As another commenter pointed out, you could (and people surely did) make the same argument about lead or asbestos. That alone doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Why is it impractical? It would be unpopular and put prices up but it could be done. We would have to reduce the amount of clothing that is produced but that is hardly a problem as we produce vastly more than we need. We could eliminate fast fashion for a start.
You don't hear people saying, man, that asbestos and lead did a bang up job on X. But you 100% see 100% of women wearing stretchy pants. For the longest time I exclusively wore cotton jeans and then they became impossible to find and I finally realized what plastic was good for: fat people. Now I see men wearing them all the time. The struggle of the 80s on people killing themselves to fit into jeans is not longer a thing.
Not sure how socks used to be without plastic but pretty sure they'd fall apart fast.
You don't need plastics for that.
Warp knitting has been used for the last few centuries with cotton/linen/silk/wool to get stretchy textiles, and there are plenty of stretchy pants that are made of natural materials available today for those who struggle fitting into jeans.
In my opinion, no natural fabric is as comfortable as synthetics. But I have cotton bedding and curtains. I think these are higher priority: bedding is used while you're lying close to it and easily able to inhale any dust, and curtains are exposed to sunlight that can weaken the fabric and make it break down more easily. They're also both large, meaning there's more plastic to be released. Carpet also seems a high priority, although that's more expensive and difficult to change.
I do hate fast fashion, but I can think of many exceptions where natural fibers won't cut it. There is no natural fabric product on the market that can properly replace lightweight, waterproof clothing. Waxed cotton is waterproof but heavy. Rubber is not breathable. Technical synthetics like Goretex have its issues (low durability, high cost, coated with PFAS), but it sure beats getting hypothermia.
It's a rare exception that natural fibers won't serve. Alaska, Arctic circle, Antarctica, disaster prep.
You don't need lightweight waterproof clothing, you just like it. Getting a little sweaty under a non-breathable fabric or getting wet but staying insulated with wool will be just fine. Umbrellas are great as well.
What beats lightweight breathable fabric is not desecrating the planet.
We can replace Nylon with get this, poorer alternatives, if we gave a shit about the environment. I know it's unthinkable to switch to a worse product or user experience, but imagine caring more about the health of the planet.
Cotton production, however, is extremely resource-intensive (particularly water) to the point of unsustainability – and it's largely grown in parts of the world that are likely to suffer catastrophic droughts in the future.
Cotton has been produced for a long time and with far more primitive means than today, so I'm pretty sure it is sustainable. Moreover, cotton being so cheap pretty much rules out it being "extremely resource intensive". Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.
We're obviously no longer in those times. Many things that were once sustainable are no longer so. It is well understood that cotton production will face considerable difficulties in the future. At the same time the demand for cotton has exploded along with global population. Consumer prices of cotton do not accurately reflect the production cost due to the usual reasons (externalities, lack of global water pricing mechanisms).
> Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, and you're (like myself) living in a privileged part of the world if water is an inexpensive resource to you. Freshwater scarcity is going to be one of the most critical issues exacerbated by the climate change, and as I said, particularly so in those parts of the world where cotton is grown such as South Asia. The most famous case of cotton production having catastrophic consequences is the Aral Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea).
on the bright side, cotton is a lot more durable and lasts longer.
Another problem is fast fashion. The fashion industry is a bit of a cancer on the planet, encouraging chains like H&M to sell very cheap clothes filled with plastic, that people need to replace every few years.
Well, it depends. Certainly nylon and polyester can be vastly stronger than cotton, that's why they're used in many garments requiring mechanical durability. (Heck, ballistic nylon is a thing; you don't hear about ballistic cotton!)
But sure, it's also true that you can make extremely low-durability clothing from synthetic polymers that aren't even intended to last (ultra fast fashion is incredibly destructive, yes).
Most cotton production in the US is not irrigated.
The problem with farming resource calculations and fearmongering, is often they measure water usage of a particular crop without really considering where the water came from.
Wouldn't you say crops grown with just water from the rain were using water with perfect sustainability?
The cotton in my clothes doesn't come from the US, and neither does that of the vast majority of world's people. Besides that, surely you're aware that the American South is going to increasingly suffer from droughts as well? It's pretty disingenuous to assume that just because historically rainwater has been sufficient, it's going to be so in the future as well.
Also, agriculture isn't necessarily sustainable just because it doesn't require artificial irrigation. As an extreme example, just look at the Amazon. The land used to grow a water-intensive species might be better used for other purposes.
The US bans most of the cotton from China, the worlds largest producer, because of slavery. The US also produces a third of global cotton and is the leading exporter. You certainly have some American cotton in your closet, a huge portion of the people around the world will have American cotton in their clothes.
And for the rest... talking to climate doomers isn't interesting or productive. You'll only believe negative things, you demonstrably here don't know what you're talking about and just make things up to fit the narrative you have in your head. You clearly knew nothing about cotton production but made up facts without bothering to look for information at all. You make up your climate facts as well, do you know anything about the climate models for what will happen in the cotton growing regions of the US? Or have you heard vague things about droughts and decided to parrot those and assume they apply here because they supported your doom thoughts?
They are ordinary, biodegradable, organic plant material, things to which our bodies are accustomed to for millions of years. You might as well ask whether grass is toxic.
> The human body does not contain enzymes that digest cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur?
Mostly outside the body, before ingestion occurs.
> Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing doesn't hurt us.
I disagree. Evolution had the last ~360 million years (that's about how old cellulose is I believe) to evolve mechanisms to protect our body from cellulose particles.
Before we removed lead from petrol it was hard/impossible to find fuel without petrol in.
I dunno, half of my wardrobe is natural and the stuff that isn't is specific outdoor gear that would just be marginally worse at its' job (heavier, a bit less waterproof).
I feel as if people get a bit stuck on things being optimal or whatever. If my boxer shorts and socks are a bit less elastic, ok, cool, whatever, who cares? If this stuff actually is dangerous it doesn't matter how much better it is.
Traces? I'm really puzzled by this thread, meaning I don't really understand what do people mean by plastics. I would guess it's all synthetic fabrics, but then the gp proposition is so nuts it's surprising someone even discusses it. Like, all sportswear is synthetic, and you cannot replace it with any old-fashioned fabrics, because synthetics are simply better. It isn't even the right word, it's like saying you must ban motorized vehicles from transportation. I mean, sure, there was a time when people were wearing wool, wood and leather and somehow even managed to do something like mountaineering in it, but it is absolutely unimaginable to me, how you can go for long grueling hikes in cotton clothes that just won't dry out on your body.
You obviously have no clue about "serious mountaineering" and what you are talking about in general. Even though I do have a couple of merino wool items, they can be replaced with synthetics quite easily (the only real upside of wool is it is very warm and comfortable to sleep in), and no amount of wool will replace the other 95% of my clothing, which is mostly synthetic. Well, except for down, obviously, which is the only thing actually superior to the synthetic counterparts (and even that many people avoid, when travelling in rainy/wet regions). Everything else... It's not even a serious descission, it just isn't something anybody who ever did "serious mountaineering" would argue about, the vast majority of your gear is synthetic, and not because it's cheaper (it absolutely isn't cheap). It just the only viable option. Even something you could potentially replace with cotton (IDK, a backpack?) would weight a ton.
As a mountaineer as well, thank you for capturing my shared frustration. Before synthetic bags, heavy canvas bags were used and typically required hiring a pack mule, donkey, or sherpa. Synthetics made mountaineering and the outdoors accessible to the common person.
Let's also not forget while down is natural, the material encapsulating it is usually not!
Sure, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, buying something with a bit of spandex or whatever for stretch/durability is vastly better than buying something that's pure polyester fleece. Just go for as high a percentage cotton/wool/linen wherever you can.