Pull out quote from below that I agree with but you should read the rest of the post too.
“All of this human-centered, empathic design is actually ignoring the issue of overconsumption. Consuming less will make the greatest impact on the environment.”
(Fe) Catalytic Clothing from Protein® on Vimeo.
I really appreciate the level of thought and innovation that has clearly gone into this project, realized by Professor Helen Storey MBE, London College of Fashion and Prof. Tony Ryan OBE, University of Sheffield, but I can’t help but wonder how much of an effect this kind of technology will have compared to more practical, or even traditional ways of reducing air pollution. I must say that they do have a leg up when it comes to consumer sensitization. There’s a lot more appeal, both visual and emotional, when wearing a garment becomes the vehicle for change as opposed to walking to work, especially when the product is endorsed by Erin O’Connor to the sound of Radiohead. Yet there is a problem that I think only complicates matters. All of this human-centered, empathic design is actually ignoring the issue of overconsumption. Consuming less will make the greatest impact on the environment. We’re still asked to consume, albeit an innovative and ground-breaking product (to be clear this product is not yet available to the public).
With that said, I’m a little offended by this “sustainable” technology. It frames environmental responsibility as this impossible feat that has been conquered by a single technological advance- “The art of the possible. The power to alter our course.”- as if this possibility hasn’t existed all along.
Let’s be careful about what we claim in the sustainable fashion industry. We have the ability to collectively achieve environmental stewardship, but we have to instill preventative values in people and steer away from labeling human beings as consumers, otherwise, our efforts will indeed have the opposite effect, catalyzing wastefulness rather than conservation.
