war, death, reducing reproduction). Reducing your use of something that is very clearly 100% petrochemical-based (gas, plane flights) makes some difference, but mostly your money goes into the economy: even 100% “green” goods are actually only as green as your country’s economy. There is massive amounts of green-washing going on, so most green goods are actually no better than whatever they replace (and from what I can tell, most green goods are worse for the environment).

[0xbadcafebee]

Just because you spend $5 doesn't mean it has a negative environmental impact. Give me $5 to spend and I can either kill all the fish in a river with it, or clean up said river. It depends on what you spend your money on.

Small things do have a big impact. Even just voicing our opinions makes a big impact. Why do you think eco-friendly products are so in vogue? Organic products, fair trade, rainforest alliance, products made with 50% recycled content, lower energy use devices, cars with higher gas mileage, electric cars. None of this stuff existed a few decades ago, but it has all been steadily increasing and having more of an impact. It's a slow pace, but small things do add up to big change over time.

[0_____0]

This question has led me away from big box stores and more to online clothes retailers. Certain brands give a really comprehensive breakdown of what their clothes are made of and how they're constructed. Right now I'm thinking of a pair of Outlier pants that I've had for about 4 years or more by now, probably have 500 wears in them. They have some minor fading and a couple of burn holes from standing too close to campfires, but are otherwise unscathed. They were something like $150 when I bought them but I was sold on the textile they used (very durable high-nylon synth blend), and in this case it paid off -- I would have blown holes in the knees of jeans 5 times over in the same period.

[Tijdreiziger]

Not really a measure of quality (rather of ethics), but I like Good on You’s ratings: https://directory.goodonyou.eco/

[nobodyandproud]

Pay attention to the seams and stitching. Rows double or triple-stiching in parallel, and compare with he cheap ones.

Fabric quality is another big one, but that’s difficult to tell. But at least for cotton it’s generally a bit thicker and heavier.

Some well crafted garments also have thicker fabric near high-wear areas (jeans), or as a “patch”.

We don’t need a consumer society to thrive, but we need skilled artisans+quality goods to make it work (which we outsourced away generations ago, sigh).

It’d also help answer the more awkward issues of hidden-away slave labor that we rely on today.

[nunb]

To identify quality one may start by eschewing the habit of wearing undergarments as one’s main garment.