For essay 3, I want to talk about the sustainability of the fashion industry in the global area. We have to jump off the original framework of the fashion industry. In nowadays, the sustainable topic has appeared in more and more developing communities. Especially in China, many factories work for the fashion industry and have delivered a huge number of clothing products to the world. It is not an exaggeration that China is the fountainhead of many countries’ fashion industries and plays a vital role in industrial construction. But also, at the same time, it has created significant pollution which seems unstoppable. There are many factors that can make the situation worse. In recent years, the relationship between China and America is tense since the matter of trade. The contradiction has removed people’s attention out of the sustainable topic; instead, people have to seek other ways and put more effort into maximizing their profits. People should create diversity and embrace all different identities in each of the innovative contemporary areas. I would like to further explore the relationship between politics and the development of the fashion industry in China. I believed the importance of we have to deeply examine Chinese cloth producing to find out the better solution for fashion pollution which is happening around the world.
The primary audience I want to convey will be those organizations that focus on sustainability, also the clubs which have interests in fashion industries. I want to spread more information about the globalization of sustainability and persuade more people that it is crucial to view the problem based on a broader perception.
For my rhetorical analysis essay example, I have chosen a speech by Natsai Audrey Chieza, who indicates a biological dyeing technique for the clothing industry. She starts with an introduction to the coelicolor. Then, she compares the high sustainability of using coelicolor with the pollution caused by the traditional fuel dyeing system. The speaker wants the audience to realize that fuel is not a renewable and sustainable resource for the dyeing process in the clothing industry. She uses ethos to emphasize the importance of people innovating their technology. To elaborate more on her perspective, she mentions how efficient the Coelicolor bacteria function on saving the water. She recorded that only 200 milliliters of water are used in the dyeing process. The data brought a conceptual out looking to persuades people that the need for innovation can reduce water pollution in the environment. Last but not least, the speaker uses a pathos appeal to captivate the positive attitude of his audience. She mentions that the earth has taken 3.8 billion years to be able to create a biological system; however, our human now has the capacity to utilize the natural system. Moreover, at the end of her speech, she advocates how imaginative and inspiring modes of making exist in nature that people can use to build capacity around new bio-based industries. Her speech enhances our confidence in how to solve the pollution problem, which can be in all different industries.
My first source was from the Ted Talk. The speaker revealed a thoughtful question that where returned clothing went? The truth not only shocked her but also made me surprised. Those clothes did not went back to the stock. Instead, they were brought to the landfills which could cause magnificent of wasting and pollutions. She gave an idea that people can set a “green coin” to make a incentive system. People can transfer their returned clothing to a digital money so that the company would resell them to the people who need them. at the same time, people who gained the “green coin” could use them to buy something new. I thought this was a great idea which more progressive than those resell app in the market right now.
My second article was from The Guardian. The author indicated that some fast fashion company were trying to sell a extreme cheap clothes so people would be more intended to buy them. However, the cost to produce those clothes need a lot of fuel and would cause huge pollution to the environment. More ironic, people seemed like they didn’t want to buy such cheap clothes. it created more negative effects to the environment. I believed this article can support my idea that we should not buy fast fashion.
I guess I am not the only one who hopes mosquitos can all be eliminated. In summer, they are annoying, make you feel itchy. People even start to use genetic technology to decrease the number of them. The experimental project in Fresno, California, has delivered 200,000 brand new lab-grown mosquitoes a season to the residents. As these genitally-deformed mosquitoes have entered circulation, the overall mosquito population has dropped by 95 percent. However, can we say that people are trying to make a deliberate extinction of a particular species? At the same time, with the growing influence of environmentalism, many consider the conservation of endangered species a moral obligation to humankind. It seems like people are subjectively increasing and decreasing biodiversity, changing nature, and acting as the god. In my perspective, people should not deliberately change the biodiversity. We cannot let those species, particularly the charismatic ones, dominate the conservation imagination; and, we also cannot recklessly eliminate a species which people hate. The real challenge is how to evaluate the loss and benefits of saving or eliminating a species. I believe it is wise for people to avoid using vague moral consideration to protect or reduce any kinds of species.