is our clothing scientific?

[Phi for All]

I've heard that hemp makes very durable shirts and trousers, and if you're patient they'll eventually feel wonderfully worn, soft, and comfortable. Anyone wear clothing from hemp fiber? It's definitely considered "natural", but does anyone prefer it?

[DrP]

I've heard that hemp makes good rolling baccy too... ;-)

 

I better stop posting today - I'm in a funny mood and I can't deal with fools here or in real life that want to tell me they are telepathic or have relationships with spirits or that anything that isn't natural is bad. I'd better go home.

 

 

Quote: SJ: "and that came from plants"

I am sure he knows that.... but anything that contradicts his argument he seems to ignore. Maybe I am being too harsh... sorry if that is so - I best log off. See you tomorrow.

[DrKrettin]

Why do people have this idea that some how "natural" is good?

.

 

I was married to somebody who was absolutely convinced that 1) natural was good and 2) chemicals were harmful. Blissfully ignorant of the contradiction, and resolute in refusing to learn anything, she declared that (amongst other things) that the hot water in Baden Baden spas was better than the hot water elsewhere because the heat was caused naturally (geothermal). When I asked her about salt, she said it was healthy because it was a natural additive to food. What I asked her for an opinion about sodium chloride, she said it was obviously harmful because it was a chemical. It was moments like this when I really needed a stiff drink (and a shotgun).

[John Cuthber]

 

I've always hated this, mostly because it's come to exclude just about anything we do, even though we're animals living in this environment too. It's natural for a chimp to use a blade of grass to fish for insects, but if I make a hammer with a rock, a stick, and some vines, it's unnatural.

 

As someone who has lived through the early days of synthetic fabrics, I can tell you the science has come a long way. Modern synthetics breathe well, wick moisture away, hold colors longer, and don't shrink as much after cleaning. I have some pieces that are like wearing silk; very strong, comfortable, and lightweight.

 

And I'm not ashamed of what we can do with our intelligence. There is nothing unnatural about anything we do or create. We're part of nature. We should be quite a bit more responsible about it, and for that very reason I think it's wrong to consider ourselves unnatural. It makes it too easy to divorce ourselves from the things we inflict on our environment.

It's a fundamental aspect of human nature that we do unnatural things

[Phi for All]

It's a fundamental aspect of human nature that we do unnatural things

 

... based on a hazy level of intelligence, beyond which we're not encouraged to go. If it's too intelligent, it's unnatural. Your smart-ass will never look good in those jeans.

[Strange]

I've heard that hemp makes very durable shirts and trousers, and if you're patient they'll eventually feel wonderfully worn, soft, and comfortable. Anyone wear clothing from hemp fiber? It's definitely considered "natural", but does anyone prefer it?

 

 

Bamboo fibre is fantastic: as durable as cotton but as soft as silk. (And entirely natural!)

 

I was married ... when I really needed a stiff drink (and a shotgun).

 

Anything you want to get off your chest?

[CharonY]

Silk is also great. It is ... like silk. But maybe we should address the elephant in the room. Clothing is entirely unnatural and hence cannot be good.

[demon]

I guess all we have to look into is that :

is the cloth comfortable enough

the longevity of the cloth

and the how eco-friendly it is .

The topic is just not making any sense to me .

[DrKrettin]

That's the worst limerick I've ever tried to read.

[Delta1212]

That's the worst limerick I've ever tried to read.

There once was a man from Nantucket

And cotton: he'd daily to pluck it

While knitting his sweater

He said, "Nature is better!"

Yet refused to squat over a bucket

[Function]

Is anything what any living creature does, that would not happen in the natural environment the creature resides in, if the living creature were to cease to exist, unnatural?

 

If yes, then by all means, we, the things we do and thus, our clothing, are unnatural. But then so is every other living creature. If using natural resources in ways that make our time more comfortable, more adaptable to the circumstances in which we find ourselves, if possible, then why would that be unnatural?

 

I can see why such things would be called unnatural, but then we have to consider other species living unnatural lives. Is it unnatural if a beaver builds a wooden dam in a river? If you answered "yes" to the first question, then please be consistent. Answering "no" to this question would be quite contradictory.

 

If you cannot resist yourself from answering "no", then we should consider a division of entities: naturality as such, and naturality for an organism.

 

If you answered "yes" to the first question, then yes, it is unnatural if a beaver builds a wooden dam. But no, it is not unnatural for the beaver to build wooden dams.

 

And then by extension, we must acknowledge the idea of considering clothing as unnatural, but the production and usage of clothing, and basically clothing itself, not unnatural for human beings.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Function

[Argent]

That's the worst limerick I've ever tried to read.

Try this one:

 

The member who's called paragaster.

said natural fabric would last her

much longer than those

artificial type clothes

But the rest said "that's a disaster".

[akeley]

So here we go again, folks. Yep, it`s time for your favourite Fish Inna Barrel show

 

The script? Same as always.

 

1) a wild OP appears, the usual suspects zoom in

2) shootin` starts in the very first post (not even slightest attempt at answering the OP who`s dismissed with a lame "joke")

3) more of the similar (strawmen, fallacies, sweeping generalisations, irrelevant questions, barely hidden insults)

4) has the OP left yet? a) no - GOTO 3 b) seems so! GOTO 5

5) da fun: some anecdotes, bad poetry, personal rants, clever (ahem) musings

6) GOTO 4

7) OP either loses it (thread locked) or disappears for good (no worries, there`s always another one)

 

An honest engagement, polite explanations, some actual links to explain stuff better? You got to be ^#*^^%^& kidding me. We`re scienceforums.net! What are you, some New Age hippy anyway? Gerroffa my lawn.

 

The take out for a casual lurker?

- everything "non natural" is great because a) it`s modern c) there`s no synthetics b) OP is a "fool" c) we say so d) Seventies sucked

- there are only two positions to take: you`re either in with the in crowd or another "fool". Nice and simple, a binary world.

-if you are a "fool" then sweet Jaysis, what are you still doing here? I need a drink, and a shotgun (you stay classy, DrKrettin. Just hoping you`re single IRL these days

 

Yeah, well. Fear not, this is the last you hear from this particular "fool". For some reason I had a notion it`d be nice to try to discuss and learn something on science forums that proclaim to be The Original Ones, no less. What I see though is just another forum - never mind science - with all its usual trappings. The biggest one of which is the presence of an endless circle jerk in which the core regular clique massages their e-peens engaging in activity already described in the title of my "show". It`s the same sociopathic behaviour displayed on every single fairly old forum out there, be it cycling, videogames, books or engineering - doesn`t matter. It`s just another proof that this medium tends to bring out worst in people - or perhaps it just makes it more visible, since once posted, it`s there for all to see and does`nt disappear into thin air like spoken word.

 

Shame, because there are surely some "normal" members here, with whom it is possible to have "normal" conversation and respectful disagreements. Personally though, I don`t have time & energy to waste on dispelling the constant background noise. Y`all keep having "fun" - and your delusion that you actually represent scientific community. Luckily, things are much less binary in the real world.

[Function]

So here we go again, folks. Yep, it`s time for your favourite Fish Inna Barrel show

 

The script? Same as always.

 

1) a wild OP appears, the usual suspects zoom in

2) shootin` starts in the very first post (not even slightest attempt at answering the OP who`s dismissed with a lame "joke")

3) more of the similar (strawmen, fallacies, sweeping generalisations, irrelevant questions, barely hidden insults)

4) has the OP left yet? a) no - GOTO 3 b) seems so! GOTO 5

5) da fun: some anecdotes, bad poetry, personal rants, clever (ahem) musings

6) GOTO 4

7) OP either loses it (thread locked) or disappears for good (no worries, there`s always another one)

 

An honest engagement, polite explanations, some actual links to explain stuff better? You got to be ^#*^^%^& kidding me. We`re scienceforums.net! What are you, some New Age hippy anyway? Gerroffa my lawn.

 

The take out for a casual lurker?

- everything "non natural" is great because a) it`s modern c) there`s no synthetics b) OP is a "fool" c) we say so d) Seventies sucked

- there are only two positions to take: you`re either in with the in crowd or another "fool". Nice and simple, a binary world.

-if you are a "fool" then sweet Jaysis, what are you still doing here? I need a drink, and a shotgun (you stay classy, DrKrettin. Just hoping you`re single IRL these days

 

Yeah, well. Fear not, this is the last you hear from this particular "fool". For some reason I had a notion it`d be nice to try to discuss and learn something on science forums that proclaim to be The Original Ones, no less. What I see though is just another forum - never mind science - with all its usual trappings. The biggest one of which is the presence of an endless circle jerk in which the core regular clique massages their e-peens engaging in activity already described in the title of my "show". It`s the same sociopathic behaviour displayed on every single fairly old forum out there, be it cycling, videogames, books or engineering - doesn`t matter. It`s just another proof that this medium tends to bring out worst in people - or perhaps it just makes it more visible, since once posted, it`s there for all to see and does`nt disappear into thin air like spoken word.

 

Shame, because there are surely some "normal" members here, with whom it is possible to have "normal" conversation and respectful disagreements. Personally though, I don`t have time & energy to waste on dispelling the constant background noise. Y`all keep having "fun" - and your delusion that you actually represent scientific community. Luckily, things are much less binary in the real world.

 

Not sure if this belongs here or in the suggestion and comments section.

 

What did I just experience btw?

[DrKrettin]

The script? Same as always.

 

(you stay classy, DrKrettin. Just hoping you`re single IRL these days

 

 

 

I managed to read all of that post without an urban dictionary, but I don't know what IRL means. Anyway, I can't see much wrong with the thread other than the OP doesn't really defend himself when asked to define his terms. It's the way these threads develop in the absence of decent discussions. Try introducing one.

[Strange]

The BBC has an article about the "dangers" of your clothes (according to the British Chiropractic Association, so probably not much science behind it):

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39266383