The Future I See

When I think about the future and the sustainability of the Earth's natural resources I am optimistic. I have difficulty imagining an Earth with limited resources, extinct animals, and a contaminated atmosphere. Realistically, people on our planet will continue to use precious resources excessively if governmental regulations are not put in to action, or perhaps people of the future will be able to re make and re place natural resources with man made resources. Most people are not willing to change their lifestyles unless their lives or lifestyles are threatened and changing the way they live is no longer just an option. I am a firm believer in governmental regulations when the topic is saving people from themselves and I believe this must be done to protect the future. When individuals make poor life decisions the cause is usually due to lack of understanding and knowledge of how their actions will effect themselves or others around them. An abundant of people do not understand the extreme severity of protecting the Earth's resources from depleting.


Society today has made life a contest on who can consume the most resources, in that excessive consumption equals success. Money hungry people are the ones who continue to consume and use resources like its going out of style because they just simply can. In the reading, The Futurist, a quote I found to be eye opening was " It would be hopelessly naive to believe that entire populations will suddenly experience a moral awakening, renouncing greed, envy and avarice." This quote makes me think about how impossible getting everyone to regulate the amount of resources they use is, even with government regulation. Those who are wealthy and desperate will always be able to buy their way out of laws and regulations that middle class people have to abide by. But although we may never live in a perfect world, saving the world from itself is something that can be done. In the article Thinking Ahead:  The Value of Future Consciousness, it states that "wisdom can also be described as being able to grasp the big picture of reality and use this knowledge for the betterment of life." I liked this quote because I do believe knowledge is power and should be used for the greater good, not evil. With government interference, people should be given the knowledge on how they are corroding the Earth, how to change positively, and how both ways could change their future for better or for worse. Government regulations should start with major corporations in teaching them how to grow, manufacture and distribute goods in an eco friendly way. In the article, Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science, it makes a good point, "The purpose of this note and comment is to help awaken the sleeping giants in our communities to envision a sus- tainable world and to fulfill it. Our objective is to re- emphasize  the significance of a clear vision and its engineering in sustainability science to move scientists and practitioners towards sustainability." This goes along with my belief of improving the manufacturers and wealthy investors who have the most control over the well being of the planet first and then the trickle down effect will play into the change as a whole. 

Miracle Fibers

The issue of growing hemp in the United States is constantly being argued over in politics and farming communities. The DEA law enforcement believes that hemp and marijuana are too alike and that from a helicopter, the two can not be differentiated. Although hemp and marijuana are cousins, hemp lacks the abundance amount of THC, the drug that gets people high, that marijuana contains and is grown for illegally. In the movie Hempsters, a law enforcing agent claims that growing the hemp plant will only send a bad message to children, and people will not be able to tell the difference when the plant is being grown. A counter argument that was made by a politician said," if a DEA agent can not tell the difference between the two plants, then he should not be in law enforcement." According the the reading, Hemp: The Historic Fiber Remains Controversial, hemp in textiles has been used since the 28th century B.C. and is still used a lot today in home furnishings and apparel. The process of growing the plant is much different than growing it's cousin, who requires an abundant amount of light and space to grow. Hemp can be grown extremely close together with less sunlight. Hemp is naturally resistant to mold, pests, and bacteria, so the pesticides and other harmful chemicals are not needed for growing. The entire plant can be used to make cloth, paper, building materials, cosmetics, and even food.

Hemp has been named the most eco friendly fiber and is known to be healthy to humans, so the question of why the fiber is illegal is what I am still trying to figure out. Why is it illegal to grow the fiber in the United States, which would generate profit, when we import the fiber from other countries? I believe the people who are against the fiber being grown in the United States are lacking information on why the fiber is so beneficiary and not hazardous. This plant, when legalized, will make an improvement in farming and trade which will keep outsourcing this fiber to a minimum.

Bamboo fiber has been mislabeled on garments and other products, when really the fiber is nothing but rayon. This often misleads people into believing that what they are buying is eco friendly and healthy. According to Are You Being Bamboozled?, mislabeling these products is illegal under the FTC regulations, but some companies find a way to continuously trick consumers. Rayon, made from bamboo, is not eco friendly because of all the toxic chemicals used in the process of making the fiber. The fiber is not bio degradable because they do not break down in a short amount of time after be disposed of.

GM Cotton Against Organic, demonstrates how many companies are misleading consumers into thinking the are being eco friendly and organic. "January 2010, large amounts of genetically modified (GM) cotton from India had been put on the German market as organic cotton. The report also questioned the authenticity of the organic certifiers Ecocert and the Dutch Control Union. According to the article, they are suspected of having certified GM cotton as organic.". This was a large scale of fraud that potentially scared away consumers from buying the products of this producer. "Today what are generally referred to as Third Party Certification systems have become the dominant means of organic guarantee for world trade. While Third Party Certification is an essential component to world trade, there are downsides to the system. The inherent expense and paperwork required in a multilevel system discourages most small organic producers from being certified at all. This limits local and domestic trade as well as access to organic products."

Many controversies still exist with all three of these fibers and may continually cause concerns in the near future. Hemp, bamboo, and organic cotton are miracle fibers when they are grown, treated, manufactured and labeled correctly to the public.

Sustainability of Cotton

Cotton, being the most popular fiber on the planet, has many perks but also many downfalls. While cotton itself may be somewhat sustainable, the abundances to which the plants are grown causes unsustainable impacts. Overuse of water and endangerment to animals are just a few negative impacts of growing the plant excessively. Using water to grow the cotton is unsustainable if the plant requires more water than the Earth can produce with rainfall and more than often this is the case. Pesticides have been known to stream into rivers and pollute the water that humans and animals often drink.

While reading The Sustainability of Cotton I found that there is cotton is not very sustainable at all. Organic farming is a positive alternative to being sustainable if the conditions of the workers and the surrounding environment are treated fairly. If a forest has to be cut down in order for farmers to plant organic cotton, that is not becoming sustainable. If workers are mistreated and use of child labor is happening on an organic cotton farm, that is not being sustainable either. Organic cotton still requires an abundant amount of water for growing. Mobile irrigation seems use the least amount of water but requires trees to be cut down. Flood irrigation does just that, flood. Drip irrigation is the most effectively sustainable way because the system only gives the plant exactly the amount of water needed and distributes at the root of the plant. However, less than 1% of cotton farming irrigation is done this way because of the high cost of the system.

Cotton Inc. is conducting tests and projects for cotton growing to become more economically friendly. Some of their projects include evaluating new pest-management technologies, changes in row spacing, planting patterns, plant populations, that may improve the way cotton is grown. In the Cotton and Water video, they claim to have found a way to use by far less water in farming and manufacturing cotton. Precision irrigation is what they are starting to use in which a pipe is ran underground to the plant's roots directly. Some scientists are also trying to make a cotton plant that lacks water drought genes so the plant will be resistant to drought. The goal is to make cotton plants that require half as much water which would have a major impact.

Natural vs. Synthetic

There has been a lot of controversy and confusion about the facts of natural fibers verses synthetic fibers. While both have their positive and negative aspects to them, they can also be made in a way to reduce the harm they cause to the environment. Large amounts of water, and harmful pesticides are used to grow cotton. Sheep are injected with insecticides which can be harmful to the flock if not treated properly. An abundant amount of energy and non renewable resources are made to produce synthetic fibers. For polyester, water consumption is extremely low, emissions from the chemicals to produce the fiber is fairly high if discharge is untreated. Producing nylon produces emissions of nitrous oxide, which has caused about 3% of the carbon dioxide emissions into the Earth's atmosphere. The production of viscose leads to emissions of sulphur, nitrous oxide, carbon disulphide, and hydrogen sulfide. These chemicals lead to harmful environmental conditions.  Harmful pollutants that contaminate water and breathing air are cause by both of these fibers when manufactured.

All fibers are capable of being manufactured in a proper way that will not cause harm to the environment. These processes are not always convenient and often require more money to be spent on processing. Cotton can be organically grown, or substituted for hemp or flax fibers. Wool can also be grown organically, and the chemicals used to treat the wool can be recycled instead of being thrown out where otherwise it would potentially seep into the dirt and water. When choosing polyester, make sure it has not been made with catalytic agents that contain cobalt or manganese salts. The only real alternative for Nylon is to substitute the fiber for wool. Viscose can be made from wood, can be treated without chlorine bleach, and can be substituted for lyocell. Hemp has been known to be the most environmentally friendly fiber.

For my designs, I would still choose synthetic fibers if they were my favorite. I would explain to my friend and others, the alternative choices for synthetic fibers that I will use. Using synthetic fibers like polyester that are recycled, viscose that has not been bleached with chlorine, and lyocell. I will teach them about the harmful affects that non organic fibers have on the environment to compare them to synthetic fibers that are not as bad. My designs from synthetic fibers will be made to wear for a long time and will not fall apart.