3 ms·

If we can apply the same ingenuity to the end of life stage as to the creation stage, it actually makes sense to not bother attempting to fix - why expend costl

If we can apply the same ingenuity to the end of life stage as to the creation stage, it actually makes sense to not bother attempting to fix - why expend costly human effort on individual patches when innumerable hours have been spent refining industrial processes to bring the cost of a replacement down? Just buy the replacement. Though of course even with the cleanest lifecycle there's still the power requirement and associated carbon, but perhaps even that can be taken care of via mitigation. I should say instinctively this still seems kind of wrong and wasteful to me, but then on the other hand when so much time has been invested in processes it kind of makes sense to take advantage of that efficiency. I should also say that this still leaves manufacturers with no excuse for taking the decision to deliberately stop making consumables, which is the kind of thing I would like to see legislation against.

xg15 8y ago
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even with the most efficient production process, you will end up with landfills of toxic waste if your strategy to make your devices throwaway-only. Also note that a lot of "ingenuity" is production is just shipping parts across the world from wherever human labor is cheapest.
- growlist 8y ago
  > If we can apply the same ingenuity to the end of life stage Did you miss above? I'm saying that IF devices can be recycled effectively at end of life, it may be more effective in economic terms to do away with the idea of making the thing repairable (beyond consumables) in life. > Also note that a lot of "ingenuity" is production is just shipping parts across the world from wherever human labor is cheapest. I think that's a little too cynical - take the car industry as an example - are you really going to argue that outsourcing to reduce labour costs has played a more significant role than technology and quality shifts? If so perhaps you should warn Germany, who still seem to be cranking out millions of cars every year, paying German wages, and turning a profit..

xg15 8y ago

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even with the most efficient production process, you will end up with landfills of toxic waste if your strategy to make your devices throwaway-only. Also note that a lot of "ingenuity" is production is just shipping parts across the world from wherever human labor is cheapest.

growlist 8y ago
> If we can apply the same ingenuity to the end of life stage Did you miss above? I'm saying that IF devices can be recycled effectively at end of life, it may be more effective in economic terms to do away with the idea of making the thing repairable (beyond consumables) in life. > Also note that a lot of "ingenuity" is production is just shipping parts across the world from wherever human labor is cheapest. I think that's a little too cynical - take the car industry as an example - are you really going to argue that outsourcing to reduce labour costs has played a more significant role than technology and quality shifts? If so perhaps you should warn Germany, who still seem to be cranking out millions of cars every year, paying German wages, and turning a profit..