3 ms·

"De-manufacturing" instead of throwing away things. A company that sells you an item must take it back at the end of its life and break it down into constituent

by albahk 17y ago

"De-manufacturing" instead of throwing away things. A company that sells you an item must take it back at the end of its life and break it down into constituent parts to be re-used/recycled. i.e. cars, phones, computers, fridge, house, office fitouts etc. Companies will seek to maximise profits and so make things that are easily re-used/re-sold. An example of a product like this is the 1981 Jeep CJ-7 I had when I was young. I could swap in pieces from around 4 other models from a range of 15 years of production and they would work... nowadays the door panel from a 2009 BMW 323 won't fit a 2010 323, its ridiculous and leads to a lot of unnecessary waste.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
I don't like this idea for several reasons but partly because it implies that no-one but manufacturers can actually "own" anything. In this model you are only renting a product while you use it. This seems fine and dandy to you because it means that you get to duck the responsibility of having to dispose of it properly, and instead you get to put that burden on some "evil", faceless mega-corporation. But if you go down this route you'll end up ceding far more of your rights of use to the manufacturer than you'd like.
- albahk 17y ago
  Just to clarify my original point, I don't suggest the consumer is forced to return these products - merely that if I want to throw away my first generation iPod then Apple should be the one that can take it back and reuse or recycle it; after all they know exactly how it was made. I feel it's a real waste to throw such a highly engineered piece of technology into landfill.
ahoyhere 17y ago
This is already the rule for lots of things, in lots of countries in Europe. Including computers, bottles (both plastic + glass are reused, rather than broken down + recycled), batteries, etc. All vendors are required to accept them (in the case of bottles, give you the refund), and they are then compensated by the govt. Which means that when I order a beer delivery online, they come to my door with 3x 6-packs, and then take away the bottles from last time, for free, and I rest easy knowing that A) I didn't have to take out the trash, and B) I'm helping reduce waste. Yay!

by albahk 17y ago

InclinedPlane 17y ago

I don't like this idea for several reasons but partly because it implies that no-one but manufacturers can actually "own" anything. In this model you are only renting a product while you use it. This seems fine and dandy to you because it means that you get to duck the responsibility of having to dispose of it properly, and instead you get to put that burden on some "evil", faceless mega-corporation. But if you go down this route you'll end up ceding far more of your rights of use to the manufacturer than you'd like.

albahk 17y ago
Just to clarify my original point, I don't suggest the consumer is forced to return these products - merely that if I want to throw away my first generation iPod then Apple should be the one that can take it back and reuse or recycle it; after all they know exactly how it was made. I feel it's a real waste to throw such a highly engineered piece of technology into landfill.

ahoyhere 17y ago

This is already the rule for lots of things, in lots of countries in Europe. Including computers, bottles (both plastic + glass are reused, rather than broken down + recycled), batteries, etc. All vendors are required to accept them (in the case of bottles, give you the refund), and they are then compensated by the govt. Which means that when I order a beer delivery online, they come to my door with 3x 6-packs, and then take away the bottles from last time, for free, and I rest easy knowing that A) I didn't have to take out the trash, and B) I'm helping reduce waste. Yay!