Vast Pile of Discarded Clothes Visible From Space

And we wonder why some people go without -- Answer: Because the people who control supply want it that way.
 
There are many things at play here; economics, ego and the inherent desire to express 'Individual Self' (exploited by marketing, entertainment and the political flavor of the moment.) Even in a social/political system of 'Conformity', expression of 'Individual Self' can't be stopped.

But in this case, it's the extreme of 'Here today, gone tomorrow.' And most of these clothing and footwear are totally fine and in good shape. 'Recycle' and 'Renewable' are common phrases and way of thought today. But what about Repurposing or Reusing? Quilting, patchwork clothing as well as 'Giving a new life to a piece of clothing,' I learned from my immigrant father and grandmother. Thats just me. I wear my clothing and footwear to the point of destruction, and if I don't or never wear it, to the poor it goes. They need it more than I do if I don't.

source: See Carpets of Flowers and Dunes of Clothing in World's Driest Desert
7a7cc2095db5add6c876870b82d51f10.jpg
 
Last edited:
The fast-fashion industry holds a lot of responsibility for environmental pollution and waste. There must be so many areas of the planet like this. I find it morbidly fascinating, even just wandering where the trash from your average city goes. Following the barges that take landfill down from New York, for example, or this article about London's centuries of trash heaps in Essex.
www.theguardian.com

The rubbishscapes of Essex: why our buried trash is back to haunt us

The long read: Landfill sites have swallowed many a beauty spot along the Thames estuary in the past 50 years. Now, as those dumps start to disgorge tonnes of mouldering detritus into the river, it truly feels like the Age of Consequences
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Also think of those ship-breaking areas in Bangladesh (among other places I'm sure). Bacigalupi used that really well in his novel of the same name.
 
THX1138 said:
No, really. How about 'Visible from orbit.'
Click to expand...
This isn't a criticism of anyone bringing to light the size of the rubbish heap, which I agree is enormous.
But even "visible from space" and "visible from orbit" are ridiculous descriptions.

If I look at google maps of where I live, and switch to the overhead photographic view, which I assume is taken from orbit, I can see that on the last picture taken (not in real time) I didn't have the roof rack bars on my car, and that next door's cat was walking across their back garden.

Visible from orbit, is therefore not a terrifically damning description of the rubbish heap's size.
 
I'm pondering the effort it takes to transport all of that discarded clothing to that corner of the globe.

What else could be accomplished with same effort?
 
farntfar said:
This isn't a criticism of anyone bringing to light the size of the rubbish heap, which I agree is enormous.
But even "visible from space" and "visible from orbit" are ridiculous descriptions.

If I look at google maps of where I live, and switch to the overhead photographic view, which I assume is taken from orbit, I can see that on the last picture taken (not in real time) I didn't have the roof rack bars on my car, and that next door's cat was walking across their back garden.
Click to expand...
Exactly. "Visible from the ISS with the naked eye in clear atmospheric conditions" sounds reasonable, but is this along the lines of what people mean when they use the phrase?
 
HareBrain said:
Exactly. "Visible from the ISS with the naked eye in clear atmospheric conditions" sounds reasonable, but is this along the lines of what people mean when they use the phrase?
Click to expand...
A lot of times, as we as writers know, certain phases are used for dramatic effect. Even a Google Satellite view is taken as being a true image, but it's not as it's AI will take out things like people, animal heard and other things. There are other Sat Views that don't hold back that give a more real size of things.
 
What could lead to our eventual extinction may end up not being war but, as a result of the waste we produce and everything else we're doing wrong. We're poisoning the ground which we grow our food , the water which we drink , the air which we breathe. The climate is shifting not in our favor because we're are cutting the forests and aren't doing enough to curb the emissions of cars and industrially, We'e also driving whole species into extinction and that's not to our benefit at all . It's not difficult to see the probable long term end game in all of this.
 
BAYLOR said:
What could lead to our eventual extinction may end up not being war but, as a result of the waste we produce and everything else we're doing wrong. We're poisoning the ground which we grow our food , the water which we drink , the air which we breathe. The climate is shifting not in our favor because we're are cutting the forests and aren't doing enough to curb the emissions of cars and industrially, We'e also driving whole species into extinction and that's not to our benefit at all . It's not difficult to see the probable long term end game in all of this.
Click to expand...


The Earth has more than a billion years of habitable life left. Humans have been around for around 300,000 years and even if we (somehow) manage another 300,000 then that will only be a fraction of the time left available for other life to have a chance.

At some point there will be a global disaster, whether man made, natural or from outside of our planet. Then just has happened with the dinosaurs, and quite possibly with other dominant species before that, the Earth will reset and someone else will have a chance to make a better go of it than we did.
 
HareBrain said:
Is there an internationally accepted definition of "visible from space"?
Click to expand...
With my work hat on, I would say no. I can give you definitions of where space begins, and so I'd say "visible from space" would mean visible to the naked eye at 62 miles up, but that's just my interpretation. And that's before you get into people who need glasses...
 
Per this article, the smallest object that could be seen from the ISS at 370 km or 230 miles is 107 m or 350 ft (the article says 300 ft, but that is an incorrect conversion). Using a linear conversion to 62 miles or 100 km would give an observable object of 29 m or 95 ft.

The article says the clothing pile is 1,000 ft or 305 m across, so it would be visible to the naked eye using either of these two definitions of 'from space.'

www.quora.com

What is the smallest Earth feature that can be seen from ISS?

Answer (1 of 2): The answer depends on what you mean by "visible from space". There are three main ways to observe objects from the windows in the International Space Station. The astronauts and cosmonauts can observe details on the surface of the Earth using their naked eyes. They can observe li...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Interesting thought experiment on impact on global weather of vast numbers of solar panels Science & Nature 13
C Mid/late '80s paperback about a boy on a space station who steals a shuttle to visit a devastated Earth. Book Search 2
C Different beings in the same space operating on vastly different timescales Book Search 9
Venusian Broon Vast Ecosystem deep in the Earth Science & Nature 9
NbDawn Devastating Sci-Fi Weapon Needed Writing Discussion 32

Similar threads


Back
Top