Where to buy undyed/unbleached clothes?

T Simpson wrote:I'm mainly looking for natural fiber jeans & buttoned shirts which Dharma doesn't seem to have even in undyed.

You would think there would be a bit more of a market for it.

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:In the end, I think it's a choice between paying a lot, or making it yourself.

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:It's unclear whether you're looking for cheaper shipping, less expensive undyed/unbleached clothing, or more durable (due to being undyed/unbleached) clothing.

But, for what it's worth, I've been trying to buy more durable, more sustainably made, clothing for a little while, and have come to the conclusion that clothing manufactured in any kind of sustainable way is just expensive. It's the realities of getting away from the economies of scale that come from fast-fashion. To get sustainable clothing off the rack, that clothing can't be shipped around the world, and must be made from fibers that are sustainably produced. The result is the cost is at least two orders of magnitude higher. But, the benefits are there, and the trade-off is worth it. My few higher-quality, more sustainable items, are holding up well and are wearing out due to wear, not due to lower quality and lighter weight textiles.

In the end, I think it's a choice between paying a lot, or making it yourself.

Dianne Justeen wrote:

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:In the end, I think it's a choice between paying a lot, or making it yourself.

And it's not any cheaper to sew most of the time now due to fabric cost.

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:

Dianne Justeen wrote:

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:In the end, I think it's a choice between paying a lot, or making it yourself.

And it's not any cheaper to sew most of the time now due to fabric cost.

Oof. So it's a choice between paying a lot or ... paying a lot

Kim Huse wrote:[  I have not seen much in the way of clothes in the catalogs that I want to wear, anyways...

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: To get sustainable clothing off the rack, that clothing can't be shipped around the world, and must be made from fibers that are sustainably produced. The result is the cost is at least two orders of magnitude higher. But, the benefits are there, and the trade-off is worth it. My few higher-quality, more sustainable items, are holding up well and are wearing out due to wear, not due to lower quality and lighter weight textiles.

Joe Banks wrote:John Ott demonstrated in several of his books that a person lost strength when they wore synthetic fibers, or even a wrist watch, for that matter. I don't know if anybody has duplicated his experiments to date, but it makes sense to me. And even if you don't buy that, then sticking to natural fibers will at a minimum reduce the micro-plastics polluting the world. I would just stick to cotton, silk, wool, etc, as far as you can, and any dyes or bleaches should come out in the wash over time.

David Wieland wrote:

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: To get sustainable clothing off the rack, that clothing can't be shipped around the world, and must be made from fibers that are sustainably produced. The result is the cost is at least two orders of magnitude higher. But, the benefits are there, and the trade-off is worth it. My few higher-quality, more sustainable items, are holding up well and are wearing out due to wear, not due to lower quality and lighter weight textiles.

Although it's clear that sustainable clothing is regarded as a good and desirable thing, I have no idea what it actually means. Is there some way in which we can run out of fibre or clothing? Isn't durability an important quality for reducing the need for replacement? I'm not aware of any component of my clothing (which no sane person would call "fast fashion") that won't be available decades, if not centuries, from now. What does "sustainable item" mean?

David Wieland wrote:

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:  What does "sustainable item" mean?

Not sure I can answer completely, but part of clothing being sustainable is what was utilized  in the manufacture...  There was a phase where "stone washed" was "in".  Stone washed jeans and stone washed shirts and blouses. The stones were a kind of light weight and abrasive mineral being mined.... maybe something like perlite.  The question is whether it is sustainable to disassemble a mountain for this "stone".   If the dyes being used to dye the fabric are toxic and result in pollution of  streams rivers and ocean, that's probably not sustainable.  It is hard work to know these things about commercial products, and especially when the industry and regulatory agencies collaborate in obscuring the information from the buyer.

One other thing is the conditions of the workers who made the clothes.  Are they paid a living wage?  Is it a sweat shop.  The abuse of humans isn't sustainable.  It's short term for the laborers and the exploiters.

I think shopping at second hand and thrift shops is more sustainable than new, because IMO, of the three Rs reduce reuse recycle the re-use is the most effective at impacting the waste stream.

Thekla McDaniels wrote:

David Wieland wrote:

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:  What does "sustainable item" mean?

Not sure I can answer completely, but part of clothing being sustainable is what was utilized  in the manufacture...  There was a phase where "stone washed" was "in".  Stone washed jeans and stone washed shirts and blouses. The stones were a kind of light weight and abrasive mineral being mined.... maybe something like perlite.  The question is whether it is sustainable to disassemble a mountain for this "stone".  
...
I think shopping at second hand and thrift shops is more sustainable than new, because IMO, of the three Rs reduce reuse recycle the re-use is the most effective at impacting the waste stream.

I don't know where the idea of disassembling a mountain comes from. Certainly mining is involved in some way with practically everything we have, even if it's just digging up clay to make bricks or cob. We wouldn't be sustainable without it.
As for perlite, mountain disassembly is hyperbole. Here's a description from a gardening website:
Perlite is a volcanic glass that is heated to 1,600 degrees F. (871 C.) whereupon it pops much like popcorn and expands to 13 times its former size, resulting in an incredibly lightweight material.
(Read more at Gardening Know How: What Is Perlite: Learn About Perlite Potting Soil https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/soil-fertilizers/perlite-potting-soil.htm)

The Three Rs practice is good but not enough to sustain us. It certainly can't build a thrift shop, for example.

David Wieland wrote:[
I don't know where the idea of disassembling a mountain comes from. Certainly mining is involved in some way with practically everything we have, even if it's just digging up clay to make bricks or cob. We wouldn't be sustainable without it.
As for perlite, mountain disassembly is hyperbole. Here's a description from a gardening website:
Perlite is a volcanic glass that is heated to 1,600 degrees F. (871 C.) whereupon it pops much like popcorn and expands to 13 times its former size, resulting in an incredibly lightweight material.
(Read more at Gardening Know How: What Is Perlite: Learn About Perlite Potting Soil https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/soil-fertilizers/perlite-potting-soil.htm)

The Three Rs practice is good but not enough to sustain us. It certainly can't build a thrift shop, for example.

Nicole Alderman wrote:Did the question of "what is sustainable clothing?" ever get answered?
....

I think the word "sustainable" is misused a lot these days as a sort of code word for "produced in a more primitive way"

Abraham Palma wrote:

I think the word "sustainable" is misused a lot these days as a sort of code word for "produced in a more primitive way"

It's a matter of the load capacity of the system. Any activity, human or not, is wasteful and produces pollution and entropy. But the system has ways to deal with that by counter-balance forces. You are right about ancient ways of doing things not being exactly clean, and given a big enough population, no matter how clean clothing is produced, it might be too much for the ecosystems. However, our current 'use and throw' model is too wasteful, no matter how efficient it has become compared to ancient ways. Living this way reduces the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. We don't have to do things exactly as the ancient ways, but surely we can find more ecological processes that don't depend on non-renewable resources and cleaner, maybe at the cost of more expensive clothing that we should care better.

...Adding polyester is a cheap way to increase life expectancy of a cheap fabric, but it's not sustainable or eco friendly. If you want long lasting cotton fabric, look for combed cotton.
...

David Wieland wrote:

Abraham Palma wrote:

I think the word "sustainable" is misused a lot these days as a sort of code word for "produced in a more primitive way"

It's a matter of the load capacity of the system. Any activity, human or not, is wasteful and produces pollution and entropy. But the system has ways to deal with that by counter-balance forces. You are right about ancient ways of doing things not being exactly clean, and given a big enough population, no matter how clean clothing is produced, it might be too much for the ecosystems. However, our current 'use and throw' model is too wasteful, no matter how efficient it has become compared to ancient ways. Living this way reduces the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. We don't have to do things exactly as the ancient ways, but surely we can find more ecological processes that don't depend on non-renewable resources and cleaner, maybe at the cost of more expensive clothing that we should care better.

...Adding polyester is a cheap way to increase life expectancy of a cheap fabric, but it's not sustainable or eco friendly. If you want long lasting cotton fabric, look for combed cotton.
...

Adding polyester is a cheap way to increase life expectancy of a cheap fabric, but it's not sustainable or eco friendly: I read a phrase like "not sustainable or eco friendly" from time to time, but I wonder what it truly means. Energy-poor parts of the world are where sustenance and sustainability of any kind are hardest to achieve, and eco-friendliness is the last thing on the inhabitants minds. (I'm thinking of places that still do indoor cooking on open fires fueled by dried dung or scavenged plant material. Yes, they still exist.) Why isn't increasing the life expectancy of cheap fabric a good thing?

Below the apple orchard, at the end of a path, was the dump where Mr Zuckerman threw all sorts of trash and stuff that nobody wanted anymore. Here, in a small clearing hidden by young alders and wild raspberry bushes, was an astonishing pile of old bottles, and empty tin cans and dirty rags and bits of metal and broken bottles and broken hinges and broken springs and last month's magazines and old discarded dishmops and tattered overalls and rusty spikes and leaky pails and forgotten stoppers and useless junk of all kinds, including a wrong-size crank for a broken ice-cream freezer.

Nicole Alderman wrote:I think the key here is that this thread is about a person looking for natural clothing. Whatever their reasons, let's focus on helping them, rather than debating their decision.

I think the key here is that this thread is about a person looking for natural clothing. Whatever their reasons, let's focus on helping them, rather than debating their decision.