Planned Obsolescence - False Demand or Economy Driver?

By 1989 mercury was recognised as dangerous in our school at any rate as my physics teacher nearly had a stroke when some eejit broke a thermometer. If he could have wrapped the lab in a plastic ET cocoon, he would have. Instead, he just fucked the poor unfortunate eejit out of it for 5 solid minutes.

"Have you any fucking idea how dangerous mercury is you fucking eejit!"

Those were the memorable days.

Fashion should be entirely based on planned obsolescence. What sells as vintage is what's classy and timeless, rather than dated and dating. It certainly drives the economy.

evercloserunion wrote:

The mercury still goes into the mouth. One bite and you're fucked.

Though apparently eating small amounts of mercury isn't as dangerous as you would think as because it's so heavy it goes through straight your system before it can do any real damage. Or something.

Simple solution: use alcohol thermometers.

Alcohol thermometers aren't accurate enough for medical use. They use mostly digital ones these days.

Kate P wrote:

Those were the memorable days.

Fashion should be entirely based on planned obsolescence. What sells as vintage is what's classy and timeless, rather than dated and dating. It certainly drives the economy.

That's very true - fashion is a major consumption driver.

Part of the problem with a discussion of obsolescence - which, in a sense, is a discussion of a consumption-driven economy in general - is that consumption is undoubtedly required to provide the jobs that people need to afford what they want.

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

ibis wrote:

[

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

Humanity likes advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane. It is hard for many to accept that this is as good as it is going to get, they do not want to settle for a steady-state existence.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

[

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

Humanity likes advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane. It is hard for many to accept that this is as good as it is going to get, they do not want to settle for a steady-state existence.

Again, that begs the question - why is "advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane" automatically synonymous with more consumption ?

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

[

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

Humanity likes advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane. It is hard for many to accept that this is as good as it is going to get, they do not want to settle for a steady-state existence.

Again, that begs the question - why is "advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane" automatically synonymous with more consumption ?

Because people like to work harder to own more stuff as this gives them a sense of satisfaction.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

[

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

Humanity likes advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane. It is hard for many to accept that this is as good as it is going to get, they do not want to settle for a steady-state existence.

Again, that begs the question - why is "advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane" automatically synonymous with more consumption ?

Because people like to work harder to own more stuff as this gives them a sense of satisfaction.

Really? Does your sense of satisfaction come from working harder to own more stuff? I know mine doesn't.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

[

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

Humanity likes advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane. It is hard for many to accept that this is as good as it is going to get, they do not want to settle for a steady-state existence.

Again, that begs the question - why is "advancement, progress, change to a higher and larger plane" automatically synonymous with more consumption ?

Because people like to work harder to own more stuff as this gives them a sense of satisfaction.

So we produce loads of stuff because people will buy it ? Then the question is : why do we buy it if we do not need it ?

Ard Taoiseach is in the Sibin Reoite accumulating more alcohol at the moment ... I think he might be out of answers on those questions lads.

Remember this thread on p.ie ? Your post above reminded me of it, ibis

http://www.politics.ie/chat/21652-will-there-ever-end-work.html

Wasn't there an anecdote or something about the guy who owned a car factory and replaced all his staff with machines. He brought his friend in for a look and said "See, I have all these machines now to build cars, I don't need people and I don't have to pay anyone anymore. This is the future"

To which the friend replied, "So, who is going to buy these cars then ?"

Anyone know that one ?

He could get his factory to build robots to drive them too... are ya with me....?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Wasn't there an anecdote or something about the guy who owned a car factory and replaced all his staff with machines. He brought his friend in for a look and said "See, I have all these machines now to build cars, I don't need people and I don't have to pay anyone anymore. This is the future"

To which the friend replied, "So, who is going to buy these cars then ?"

Anyone know that one ?

I don't know that one, but it is a perfect illustration of something that was discovered a couple of hundred years ago, and which did more to drive the Industrial Revolution than anything else - that a well-paid population was able to buy the products of its own industry, and thereby drive production to new levels. It's the argument against all the 'race to the bottom' claims where people say the 'elite' want a poor workforce - they don't, because a poor workforce makes a poor country.

However, there are plenty of sectors of the economy which cannot be automated, many of which are more congenial occupations than those bits that can be automated. Why not automate those bits, and move everyone up the 'value chain'?

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Those were the memorable days.

Fashion should be entirely based on planned obsolescence. What sells as vintage is what's classy and timeless, rather than dated and dating. It certainly drives the economy.

That's very true - fashion is a major consumption driver.

Part of the problem with a discussion of obsolescence - which, in a sense, is a discussion of a consumption-driven economy in general - is that consumption is undoubtedly required to provide the jobs that people need to afford what they want.

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

That's the hinge point surely - consumption and patterns of consumption. If everyone wanted a Playstation and got addicted then the world economy would collapse after a game or two so lucky there is a range of diverse interests and tastes and wants.

Consumption could deplete resources but on the other hand it could do no worse than deplete copyright - downloading and burning music is very different from consumption of petrol, burning of forests or hunting some animals.

Also, if everyone got addicated to Tai Chi - where's the robot to teach you Tai Chi?

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Those were the memorable days.

Fashion should be entirely based on planned obsolescence. What sells as vintage is what's classy and timeless, rather than dated and dating. It certainly drives the economy.

That's very true - fashion is a major consumption driver.

Part of the problem with a discussion of obsolescence - which, in a sense, is a discussion of a consumption-driven economy in general - is that consumption is undoubtedly required to provide the jobs that people need to afford what they want.

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

That's the hinge point surely - consumption and patterns of consumption. If everyone wanted a Playstation and got addicted then the world economy would collapse after a game or two so lucky there is a range of diverse interests and tastes and wants.

Consumption could deplete resources but on the other hand it could do no worse than deplete copyright - downloading and burning music is very different from consumption of petrol, burning of forests or hunting some animals.

Also, if everyone got addicated to Tai Chi - where's the robot to teach you Tai Chi?

Is there not a point, though, at which one can say "well, I have enough stuff, thanks, I'd like to do more"?

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Those were the memorable days.

Fashion should be entirely based on planned obsolescence. What sells as vintage is what's classy and timeless, rather than dated and dating. It certainly drives the economy.

That's very true - fashion is a major consumption driver.

Part of the problem with a discussion of obsolescence - which, in a sense, is a discussion of a consumption-driven economy in general - is that consumption is undoubtedly required to provide the jobs that people need to afford what they want.

However, surely that begs the question of whether what is actually needed is a consumption-driven economy in the first place? Are we not technologically at a point where we can manage to feed, clothe, house, and amuse our populations without relying on a cycle of constant increases? Do we really have no better plan than to make the hamster wheel spin ever faster? What, when it all comes down to it, are we afraid of?

That's the hinge point surely - consumption and patterns of consumption. If everyone wanted a Playstation and got addicted then the world economy would collapse after a game or two so lucky there is a range of diverse interests and tastes and wants.

Consumption could deplete resources but on the other hand it could do no worse than deplete copyright - downloading and burning music is very different from consumption of petrol, burning of forests or hunting some animals.

Also, if everyone got addicated to Tai Chi - where's the robot to teach you Tai Chi?

Is there not a point, though, at which one can say "well, I have enough stuff, thanks, I'd like to do more"?

I would think so yes - certainly true for me. I was never one for accumulating much stuff. It's like fashion - stuff will go out of fashion and doing things will come into fashion.

Peak Stuff on the way. This time it was the Credit Crunch that made people stop getting too much stuff but that's a good fright for the human genome to record - Stuff can own you, not the other way around.

Kettles are a good example EVM.
My grandmother still uses the same copper electric kettle she always has. I find the new ones only last about a year.

Squire wrote:

Paul R wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Planned obsolescence is environmentally intolerable as it uses a lot of precious and also toxic materials that end up in landfill.

The profit system is a bit of a catastrophe, in my view.


How about we all produced less, used less and had a shorter working week instead ?

Think of all the people who work in the recycling industry - times are bad enough without wanting to add all of them to the dole queues :-) Also, green economics is potentially really interesting - I'd hate to see it being strangled at birth.

WHAT!

Better to have goods that do not need recycled, goods that last. Washing machines, freezers and the like could easily be built to last. In any case I thought that re-use was better than recycle. Also think of the jobs in repair, if the goods were made in a manner that repair was economically possible, all local jobs to!

Transporting rubbish around and rubbish generally is inefficiency. If you want to see economies where nothing is wasted and recycling really works you end up in some 3rd world hell hole with children collecting bags of paper and plastic.

Better to have more expensive durable goods and either shorter working weeks or more services in the economy.

Well, that is one viewpoint but not one that I share. My personal take on it is that we have paid little attention historically to the idea of recycling. For advances to take place in this area the economics of the activity have to be "right" in the first place to justify doing it. This in turn will lead to technical advances in the field (i.e. new machinery, automated processes etc). These advances would, I believe, apply first to large scale set-ups and only subsequently to smaller scale set-ups. As such I have little faith in the "Reduce, Re-use" part of the current slogan forming a basis a for long-term sustainable future.

Paul R

But if the current goods do not last it is like pumping water out of a boat that is holed?

Squire wrote:

Paul R
But if the current goods do not last it is like pumping water out of a boat that is holed?

True, but I don't share the belief that current goods do not last. Most do but some don't. We could have better reliablility if we all agreed to forgo all those nice new features in the newer models (as all of these add to the complexity of the product), but who does that in practice?

Paul R wrote:

Squire wrote:

Paul R
But if the current goods do not last it is like pumping water out of a boat that is holed?

True, but I don't share the belief that current goods do not last. Most do but some don't. We could have better reliablility if we all agreed to forgo all those nice new features in the newer models (as all of these add to the complexity of the product), but who does that in practice?

If I won a new car in the morning I'd try to sell it and buy the best relatively basic 97-02 model I could find

I don't see too many 25 year old fridges or washing machines, and know of few photocopiers or printers that last more than a few years. I see tools where motors burn out, cupboards and furniture that falls apart, windows where the fixings for handles and hinges are weak, plastic bodies that crack, flooring where the decorative finish is wafer thin.

It is not the added gadgets that are the problem but lack of robustness of the basic construction and design. Much of it is bad design or inappropriate use of materials and fixings.

Squire wrote:

I don't see too many 25 year old fridges or washing machines, and know of few photocopiers or printers that last more than a few years. I see tools where motors burn out, cupboards and furniture that falls apart, windows where the fixings for handles and hinges are weak, plastic bodies that crack, flooring where the decorative finish is wafer thin.

Reading the above, I am a bit worried about where you buy stuff... :-)However, in all honesty how many people would be prepared to pay the large premium required to ensure their washing machine lasted 25 years? Consumers typically don't have "It must have 25 year life-cycle" as one of their top purchase decision making points - if they did, manufactures probably would respond to it.Also, I'd really, really hate to be running a computer at the end of its 25 year life cycle - we'd be on DOS 1.0 if we were lucky :-)

Paul R wrote:

Squire wrote:

I don't see too many 25 year old fridges or washing machines, and know of few photocopiers or printers that last more than a few years. I see tools where motors burn out, cupboards and furniture that falls apart, windows where the fixings for handles and hinges are weak, plastic bodies that crack, flooring where the decorative finish is wafer thin.

Reading the above, I am a bit worried about where you buy stuff... :-)However, in all honesty how many people would be prepared to pay the large premium required to ensure their washing machine lasted 25 years? Consumers typically don't have "It must have 25 year life-cycle" as one of their top purchase decision making points - if they did, manufactures probably would respond to it.Also, I'd really, really hate to be running a computer at the end of its 25 year life cycle - we'd be on DOS 1.0 if we were lucky :-)

I think you'd need the negative effects of obsolescence priced into things then that would increase the price for products lacking in robustness.

Manufacturer's get away with it currently because they can foist the externality costs onto others not always party to the exchange. Now sometimes these victims can be the original consumer but not always.

The reason consumers don't pay more is down to bargaining power (a large group of disconnected individual consumers) and preferences amongst consumers which change to accept the disfunctional 'norm'.


Software is a bad example in this, particularly wrt the environment, as software can be improved upon with minimal resource use.

The 'progression' is not always improvement, just compare Vista and XP! And consumers do not always choose more powerful hardware, look at the wii which is basically *1.5 or *2 gamecubes in performance but is by far and away number one. There should be a disconnect between breakthrough improvements from research and what everyone wishes to actually consume.

Anyway discussing this concept of constraining consumption is very hard when participants are loathe to step outside of the box of the current economy.