4 ms·

> What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to b

by wyager 9y ago

> What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority? If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations. I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.

yesbabyyes 9y ago
Likely about the same amount, don't you think? Obviously, over the product's lifetime one could imagine there's a big difference, which is likely the point. It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right? It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint. Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress. (Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
- wyager 9y ago
  Movement in the wrong direction just for the sake of movement isn't "progress". Mandatory warranty periods are simply bad economics, and it's not hard to see that this will go wrong for the reasons I mentioned (and more). Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable". If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Please do explain, because this is interesting. I assume that you either 1) have a different vision of how we can maximize wealth and convenience while minimizing waste and environmental damage, or 2) you don't care about waste and environmental damage. If 1) is true, I'd like to learn what your vision is.
    - wyager 9y ago
      In the US we have the EPA, which is tasked with protecting the environment. It is not tasked with optimizing the net social utility of humanity. So, the EPA does everything it can to help the environment, so as to fulfill its organizational directive, even if the human cost is vastly out of proportion with the environmental benefit. My dream vision is that the government tries to bring about a practical approximation of the preconditions of the Coase theorem. This is very, very different from the piecemeal and economically unsound approach it is using right now.
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    >a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. Can you elaborate on these points. I feel like I have all of them (with the exception that I don't have a car) without doing anything environmentally illegal. (In fact, I have specifically noticed that well designed modern toilets are far more effective than old ones that use tonnes of water.)
    - Jach 9y ago
      Low-flow showers and toilets are the bane of many people's existences. You might be happy with the "well designed" ones but a lot of people aren't. (Or don't have whatever the well designed one is -- my newly built office has had so many complaints with its toilets they're replacing them building wide, bets on how much better the new ones will be?) Some people will find solutions that would result in fines if found out. And it's not a new thing either: https://youtu.be/vMITcQUe-9M https://youtu.be/vMITcQUe-9M Not sure what is meant by working gas can on the car... I personally just hate the gas hoses at stations which have the pressure contraption so I have to keep it physically pushed in to the hole and can't say let it start and clean my windshield, but it also has a hyper sensitive fume/fluid sensor so it cuts off if I try to have a flow over 50%. I love older stations with older pump hoses, no problems. Don't have to break the law for them, yet. Clean clothes and home probably refer to some effective cleaning agents being banned because they're known to the state of California to cause cancer or something. I can't say I have that problem but I might not know what I'm missing.

by wyager 9y ago

yesbabyyes 9y ago

Likely about the same amount, don't you think? Obviously, over the product's lifetime one could imagine there's a big difference, which is likely the point. It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right? It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint. Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress. (Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)

wyager 9y ago
Movement in the wrong direction just for the sake of movement isn't "progress". Mandatory warranty periods are simply bad economics, and it's not hard to see that this will go wrong for the reasons I mentioned (and more). Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable". If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Please do explain, because this is interesting. I assume that you either 1) have a different vision of how we can maximize wealth and convenience while minimizing waste and environmental damage, or 2) you don't care about waste and environmental damage. If 1) is true, I'd like to learn what your vision is.
  - wyager 9y ago
    In the US we have the EPA, which is tasked with protecting the environment. It is not tasked with optimizing the net social utility of humanity. So, the EPA does everything it can to help the environment, so as to fulfill its organizational directive, even if the human cost is vastly out of proportion with the environmental benefit. My dream vision is that the government tries to bring about a practical approximation of the preconditions of the Coase theorem. This is very, very different from the piecemeal and economically unsound approach it is using right now.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  >a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. Can you elaborate on these points. I feel like I have all of them (with the exception that I don't have a car) without doing anything environmentally illegal. (In fact, I have specifically noticed that well designed modern toilets are far more effective than old ones that use tonnes of water.)
  - Jach 9y ago
    Low-flow showers and toilets are the bane of many people's existences. You might be happy with the "well designed" ones but a lot of people aren't. (Or don't have whatever the well designed one is -- my newly built office has had so many complaints with its toilets they're replacing them building wide, bets on how much better the new ones will be?) Some people will find solutions that would result in fines if found out. And it's not a new thing either: https://youtu.be/vMITcQUe-9M https://youtu.be/vMITcQUe-9M Not sure what is meant by working gas can on the car... I personally just hate the gas hoses at stations which have the pressure contraption so I have to keep it physically pushed in to the hole and can't say let it start and clean my windshield, but it also has a hyper sensitive fume/fluid sensor so it cuts off if I try to have a flow over 50%. I love older stations with older pump hoses, no problems. Don't have to break the law for them, yet. Clean clothes and home probably refer to some effective cleaning agents being banned because they're known to the state of California to cause cancer or something. I can't say I have that problem but I might not know what I'm missing.