4 ms·
I fear many economists have the mentality of child prodigies; brilliant, extremely clever and very unwise. On a planet (<-- maybe note this) with limited surfac
by eth0up 10y ago
I fear many economists have the mentality of child prodigies; brilliant, extremely clever and very unwise. On a planet (<-- maybe note this) with limited surface-space and resources, and with growing populations with growing standards and demands, the paradigm of Planned Obsolescence(PO) is going to be exceedingly difficult to sustain. Aside from the physical limitations (see: Pacific Ocean plastic island, wars for resources, ocean acidification, climate change, etc., etc.) facing this paradigm of PO, the social costs generally go overlooked. Whether it is a reluctantly accepted 'necessary evil', or something merely conveniently ignored, there is something dishonest at the root of PO, which may have the collective effect of promoting a dishonest society. Perhaps some here can laud the virtues of the Phoebus Cartel[1], or any number of other such rackets - there are clear short-term benefits. But it seems terribly unlikely that a strong and trusting society will ever be more than ephemerally forged from this material. The PO paradigm also seems to lend itself generously to the Hegelian Dialectic while contributing ineffectuality to the masses, demarcating Consumers from Providers. I'd like to see economists explore the advantages of local economy more often.
It's a complex world that's unraveled, one where our popular methods of survival can be perfectly legal, unethical, hypocritical and irrational simultaneously, and the ensuing conflicts arising therefrom, conveniently viewed and treated as isolated. I think Adam Curtis's The Century of the Self[2] offers a bit of insight on where things starting going silly, and some of the mechanisms involved.
While the article may not be directly supporting PO as a paradigm, it gets uncomfortably close. Planned Obsolescence is great fun and games for a while, but I think the final results are predictably grim. There are definitely great challenges in maintaining a thriving economy without enslaving ourselves to endless consumerism, but these challenges must be faced. PO isn't the way.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
- ryuker16 10y agoPlanned Obsolence is also beneficial in some cases. Many products are significantly more energy efficient although they function the same(fridge and cars come to mind). In the software realm, plenty of software that should have been replaced or constantly updated chugs along managing critical infrastructure. Old hardware compatible with such systems get rarer thus raising operating costs and difficulty in servicing. THe Phoebus Cartel was some major bullshit hence laws against price fixing were passed. These days trade is global so smuggling products from other countries is easy...unlike in 1939 where you only had a few stores/vendors to choose from who sold lightbulbs. The modern version is vendor lock-in(see microsoft, sony, and apple which love this): hopefully this philosophy dies in the long run.
- eth0up 10y ago"hopefully this philosophy dies in the long run." I sure hope so. Although there are myriad more, here's another example of this philosophy in action: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160920/07021035568/hp-launched-delayed-drm-time-bomb-to-disable-competing-printer-cartridges.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160920/07021035568/hp-la... I'd rather work manual labor than be the guy who decided on that - profits considered.
- SmokyBorbon 10y agoYou insult someone else's intelligence but you believe in the overpopulation myth.