3 ms·

If that were worth my time, I would do it. The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to re

• TeMPOraL 9y ago
  You can work around that disutility in various ways; meanwhile, environmental costs are additive and will come back to bite us hard. Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
• m_eiman 9y ago
  Instead of throwing the things away you could donate them to charity. Let someone else use or sell the stuff.
  • wyager 9y ago
    I do, if it's convenient. Traveling 60 miles to Goodwill also has a cost (direct and environmental).
    • LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      Where could you possibly live that it's 60 miles to the nearest secondhand store (or rather, what's the fraction of people that live similarly far from them)? I have four Goodwills within 25 miles of me, plus a bunch of secondhand clothing botiques, flea markets, a couple Salvation Armies and a Habitat ReStore.
      • wyager 9y ago
        A rural area... It's remarkable to me sometimes how painfully and obviously ignorant many people on HN are about the lifestyles of the huge portion of the global population that lives in relatively undeveloped rural/agrarian areas. You don't even have to live there, just visit sometimes. I spend a good fraction of the year in locations that are at least 10 miles to the nearest business of any kind, let alone something like a second hand store that requires a reasonable population to sustain.
        • dsfyu404ed 9y ago
          x2. A lot of them live in a bubble. Just ignore it. The tall nail gets the hammer. Loud minority opinions get run out of town.
          • TeMPOraL 9y ago
            Minorities have, by definition, a minor impact on things. This is not a bubble, it's the opposite - taking the global view.
            • wyager 9y ago
              "The global view" is that nearly half of the world population is rural by most metrics. Your claim is also incorrect for more fundamental reasons, although it doesn't really apply here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.cq32okfgf https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Cooperating minorities can have an effect drastically out of proportion with their share of the population.
          • s73ver 9y ago
            Or a lot of us don't like having to subsidize your lifestyle, and are tired of the excuses that are entirely the product of your choice of lifestyle. At some point, this person is going to have to realize they cannot keep doing what they are doing, no matter how much they may "want" to do so.
        • PeterisP 9y ago
          Depopulated rural areas by definition don't have many people, so they don't have a huge portion of the population. This article is about the first world, which is highly urbanized; EU had only something like 20% people living in rural regions, and out of these most are living in regional centers. IIRC something like 5% are actually living in rural/agrarian conditions, certainly not a huge portion. Places that don't have the services which require a reasonable population to sustain are getting emptier and emptier every decade; there are farms with no people living on them, where people commute from a town that does have a reasonable population to maintain all the modern services, do their work and go home. The growing urbanization means that almost all of society lives in a somewhat urban environment, and the number of people who don't shrinks rapidly every decade, with no sign of stopping.
• icebraining 9y ago
  > If that were worth my time, I would do it. Well, now it will be :)
  • wyager 9y ago
    Forcing people into less-optimal behavior isn't a win just because it more closely matches one's expectations for what optimal behavior should be.