On day one of week three, our topic in class was over the article Sustainable by Design by Stuart Walker. What I basically got from this article was that there needs to be a way in where we can make fashion sustainable, by changing the way we produce and consume fashion. Walker’s definition of fashion was something that is currently popular and changes constantly. His definition is so true and this rapid change of fashion can cause us to be unsustainable. Fast fashion companies like Forever 21 always carry clothing that doesn’t last long, many of which are fads and everyone just wants to follow the trends. I agree with Stuart with him saying that change is neither good or bad, but that the way change happens is important. If we didn’t have change in clothing fashions, then everything will just become dull and boring with everyone looking the same. I would say I used to be an over consumer but now as a college student, I have to budget and I don’t have the need to be materialistic. I just want there to be a different approach to fashion, where change does happen but the way it is produced is by using recycled textiles. When we consume the fashion, I believe a good idea would be to donate or recycle what we don’t like anymore, which could help us become more sustainable.
The article of Taking Sides over the topic if poverty is responsible for environmental degradation is what we focused on day two. I read the “No” side of the article where researcher John Ambler argues that there isn’t a connection with poverty causing environmental degradation. This article mainly focused on the poor living in rural areas, in where they have been practicing unsustainable methods by using up natural resources. I do not think these people living in poverty are doing these unsustainable practices on purpose because there’s just a lack of other resources that are not available to them due to their low income. Ambler states that sometimes the privileged are the ones causing this environmental degradation. It makes me upset that the blame is on the poor, which shouldn’t be because most of the time they don’t have any choice. As mentioned in the article, maybe if the poor worked alongside the higher-income class, then some changes could be made to reduce environmental degradation; it just has to take both sides. Offering incentives to the poor by allowing them to have some sense of ownership over some land could help them realize what natural resources are available to them and see how they could use them wisely. I am hopeful that there could be an equal distribution of resources to allow the poor to improve their lives; by lending a helping hand, we could all work our way to improve the environment.