There are many reasons production costs could be low though. I don't think it follows that the cheapest option by necessity the most inhumane and destructive. Perhaps a more effective means of production has been invented, a new more effective machine for example.
My claim is that a more effective method of production or may not pollute more than a less effective method. There is essentially no reason to assume that an increase in productivity comes at an increase in pollution. Foregoing environmental concerns may in some cases allow increased productivity, but that does not imply that all increases in productivity are increases in pollution, that would be affirming the consequent.
What does this comment have to do with your claim above that modern clothes are "subsidized by slave labor or pollution"?
To the extent that that claim is true, it is equally true of future clothes, unless those clothes are very expensive. Nothing you've said here connects to what you said above.
You appear to be arguing the position that, if this year we produce X tons of clothes at the cost of emitting Y tons of pollution, and next year we produce 2X tons of clothes at the cost of Y tons of pollution, next year's clothes are not being subsidized by pollution, even though this year's clothes are. But that position is self-evidently insane. Were you trying to say something different?
