Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Biodegradable Sneakers Sprout Flowers When Planted

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-and-smell-the-sneakers dept.

Earth 242

Zothecula writes "People may joke about their dirty old sneakers turning into science projects or mini ecosystems, but once OAT Shoes' compostable sneakers become commercially available within the next several weeks ... let's just say, those same people may no longer be joking when they make those kind of statements. Made using hemp, cork, bio-cotton, certified biodegradable plastics, chlorine-free bleach and other nontoxic materials, the shoes are designed to completely break down when buried in the ground – the first batch will even come with seeds in their tongues, so that wildflowers will sprout up in commemoration of users' planted, expired kicks."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294872)

"Made using hemp....."

How long before teenagers start smoking their shoes?

Re:Obligatory (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294932)

Right after the first hot-foot on the bus.

Re:Obligatory (4, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294998)

Hemp [wikipedia.org] grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295022)

Unfortunately

Re:Obligatory (4, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295140)

Hemp [wikipedia.org] grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

Someone wanna explain that to the Government, or are we just going to continue to deforest ourselves right out of existence because lawmakers are too fucking stupid to know the difference between hemp and weed?

Damn, I hate it when my sig speaks so loudly...

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295172)

How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?

How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.

Re:Obligatory (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295186)

Dammit! I meant "their bedrooms", of course.

Re:Obligatory (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295400)

How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?

How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.

As a "Tea Party", Fox News Watching, conservative, I agree completely.

Hmmm. Guess that makes me more of a Libertarian.

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295290)

Ah, so you think that marijuana was outlawed simply because it is a drug? Haha, no. The fact that hemp is so useful at producing fiber and paper is actually one of the bigger reasons it was outlawed in the first place. Basically, there were three real reasons: First, it is an effective treatment for many minor conditions, but is not patentable, and therefore, even though big pharma companies all sold it, they would rather sell patent medicines for a higher profit. Second, at the time of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, nylon had just been invented (1935) and DuPont wanted people to buy nylon rather than hemp ropes, especially with war looming. Thirdly, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire had begun to crumble when he flipped political positions and began viciously attacking FDR: Hearst's readership were mostly blue collar workers, and not happy with his editorial slant. But Hearst had huge timber holdings, if he couldn't make money selling newspapers, he could still make money selling paper, even more if hemp were out of the picture.

The legislators who outlawed the demon weed Marijuana at the behest of wealthy interests probably had no idea that marijuana and hemp were the same thing.They were told that it was a drug used by Mexicans and Blacks that made them want to rape white women.

Re:Obligatory (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295514)

You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough. Hemp is banned in the US because it's easy to conceal pot plants next to them, there is no law against importing the stuff, and AFAIK, never was, which really leads me to question the DuPont conspiracy angle.

You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.

Re:Obligatory (2)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295568)

You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.

I'll bet the trade name on the bottle makes it expensive.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295718)

Just adding to what above poster is saying. If you truly want to use it, move your happy ass to a state that you can get it legally. There are a bunch now, and it is not that hard to get a card. Now you might ask, Well I found a doctor that helped me get a card, now where do I find it? In dispensaries, of course. After filling out paper work with one of these places (the good ones do it all electronically), you walk into a place that resembles a store and purchase what you want. Any normal dispensary I have dealt with in my state will have a wide range going from the bunk Downtown Brown (that is not the proper name, that is what I call it, the super cheap stuff). up through incredibly expensive strains. Every color of the rainbow. They also sell brownies, cookies, tea, bars (they are like a weird power bar/candy bar type deal). I mean, seriously. I don't understand why anybody would risk doing it without a card. Sure, you can still get fired from your job, but not as easily. I work for an organization that deals with government items (that is all I am saying to stay anonymous online), and I have been tested by them, also informed them of my card, and this place was fine with it since I had a card. Not every job will, but if you can do it legally, seriously, why would you ever risk doing it any other way?

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295350)

Hemp [wikipedia.org] grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

Someone wanna explain that to the Government, or are we just going to continue to deforest ourselves right out of existence because lawmakers are too fucking stupid to know the difference between hemp and weed?

Damn, I hate it when my sig speaks so loudly...

it was stopped cause of the cotton industry, had no relevance to thc content

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295878)

This was put into place on behalf of the textile industry ages ago.

Re:Obligatory (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295270)

That reminds me of a story about an Australian that liked a bit of weed going to Latvia in the summer. Hemp was growing everywhere and he cut and dried bales of the stuff. The type of hemp and short growing season combined meant that there was nothing in the way of THC at all. He was just a dope smoking rope.

Re:Obligatory (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295528)

Same goes for the weed that grows wild in the midwest, it's pot, but it's so weak that nobody is likely to be smoking it. And actually, if that was typical of pot, we'd probably have legalized it by now, as it just isn't strong enough to elicit any of the health problems that people are worrying about, except possible lung damage.

Re:Obligatory (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295404)

Hemp [wikipedia.org] grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.

The article states that it contains around 0.3% THC. I'm sure if you collected up a say an ounce of industrial hemp buds, performed an solvent extraction, and smoked the results, you would be high. People use similar methods to use up the "cabbage" leaf material from the plant.

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

Velex (120469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295040)

Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

And why do teenager need to smoke their shoes? Can't the free market step in and provide a more cost-effect alternative to meet this demand...?

Oops, I see what I did there.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295298)

Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

Cannabis Indica would like to have a word with you.

Re:Obligatory (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295384)

There is some debate as to whether indica is a separate species, or merely a subspecies. In any case, if indica and ruderalis are both subspecies, then sativa is the only cannabis species.

There are over 170 species of Cannabaceae, including cannabis and hops, perhaps that is what Velex was thinking of.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295300)

Oh, good grief. Not all cannabis plants contain THC, just cannabis sativa.

Don't forget cannabis indica as well..

Re:Obligatory (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295526)

Clearly... ...so this Indica is totally legal, right?

If the seeds in the tongue are also 'hemp' I may just get a few pair of these to start a....garden, yeah, that's it.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295566)

what about cannabis indica?

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295922)

don't forget indica.

Makes Sense (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294892)

It makes sense that they would sprout flowers considering my shoes end up smelling like fertilizer after I've worn them too long.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295234)

Packaged with seeds in the tongue doesn't sound too promising either.
People wash sneakers. (Well, ok, Moms wash sneakers). And it rains.
I'm not sure walking around with feet looking like a Chia Pet is going to be that big of a fashion statement.

Still there is a wide variety of what people consider biodegradable. Rock is biodegradable. Years ago
several grocery chains came out with biodegradable plastic bags which they claimed would be degraded by sunlight.

Stapled to the side of my house, they showed not the slightest sign of weathering or degrading for
5 years till my wife made me take them down.

Out of sight out of mind. But how long in the ground?

Re:Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295454)

You honestly think washing biodegradable sneakers is a good idea?

Re:Makes Sense (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295466)

I've had teenagers.
They've had sneakers.
So.... Yeah, not only a good idea, but an absolute necessity.

Re:Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

jshackney (99735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295498)

Or wearing them in the rain?

I don't know about you, but I keep my sneakers for a VERY long time. I can count on one hand the number of pairs I've purchased over the past 20 years--and still have a couple free fingers. I love the biodegradable idea, and I really like the photo of the shoes. They look great! I just don't want to take a chance that flowers are going to sprout from my shoes before I'm done with them.

Life Time (4, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294904)

How long are these shoes expected to last under normal use? I have shoes that I bought four years ago, and aside from replacing the insoles a few times, they're perfectly fine. No reason to toss them out. I'm not sure how viable a product these would be if they need to be replaced every few months because they're disintegrating.

Re:Life Time (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294964)

What brand was that?

I cannot get a pair of sneakers to make it more than a year tops and dress shoes never past a couple. I am not buying walmart shoes here, so a shoe that lasts 4 years would be a huge money saver.

I used to buy doc martins, but paying $100+ for a chinese made shoe is crazy talk.

Re:Life Time (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295010)

My $15 Starbury hightops have lasted me for 4 years.
My $10 Starbury lowtops lasted 1 year
My Born leather dress shoes have lasted 7 years(I have black and brown)

Re:Life Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295182)

I was going to say I've been buying those Walmart House brand shoes. My last pair of slip-on tennis shoes, despite me stomping down the heel to slip them on quicker, lasted me for about 3 years before they finally started showing holes (the elastic went out quicker, but I had sized them close enough that it didn't matter, and up until I started slogging through the yard in the rainy season in them they looked plenty presentable.

Point being: Just because they're selling them for more money, doesn't mean they're any better. I got a hundred plus dollar pair of Nike Cross-trainers back in Junior high, and after slipping and almost breaking my neck in them on some glazed concrete at my school (which never gave me any trouble in my hiking boots, which cost half as much) I came to the conclusion spending anything more than a pair of converse all-stars (back before they were nike) is unnecessary except for dress and hiking purposes.

Re:Life Time (2)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295062)

How about the Doc Martens For Life [drmartensforlife.com] shoes?

Sure, they're made in Thailand, but they've held up really well for me. Not like the cheaper Chinese ones. For $20 in shipping/handling, they'll replace them for life. Not a bad deal in my view.

The Vintage [drmartens.com] line of Doc Martens is still made in England. While not guaranteed for life, they're still better quality than the Chinese-made Docs.

Re:Life Time (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295126)

$150 for life sounds interesting. Thanks for letting me know about that. I totally stopped paying any attention to Doc Martens when they started producing shoes in China and still charged the old prices.

Re:Life Time (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295302)

With further reading it is not $150 for life. You must also pay shipping, and a $30 fee each time you send them back for repair. So this is really just normal shoes with discounted repair prices.

Re:Life Time (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295726)

More or less. That said, the "for life" shoes are made a bit more tough than the ordinary shoes. There's a thicker sole, different leather for the shoe, and what appears to be heavier stitching (I'm sure the website has all the details). I'm still on my first pair of them, and they seem to be lasting quite a bit longer than my previous shoes.

Even if I did need to replace them annually through the warranty (and, after about a year of owning them, it looks like it'd be far longer than that) I'd end up saving money rather than buying new shoes every year.

Re:Life Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295092)

I find the fancier the shoe.. the quicker it wears out.

I actually buy most of my cloths from a place that sells mainly to people who work in construction / oil / other trades. The cloths I find there tend to be more aimed at someone who has to actually move around and spend a day working in their cloths, rather than just looking nice while standing. Where I work I have to look "respectable" but not "uptight business" .. so I can usually find something I can get away with.

The shoes I'm wearing look dressy-enough .. but are steel toe and sole .. and have handled multiple atlantic canada winters trudging through salt and snow with nothing that a wipe down now and then to get the salt buildup off. Not to mention they have a tread on them that rivals most snow tires and are completely waterproof. Contrast that to the fancy dress shoes I used to buy that wouldn't even make it through the year.

Re:Life Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295450)

That's actually what I did, then they eminent domained the place that had been in downtown for 50 years in order to let Westfield or someone 'redevelop' it. They then sat on it for like 4-5 years before basically slapping a coat of paint on it and charging people out the ass for rent.

Score one for american free market. The market is free of competitors that is :D

Re:Life Time (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295476)

What brand was that?

I cannot get a pair of sneakers to make it more than a year tops and dress shoes never past a couple. I am not buying walmart shoes here, so a shoe that lasts 4 years would be a huge money saver.

I used to buy doc martins, but paying $100+ for a chinese made shoe is crazy talk.

You may not be buying shoes from WalMart, but you're buying the same shoes from the same workers in the same factories run by the same companies.

Unless you're buying hand-crafted shoes from a shop where you can shake the hand of the person that made the shoe, you're getting slave labor, mass-produced, low-quality, "WalMart shoes".

Re:Life Time (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295834)

So then please provide at least a website that would let one do something like that.

My next jeans are going to be some made in Texas ones, so at least they are getting paid minimum wage.

Re:Life Time (1)

jshackney (99735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295574)

I get about 5-7 years out of my Adidas Supernova. I've been getting the Control 10 model. They run about $80 and up. I used to run a lot more than I do now and that would push the life of the shoe down to about 6-12 months.

At $40 a pair, my work shoes [shoesforcrews.com] are now going into year three and will probably need replacing in the next six months. $40 every three years beats the hell out of my old Johnston & Murphy's [johnstonmurphy.com] which barely made it a year before falling apart.

Re:Life Time (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295020)

How are the soles doing? I usually wear down the tread in about a year.

Re:Life Time (1)

DRMShill (1157993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295128)

Well the cushioning on running shoes becomes ineffective past about 6 months so I could see a use for it there.

Re:Life Time (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295494)

that is my problem. i usually break the sole every 6 months or so no matter how much money i spend on them. Doesn't matter if it is 100 dress shoe, $100 cross trainers, or $30 cheap sneakers, 6-9 months is all the last. and then I have cracks in the sole that lets water seep through, the sides are well worn, and I have replaced the laces once.

I am on my feet 10 hours a day, every day. My feet don't hurt when i get home unless the insoles break so I know I need replacements simply because my feet get wet and are sore.

Re:Life Time (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295556)

The answer to that, is don't waste your money on running shoes. The cushioning actually causes you to strike the ground harder as your feet can't sense that they're on solid ground. Despite what shoe companies might tell you, the reality is that most of those injuries didn't become prevalent until the introduction of running shoes.

As long as the shoes are still level they're still perfectly good. The one thing you do want to avoid is where they cause your ankles to get out of alignment.

You're not a runner (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295180)

Someone who runs 10 - 20 miles / week is supposed to replace their shoes at least twice / year

Re:You're not a runner (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295322)

How often are they supposed to replace their knees?

Re:You're not a runner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295772)

Somewhat less often than non-runners, recent studies have shown.

Re:You're not a runner (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295590)

That's not true, there's no particular clinical evidence to support that claim. It's something that the shoe companies tell people to justify overspending on shoes. You wear the shoes until they haven't got any traction or they start to let your legs out of alignment as you run. Depending upon the shoe that might be sooner, or later than that. Guidelines like that tend to be largely useless.

And personally, I've found shoes to be the main source of my foot problems. It's hard to have good posture or motion if you're feet aren't strong, and shoes tend to discourage your feet from staying strong.

Flower Power! (4, Funny)

iRommel (1684036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294920)

Let's not kid ourselves, this will get you laid in the right social circles.

It's a trap (4, Insightful)

zoobaby (583075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294930)

Good way to introduce invasive species.

Re:It's a trap (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295516)

Like everyone else, they too are just trying to get a shoe in.

The important question is... (2, Insightful)

bwayne314 (1854406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294938)

How much of a pollution footprint do these generate *during production*?

Re:The important question is... (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294990)

Just look at the price, that will give you a ceiling anyway.

paul stamet's lifeboxes (3, Interesting)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294942)

Fungi fun guy paul stamets has invented and sells a cardboard box then when planted first grows a crop of mushrooms, then old growth forest trees.
http://www.lifeboxcompany.com/ [lifeboxcompany.com]

Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes (4, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295346)

Fungi fun guy paul stamets has invented and sells a cardboard box then when planted first grows a crop of mushrooms, then old growth forest trees.

That explains a lot. My backyard has been infested with a large number of tree-hugging hippies and I didn't know why.

I was mildly surprised to see a large of mushrooms come up where we buried Tabby when she died. Then a bit more surprised to see my backyard turn into an old-growth forest. But the last straw has been these hippies driving spikes into the trees at all hours of the day and night.

I should have gone down to the FedEx store and bought a real box to put her in instead of using one I had lying around.

Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295358)

Far superior to the first design, which only grew new growth trees.

Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295414)

An old growth forest tree is a tree growing in an old growth forest (which apparently largely refers to the forest having recovered from any human disturbance).

Seedlings in a box don't seem to be old growth trees.

Re:paul stamet's lifeboxes (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295586)

Old growth forest trees for... where? I live in the Pacific Northwest, where the climax forest is very different from where I grew up in the Carolina Piedmont. New England is different from both, and much of the Midwest was prairie rather than forest... And that's just here in the United States!
 
Nor can you just plant an old growth forest, as often they go through multiple cycles with different tree and plant species mixing before reaching the metastable climax state.

Remember Customatix? (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294952)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customatix [wikipedia.org]

My friend worked for them circa 2001-2003. People thought they were going to blow up. Problem is, the kids want shoes that they have heard of. Addidas, Vans, Nike. Screw the environment if you are going to look like a dork.

Re:Remember Customatix? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295004)

Looks like they let you customize what the shoe looks like, which seems like the wrong thing to be customizing. Making shoes from molds of the wearers feet would have been at least interesting to someone.

This is a great idea (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294956)

I think they could bring to the next level though. Tree seeds! The world needs more forests, clearly. Although I fear that implanting walnut seeds or pine-cones may too drastically affect the aerodynamics of the sneaker. But at least it would be for a good cause.

Re:This is a great idea (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295068)

Neither walnut or pine seeds are large. They're about the size of the fingernail on your pinkie, or even smaller. But we have no shortage of forests in North America, or well really even Europe. There's been a net gain in the last 100 years by a staggering amount, and the places where you'd want forests(like parts of Africa, or South America, and Asia), no one will buy these anyway.

Seeds on my shoes? (2)

Octopuscabbage (1932234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35294996)

Last time i tried to put my seeds on someones shoes I was put in jail for a quite a long while. So unfair :(

Seeds in the Tongue (4, Insightful)

theelectron (973857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295034)

'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures? Also, what advantage does organic cotton have over regular cotton when used for shoes? The feel good factor, I suppose. Anyway, wouldn't the seeds in the tongue be a problem when they start sprouting from the moisture/sweat from your feet?

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295084)

I would imagine the advantage is to the people living near the cotton field more than the wearer. When we lived in Georgia as kids my bother always had "asthma" when they sprayed the cotton to kill it. Growing cotton is nasty business. As an army family we moved a lot and no where else did he ever have "asthma". I call it that as it is what the DR claimed it was.

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295130)

I call it that as it is what the DR claimed it was.

#SYNTAX ERROR.

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295392)

REDO FROM START

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295340)

I have seen the numbers cited on the news now and again. But all I could find is this shitty article with google. It is a huge problem and it is not being addressed. I guess people forget that cotton is a plant.

Cotton is the most toxic crop on the planet. While only three percentof the world's farming acreage is cotton, these crops are sprayed withup to 25 percent of the world's pesticides and herbicides, includingsome of the most toxic ones, such as aldicarb.

http://wafreepress.org/60/cottonWorldsMostToxic.htm [wafreepress.org]

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295088)

I suppose it's because they don't use artificial pesticides and the like on the cotton, which is intended to be better for the environment (not being an environmental scientist, I have no idea if this is actually the case). While it might not directly benefit the shoe-wearer, being able to have less of a personal impact on the environment seems like a reasonable benefit.

Re:Seeds in the Tongue (1)

egladil (1640419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295198)

I've alwats found "organic something" to be quite a strange way to indicate that something is environmentally friendly or the such. Organic cotton as opposed to inorganic cotton? It's a plant, it's organic by default :)

Ma! My sneaks got wet! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295036)

There's flowers growin' out of 'em!

Re:Ma! My sneaks got wet! (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295098)

Look on the bright side. At least your shoes will always smell like flowers instead of stinky feet. No more odor eaters needed.

Have Fun in the Rain (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295070)

That tread pattern looks like it's going to make your ass glide like an ice skater when you take a step on wet cement.

No Shit? (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295102)

That is amazing!

Easier method: (0, Troll)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295112)

Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc. The dangers that you will undoubtedly list in response to this are not dangerous at all, I, and many people I know, have spent years walking long distances, even running them, totally barefoot on everything from gravel to bushwhacking to hot asphalt. Shoes collect sweat and hold it against the skin, in a dank, warm, dark environment. Perfect for growing fungus and bacteria. The feet of a barefooter look leaps and bounds better those of a shoe-person.

So seriously, if you want to be environmentally friendly, just stop wearing shoes altogether.

Re:Easier method: (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295150)

So broken glass, sharp rocks etc, how do you deal with those?

Re:Easier method: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295318)

Umm...I don't step on them when barefoot?

Re:Easier method: (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295372)

What device do you use to detect very small pieces of glass, especially the clear kind from car headlights that often ends up on sidewalks after accidents?

Re:Easier method: (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295756)

What device do you use to detect very small pieces of glass, especially the clear kind from car headlights that often ends up on sidewalks after accidents?

Feet.

Re:Easier method: (1)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295424)

Or you could just wear flip-flops. Eliminates the sweat problem AND the dangerous surface problems. And you can wear them in stores that say "shoes required."

Re:Easier method: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295592)

Probably the same thing people did for thousands of years. Step more carefully. Pay attention to where you walk. It isn't as hard as it sounds.

I hate wearing shoes. I wear them as little as I can, though I usually wear them when I got outside, I find myself doing that less and less these days (even when it is 20 to 30 degrees outside, as long as I don't have to be out there for more than a few minutes.) With proper callouses, even sharp rocks aren't as much of a problem as you expect. People didn't wear shoes for a very long time, and even sandals are newer than most people think.

Re:Easier method: (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295858)

Not a lot of glass to avoid thousands of years ago.

Re:Easier method: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295634)

Band aids

Re:Easier method: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295530)

Yes, this works brilliantly for those of us with Raynaud's syndrome who need to wear socks to keep our feet warm.

Re:Easier method: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295562)

Not wearing sues is for amateur environmentalist! I mean without shoes you can't go into a store or a restaurant, or most places of business. So as a second way of helping mother earth, surely you are consuming less of everything! Surely the nasty look and smell of your feet is a small price to pay for saving the entire planet...

Now, why not go even further? I believe normal progression is to next stop wearing clothes completely to prevent all those slave shops from operating and textile mills from polluting our planet! Surely your hippie friends won't mind and since you don't wear shoes, you probably never leave the house anyways...

And don't even think about reading or watching any form of media as it is a gross waste of natural resources! If you really, really wanna save the planet, just withdrawal from society completely!

Re:Easier method: (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295604)

Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc

No no no NO! Wrong! The use of the shoe has been used going as far back as 8000 BC and maybe even to 40,000 BC. And there's a reason. Thorns cut and rocks hurt. They also lead to infection and WORMS should you be walking around in shallow freshwater with a cut. Some regions on Earth maybe more safe than others, but it's always risky regardless. Hence why man invented the shoe so long ago.

Now with modern materials, you can still have that free feeling of running barefoot with barefoot running shoes. Just Google them. They're supposed to be the next fad in sportswear.

Hmmm ... I wonder where the seeds come from ... (2)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295114)

What will most likely happen when you plant your shoes is that you'll get a crop of plants native to Asia, which will quickly become agricultural pests in your part of the world.

Grim Fandango? (1)

hobb0001 (989441) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295148)

Am I the only one who immediately thought of Grim Fandango and sproutella darts?

I'll buy them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295154)

... if they come in size 14 - but only because I can't afford to be picky. Stupid bell curves.

Seems like it should be filled with... (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295196)

...hemp seeds and acorns.

New meaning (2)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295200)

It brings new meaning to the phrase "Don't make me plant my boot up your rear!"

Flowers? (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295480)

Unless you plan to bury your shoes in a hot-house, you've only got a small window in which you can bury them and get flowers. And that can depend on the seeds involved.

Four years may not be entirely unreasonable for my shoes either. How long would it be reasonable to expect the seeds to remain viable, given the various environments shoes have to put up with.

I'm also curious about whether there can be problems of "early germination". If I wade through too many puddles and leave my shoes in a warm-but-humid environment, am I going to come back to find them "running back to nature" without me?

Still, it's a nice thought.

I want my shoes to last forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295600)

So now my shoes turn to crap even faster than normal? Great idea, idiots.

I can see it now in my rainy climate (1)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295616)

Time to throw out my sneakers again, begonias are sprouting out of the heel, and tulips are between my toes.

My purchase depends on (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295664)

how good these flowers are at holding off zombies.

Slight problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35295682)

How do you prevent the flowers in question from becoming an invasive species?

If these shoes are to be distributed widely the ideal design would incorporate seeds local to a given region in which they are used... glad to hear that only the first batch will have the seeds.

Ch ch ch chia! (1)

eamonman (567383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35295740)

I think of that old SNL commercial when I hear about this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?