5 ms·

I agree with you about moralizing - it can be (and often is) harmful. But in this case the advice is sound. Taking care of your stuff, not discarding it just be

by annnnd 11y ago

I agree with you about moralizing - it can be (and often is) harmful. But in this case the advice is sound. Taking care of your stuff, not discarding it just because it is a bit worn around the edges, and trying to repair it instead of just discarding + buying new; is there something wrong with this approach? not sure it is a "single best thing", but it would make a difference. A large one imho.

mattnewport 11y ago
It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer to be darning their own socks. Economic efficiency doesn't align perfectly with resource or energy efficiency in an environmental sense but in this example it is still likely true. There are economic and environmental costs to everyone having the tools, skills and supplies to repair a reasonable range of products. At the least it likely makes more sense to have a specialist perform any but the most basic repairs rather than doing it yourself. In some cases repairs make sense from an efficiency perspective, in some they don't. All I'm really saying is that it's better to evaluate the more efficient choice dispassionately rather than painting repair as somehow morally superior to buying new.
- invernomut0 11y ago
  You can pay someone to repair your stuff and make the local economy grow instead of dumping and buying a shiny new toy from a big corporation. Buying new is often not optimal since the stuff you buy istantly is worth something like 20% less from the moment you buy it. You pay to avoid the risk of buying an used object, for example, but I'm not sure that buying new is the more efficient choice every time.
  - mattnewport 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure that neither buying new nor repairing is the most efficient choice every time. I also think that it should be a decision based on efficiency and not moralizing. Buying new may or may not be optimal in any given situation but the resale value is only relevant if you decide to resell, it's not a general argument against buying new.
- Klinky 11y ago
  Perhaps the software engineer will become redundant and have to take up darning socks when AI replaces them? It starts to get kind of sketchy when you start dictating how people should spend their time, as if the economy will always take care of them and the environment, so long as they play by the rules of economic efficiency. There are perverse/detrimental incentives in most economies. To suggest that economies and markets are inherently well intentioned seems simplistic and naive. Environmental economic impact are usually only felt when the damage is so severe it starts to affect the supply chain while a company is still in business, which may take years or decades to manifest. By then the economic cost of the environmental damage may be too great for the company to properly deal with. All too often companies leave behind environmental devastation for others to clean up, and are absolved of the actual economic and environmental harm of their actions. Perhaps it becomes something that society has to deal with through higher taxes, but that just hides the cost rather than including it in the price seen on store shelves.
- oddsignals 11y ago
  It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer to be darning their own socks. ...or cooking their own meals. Or raising their own children. Or commenting on HN. I don't know about you, but I don't do a very good job of software engineering 100% of my waking time, even if doing so would certainly be more economically efficient than the alternative. 8 hours a day? Sure. 10 hours? Maybe. 12? Probably not, especially for extended periods. We all make decisions about how we spend our time, both on and off the clock. Personally, I'm perfectly capable of sewing a loose button while watching TV and still consider it downtime. Even if I could easily afford to buy a new shirt instead. I agree with you that you shouldn't at all costs repair everything or do everything yourself. But I'll happily assign some of my spare time to maintenance tasks, and I think doing so does make economic sense as well as environmental.

by annnnd 11y ago

mattnewport 11y ago

It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer to be darning their own socks. Economic efficiency doesn't align perfectly with resource or energy efficiency in an environmental sense but in this example it is still likely true. There are economic and environmental costs to everyone having the tools, skills and supplies to repair a reasonable range of products. At the least it likely makes more sense to have a specialist perform any but the most basic repairs rather than doing it yourself. In some cases repairs make sense from an efficiency perspective, in some they don't. All I'm really saying is that it's better to evaluate the more efficient choice dispassionately rather than painting repair as somehow morally superior to buying new.

invernomut0 11y ago
You can pay someone to repair your stuff and make the local economy grow instead of dumping and buying a shiny new toy from a big corporation. Buying new is often not optimal since the stuff you buy istantly is worth something like 20% less from the moment you buy it. You pay to avoid the risk of buying an used object, for example, but I'm not sure that buying new is the more efficient choice every time.
- mattnewport 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that neither buying new nor repairing is the most efficient choice every time. I also think that it should be a decision based on efficiency and not moralizing. Buying new may or may not be optimal in any given situation but the resale value is only relevant if you decide to resell, it's not a general argument against buying new.
Klinky 11y ago
Perhaps the software engineer will become redundant and have to take up darning socks when AI replaces them? It starts to get kind of sketchy when you start dictating how people should spend their time, as if the economy will always take care of them and the environment, so long as they play by the rules of economic efficiency. There are perverse/detrimental incentives in most economies. To suggest that economies and markets are inherently well intentioned seems simplistic and naive. Environmental economic impact are usually only felt when the damage is so severe it starts to affect the supply chain while a company is still in business, which may take years or decades to manifest. By then the economic cost of the environmental damage may be too great for the company to properly deal with. All too often companies leave behind environmental devastation for others to clean up, and are absolved of the actual economic and environmental harm of their actions. Perhaps it becomes something that society has to deal with through higher taxes, but that just hides the cost rather than including it in the price seen on store shelves.
oddsignals 11y ago
It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer to be darning their own socks. ...or cooking their own meals. Or raising their own children. Or commenting on HN. I don't know about you, but I don't do a very good job of software engineering 100% of my waking time, even if doing so would certainly be more economically efficient than the alternative. 8 hours a day? Sure. 10 hours? Maybe. 12? Probably not, especially for extended periods. We all make decisions about how we spend our time, both on and off the clock. Personally, I'm perfectly capable of sewing a loose button while watching TV and still consider it downtime. Even if I could easily afford to buy a new shirt instead. I agree with you that you shouldn't at all costs repair everything or do everything yourself. But I'll happily assign some of my spare time to maintenance tasks, and I think doing so does make economic sense as well as environmental.