Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth is now our only shareholder

patagonia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#31

Post by uoaei »

mandmandam wrote: post #29
uoaei wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Everything I've ever seen from Patagonia shows that they actually walk the walk. They source as ethically as possible. Their repair program is unmatched. They pay their workers well. In this story, they did their utmost to ensure their company remains well run, while constantly supporting their goal of protecting nature. So, what exactly is your point here? Of all the companies you could reasonably attack for propaga…

Not saying they are lying about what they are doing, only that they are conscious of what kind of message the PR sends, factored it into their sales forecasts, and are now profiting off of it. It's just business.

In general brand loyalty is a consumerist mindset, period. To the extent that Patagonia's actions engender a "rethinking" of "capitalism" they are still inhabiting a space which benefits from encouraging a consumer mindset, which as we know is one of the main cultural forces that continues to push us toward more and more growth, at the behest of the (individualist) consumer, and at the expense of nature.

Patagonia's ethics are complicated, as are those of any company who inhabits a system where profit is the dominant motive. Ultimately they are still producing articles primarily made of petrochemicals for one-time (and, occasionally, secondhand) consumption. They do good through advocacy and other initiatives, but one must consider the entire set of nth-order effects that participating in such a system entails, and if you do the accounting you would realize it is a net negative as far as climate impacts go.

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#32

Post by klabb3 »

uoaei wrote: post #21
rospaya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not have a problem with your phone costing $2000 dollars in that case, but there's so much machinery, equipment, chips, materials and various other products that would massively increase in cost or simply couldn't be produced anywhere else. How would that affect healthcare, education, manufacturing, whatever? I'm guessing that the amount of avoidable deaths that would be caused just because you can't get a…

"De-growth" should be understood to mean we will have to give up some things in the name of the greater good. Yours is quite a common argument, but ultimately it is justified by a sense of entitlement of having the technology that is now assumed to be necessary and inevitable. The reality is that we as a civilization have jumped too far, too fast, we don't actually need those things to survive, and we will need to be…

> we as a civilization have jumped too far, too fast, we don't actually need those things to survive, and we will need to be comfortable temporarily sacrificing certain luxuries

If you mean the average hacker news reader, you may be right. If you're talking about the average person on this planet, you're very far off. The type of global reform that makes a high earning tech worker's smart phone double in price will also have millions of people pushed back into poverty or outright starvation. The hypothetical political, economical or technological tools for reducing luxury consumption while at the same time having no net effect on survivability for the global poor, are entirely imaginary. You can say that we went too far when we discovered artificial fertilizer, which allowed the planet to support 2x its human population, but it's a bit late to put that genie back in the bottle now.

That said, doing nothing is a pretty good recipe for displacing and starving people as well, we just have much less information on exactly how and when that disaster will manifest itself.

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#33

Post by voisin »

pphysch wrote: post #26
voisin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather they not make this move? Comments like yours are unnecessarily exhausting. Are they perfect? No. If your standard is to criticize and tear down anyone doing anything less than perfect than you won’t ever be happy. Compared to almost everyone in this industry, this is a major move. How about we applaud it and hope others do the same rather than approach everything with a jaded eye because it doesn’t m…

I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a huge PR move that aligns with the brand identity. The (former) shareholders will continue to lead luxurious lives. Patagonia will continue to contribute to wasteful fashion and the global oversupply of clothing products. If any net-good is caused by this PR campaign, I will consider it a coincidence.

Patagonia’s pricing and quality can hardly be considered fast fashion! If you think it is contributing to the global oversupply of clothing the what do you propose instead? No clothing unless it is $1000/item and lasts forever?

I think you need to reevaluate whether it is truly a spade you are calling a spade or whether your feelings about an entire industry lead you to denigrate every actor, including those imperfect actors who actually show leadership in the industry. Again, what standard do you need to see met in order to be satisfied?

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#34

Post by uoaei »

klabb3 wrote: post #32
uoaei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"De-growth" should be understood to mean we will have to give up some things in the name of the greater good. Yours is quite a common argument, but ultimately it is justified by a sense of entitlement of having the technology that is now assumed to be necessary and inevitable. The reality is that we as a civilization have jumped too far, too fast, we don't actually need those things to survive, and we will need to be…

> we as a civilization have jumped too far, too fast, we don't actually need those things to survive, and we will need to be comfortable temporarily sacrificing certain luxuries If you mean the average hacker news reader, you may be right. If you're talking about the average person on this planet, you're very far off. The type of global reform that makes a high earning tech worker's smart phone double in price will a…

> The type of global reform that makes a high earning tech worker's smart phone double in price will also have millions of people pushed back into poverty or outright starvation.

I don't see any reason to believe this, nor any justification of that statement in the rest of your comment. Is it really so hard to believe that some of those at the top can lose a little bit of luxury, and the rest of the world can gain access to progressive economics, at the same time?

> it's a bit late to put that genie back in the bottle now

If we don't, the physical principle of conservation of mass will do it for us. We are demonstrably running out of the materials we need to continue down this path, both specifically with respect to artificial fertilizer as well as more generally with the finite resources available within reach given current and near-future technologies. Which approach do you think will cause less suffering: preparing for a dearth of resources that we can see coming before it happens, or waiting until people are dying of starvation en masse to start thinking about it?

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#35

Post by pphysch »

voisin wrote: post #33
pphysch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a huge PR move that aligns with the brand identity. The (former) shareholders will continue to lead luxurious lives. Patagonia will continue to contribute to wasteful fashion and the global oversupply of clothing products. If any net-good is caused by this PR campaign, I will consider it a coincidence.

Patagonia’s pricing and quality can hardly be considered fast fashion! If you think it is contributing to the global oversupply of clothing the what do you propose instead? No clothing unless it is $1000/item and lasts forever? I think you need to reevaluate whether it is truly a spade you are calling a spade or whether your feelings about an entire industry lead you to denigrate every actor, including those imperfec…

If Patagonia disappeared tomorrow, the world would not run out of quality clothing. That would be a bold sustainability move!

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#36

Post by mturmon »

pphysch wrote: post #26
voisin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather they not make this move? Comments like yours are unnecessarily exhausting. Are they perfect? No. If your standard is to criticize and tear down anyone doing anything less than perfect than you won’t ever be happy. Compared to almost everyone in this industry, this is a major move. How about we applaud it and hope others do the same rather than approach everything with a jaded eye because it doesn’t m…

I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a huge PR move that aligns with the brand identity. The (former) shareholders will continue to lead luxurious lives. Patagonia will continue to contribute to wasteful fashion and the global oversupply of clothing products. If any net-good is caused by this PR campaign, I will consider it a coincidence.

> Patagonia will continue to contribute to fast-fashion...

OK, this is just wrong.

"Fast fashion" has a meaning -- it's about duplicating high fashion or celebrity fashion cheaply and quickly and mass-marketing it with a lot of turnover.

That's not what Patagonia is doing, either by its actions or by its advertising. They have sold a line of fleeces, baggy surf shorts, and rain shells for decades now. The designs improve and refine and slowly morph, but they are largely the same.

I still wear a Patagonia purple ultralight rain shell that I bought in the 1990s. It's very similar to [https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-houdini-windbreaker-j...].

These items have long life (both as durable clothing articles, and as purchasable items in the catalog) and aren't really mimicking runway/celebrity trends at all. They are the opposite of fast fashion, along several axes. A significant part of their website is devoted to promoting older clothes, and selling used clothes, e.g. https://www.patagonia.com/stories/worn-wear/, and https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black... .

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#37

Post by mturmon »

pphysch wrote: post #35
voisin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patagonia’s pricing and quality can hardly be considered fast fashion! If you think it is contributing to the global oversupply of clothing the what do you propose instead? No clothing unless it is $1000/item and lasts forever? I think you need to reevaluate whether it is truly a spade you are calling a spade or whether your feelings about an entire industry lead you to denigrate every actor, including those imperfec…

If Patagonia disappeared tomorrow, the world would not run out of quality clothing. That would be a bold sustainability move!

I think you have inadvertently supplied the reductio ad absurdum of your line of reasoning on sustainability.

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#38

Post by pphysch »

mturmon wrote: post #36
pphysch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm calling a spade a spade. It's a huge PR move that aligns with the brand identity. The (former) shareholders will continue to lead luxurious lives. Patagonia will continue to contribute to wasteful fashion and the global oversupply of clothing products. If any net-good is caused by this PR campaign, I will consider it a coincidence.

> Patagonia will continue to contribute to fast-fashion... OK, this is just wrong. "Fast fashion" has a meaning -- it's about duplicating high fashion or celebrity fashion cheaply and quickly and mass-marketing it with a lot of turnover. That's not what Patagonia is doing, either by its actions or by its advertising. They have sold a line of fleeces, baggy surf shorts, and rain shells for decades now. The designs imp…

Thanks, I did not know fast-fashion referred specifically to runway fashion, which Patagonia is not AFAIK. I corrected my comment.

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#39

Post by pphysch »

mturmon wrote: post #37
pphysch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Patagonia disappeared tomorrow, the world would not run out of quality clothing. That would be a bold sustainability move!

I think you have inadvertently supplied the reductio ad absurdum of your line of reasoning on sustainability.

Interesting interpretation. I was simply providing an example of what a bold sustainability move might look like, contrasting with the low-stakes PR move of shuffling around the ownership of a private corporation.

Here are some less extreme examples:

- Make Patagonia 100% non-profit

- Make Patagonia 100% employee owned (equitably)

- Invest all profits in (any) clothing repair centers and services around the world

Re: Earth is now our only shareholder

#40

Post by dieselgate »

nostromo wrote: post #12

I wish they'd use less plastic. It's hard to find anything from Patagonia that uses environmentally-friendly materials. Perhaps they can research a way to make performance fabrics that are better for the earth. Allbirds has been a real pioneer in this space, and they've shown that you can use natural, sustainable materials and produce a product just as good as the others.

I’m sure they do use plastic but don’t they also offer a recycled collection or something? Not familiar with it or the availability
Post reply on HN