By Thea English
To the modern plague that is the fashion industry, and for preserving the natural wonders of our world for future generations, while still ensuring the economic prosperity of our great nation.
Recently, a great and growing concern has arisen among the peoples of the world’s nations, one that relates to questions of morality, of sustainability, and of runaway consumerism: the ethical sourcing of clothing. In our modern age of sewing machines, mass agriculture, and–of course–the underpaid foreign worker, fashion has become faster and cheaper at an exponential rate. Why, nowadays, any old consumer can order clothes for hardly more than the annual salary of the manufacturer’s common laborers! This is, of course, convenient; but the purchasing price has merely been diverted to other channels. The fashion industry is one of the world’s most prolific polluters, and its treatment of workers is a bit below average. Further, it deprives us of long-lasting garments, with companies opting instead to sell shoddy goods that fray and tear so quickly that, by the time the next line rolls around, you may as well be wearing lingerie. Such a threat to our planet, and to our fellow humans, evidently requires an immediate and effective solution; and, I am happy to say, my brilliant mind has concocted a scheme so potent, yet so simple, that I am frankly shocked it has not been proposed before.
If clothing is such a menace, should we not wear nothing at all?
Now, I am not a fool; I know, of course, that many of you will protest. What, then, will become of the fashion manufacturers’ shareholders? These companies and their investors, after all, can hardly be blamed for the consequences of their actions; if there exists a demand for cheap clothes, it is only natural that they should meet it by any means necessary, and should their morals falter, it is really the consumers’ fault for supporting them. Well, fret not, my friends, for in the wake of such a radical change, the destruction of clothing shall become a profitable industry. It only makes sense that fashion companies, knowing the creation of clothes better than any other, would also know best the means of their swift, assured, and–most importantly–cheap destruction. In fact, they have already perfected the art of selling us clothes that come out of the box half-wrecked. As such, their market share will only rise after this shift; they will maintain their status as a necessary service (someone must ensure that the shirts are burned), and will naturally receive government subsidies for their work in eradicating such an abhorrent concept as clothes. Of course, this process may create a temporary spike in fashion waste, but its long-term environmental benefits outweigh the cost–and, failing that, we should at least be appropriately dressed for the oncoming climate apocalypse.
It is important to note, also, the incredible thrift of this proposal. No longer needing to cover themselves, consumers will save hundreds of dollars every year that would otherwise have been spent on meaningless outfits in the name of “being trendy.” Think of the savings that could be had by simply buying fewer clothes! Naturally, this money will still eventually be spent–rampant consumerism is a permanent fixture of our society, and could never possibly be reigned in–further stimulating the economy in the new, improved, nudist world. Plus, if someone should, for some unknowable reason, be uncomfortable exposing themself in such a manner, they could still easily achieve “common decency” by plucking a leaf or two from a nearby branch and daintily covering their private areas. In time, though, all concepts of attire, decorum, and “indecent exposure” will fade away, replaced with a universal appreciation for a clothesless society.
Some may propose alternative solutions, but I assure you that they are simply impracticable. Sustainability, as we have seen, is fundamentally impossible; recycling only lengthens the lifetimes of our garments by a few orders of magnitude, and because the program is imperfect (in contrast to mine, which is), it is hardly worth anything at all. As for regulation, no government could possibly regulate the buying and selling of goods, especially clothes. Even if such a thing was possible, would we really want our politicians meddling in an affair so intimate, so private, as independent industry? To give them that power would simply debase our greatest of values–unregulated capitalism–and a society without morals is hardly a society at all. A policy of universal nudism, in contrast, promotes our rights by granting us greater personal freedom; it is the only remedy for our current crisis, and I will hear no dissenting opinions. So, I encourage you all to toss off your clothes, and imagine a better world: one where we are honest and open, where children run naked in the streets, and one where, crucially, you must never face the hassle of choosing an outfit in the morning.
Welcome to The Shield’s annual satire section. Writers use satire to improve a problem in society. Sometimes readers misunderstand the satire as they do not recognize the hyperbole, irony, rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and understatements. A great satirist will also address counter-arguments (the non-satirical solution) with great mockery and sarcasm. Readers may mistake the satirical solution for the actual solution that the writer proposes. The ideas in these satire stories do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Shield or Westmont. If one is confused about satire, please contact a friendly neighborhood English teacher.