Cotton production, however, is extremely resource-intensive (particularly water) to the point of unsustainability – and it's largely grown in parts of the world that are likely to suffer catastrophic droughts in the future.

on the bright side, cotton is a lot more durable and lasts longer.

Another problem is fast fashion. The fashion industry is a bit of a cancer on the planet, encouraging chains like H&M to sell very cheap clothes filled with plastic, that people need to replace every few years.

Well, it depends. Certainly nylon and polyester can be vastly stronger than cotton, that's why they're used in many garments requiring mechanical durability. (Heck, ballistic nylon is a thing; you don't hear about ballistic cotton!)

But sure, it's also true that you can make extremely low-durability clothing from synthetic polymers that aren't even intended to last (ultra fast fashion is incredibly destructive, yes).

Cotton has been produced for a long time and with far more primitive means than today, so I'm pretty sure it is sustainable. Moreover, cotton being so cheap pretty much rules out it being "extremely resource intensive". Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.

We're obviously no longer in those times. Many things that were once sustainable are no longer so. It is well understood that cotton production will face considerable difficulties in the future. At the same time the demand for cotton has exploded along with global population. Consumer prices of cotton do not accurately reflect the production cost due to the usual reasons (externalities, lack of global water pricing mechanisms).

> Water is a very inexpensive resource in most parts of the world.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, and you're (like myself) living in a privileged part of the world if water is an inexpensive resource to you. Freshwater scarcity is going to be one of the most critical issues exacerbated by the climate change, and as I said, particularly so in those parts of the world where cotton is grown such as South Asia. The most famous case of cotton production having catastrophic consequences is the Aral Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea).

https://h2oglobalnews.com/cotton-farming-and-water-scarcity/

https://thewotrblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/why-farmers-are...

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/20...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218...

Most cotton production in the US is not irrigated.

The problem with farming resource calculations and fearmongering, is often they measure water usage of a particular crop without really considering where the water came from.

Wouldn't you say crops grown with just water from the rain were using water with perfect sustainability?

The cotton in my clothes doesn't come from the US, and neither does that of the vast majority of world's people. Besides that, surely you're aware that the American South is going to increasingly suffer from droughts as well? It's pretty disingenuous to assume that just because historically rainwater has been sufficient, it's going to be so in the future as well.

Also, agriculture isn't necessarily sustainable just because it doesn't require artificial irrigation. As an extreme example, just look at the Amazon. The land used to grow a water-intensive species might be better used for other purposes.

The US bans most of the cotton from China, the worlds largest producer, because of slavery. The US also produces a third of global cotton and is the leading exporter. You certainly have some American cotton in your closet, a huge portion of the people around the world will have American cotton in their clothes.

And for the rest... talking to climate doomers isn't interesting or productive. You'll only believe negative things, you demonstrably here don't know what you're talking about and just make things up to fit the narrative you have in your head. You clearly knew nothing about cotton production but made up facts without bothering to look for information at all. You make up your climate facts as well, do you know anything about the climate models for what will happen in the cotton growing regions of the US? Or have you heard vague things about droughts and decided to parrot those and assume they apply here because they supported your doom thoughts?

Too many people! We can grow enough cotton without too much damage if it needs to go on fewer people.

What is your evidence that microparticles from cotton are not also toxic?

They are ordinary, biodegradable, organic plant material, things to which our bodies are accustomed to for millions of years. You might as well ask whether grass is toxic.

The human body does not contain enzymes that digest cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur?

Fungal attack on woody biomass involves chemicals you do not want in your body. The attack involves extremely reactive hydroxyl radicals, for example.

Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing doesn't hurt us.

> The human body does not contain enzymes that digest cellulose. So how is this degradation to occur?

Mostly outside the body, before ingestion occurs.

> Being accustomed to something doesn't mean the thing doesn't hurt us.

I disagree. Evolution had the last ~360 million years (that's about how old cellulose is I believe) to evolve mechanisms to protect our body from cellulose particles.

Evolution has had the last ~360 million years for us to evolve enzymes to digest cellulose. And yet we can't.

> Mostly onside the body, before ingestion occurs.

This is an obviously silly statement. Of course cellulose can be ingested in various ways, including extremely small particles.