8 ms·

Reduce and Re-use are not a great slogan for an economy that incentivizes increased consumption of new things unfortunately. Maybe as more people become aware

Reduce and Re-use are not a great slogan for an economy that incentivizes increased consumption of new things unfortunately. Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products?

karatestomp 7y ago
It doesn't help that plastics, in particular, derive a huge part of their utility from directly countering those two parts. They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging) and created new categories of ultra-cheap crap that couldn't have existed, or certainly not to that degree, without plastic, and often to dubious benefit to society—dirt-cheap toys, for example (dubious benefit to society because if not for marketing I very much doubt kids would be much less happy with a couple metal and wooden toys plus some rocks and sticks, versus a mountain of cheap plastic figures and playsets and such, source: have kids, have been a kid)
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  > I very much doubt kids would be much less happy. . . Perhaps they'd actually be happier. There's at least the beginnings of a body of research that suggests that owning a mountain of toys in childhood is associated with a lifelong increased risk of mood disorders.
  - gramakri 7y ago
    very interested in reading more about this. do you have any pointers/links?
    - AndrewDucker 7y ago
      I'm afraid I don't have any handy links, but I've definitely read that kids with a few treasured toys play creatively with them, while children with a lot of toys move restlessly between them.
    - mumblemumble 7y ago
      If you'd like a fairly short book, The High Price of Materialism by Tim Kasser isn't focused specifically on early childhood, but, if I recall correctly, it does touch on the subject. It's all correlational, of course, so it's not like this is a scientific certainty. But still, interesting to see.
      - karatestomp 7y ago
        As an adult, I'd definitely say that at some point we passed from "plenty of options" to "so many options it's actually worse than having fewer", at least when it comes to entertainment and information consumption and such. Probably passed the tipping point some time between the 70s and very early 2000s at the latest. But I'm getting old enough that that might just be a preview of the "back in my day!" stories that are surely in my future.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        FooHentai 7y ago
        Sounds like the paradox of choice: https://medium.com/@FlorentGeerts/the-jam-experiment-how-choice-overloads-makes-consumers-buy-less-d610f8c37b9b https://medium.com/@FlorentGeerts/the-jam-experiment-how-cho... And yeah, agree. I'm looking at you, enormous steam games list.
        karatestomp 7y ago
        Really, if all new recorded & digital entertainment stopped being created right now and I was stuck with only things already made, and even if I were born today, I'd easily have a lifetime's worth of material even if I were pretty picky, so the lack of new media, though a bit weird, wouldn't really harm my enjoyment of life that much. There are whole, giant genres of music I've barely listened to, hundreds of highly-regarded films from the last 140ish years I've not seen, more reputedly-excellent written works from the last ~3500 years than I've got time for even if that were my only entertainment. Shit, as far as games go I'm still trying to catch up on top-tier or just-under-top-tier games from the 90s I missed the first time around, and I played quite a few games back then. Now that I have less time, a bunch of excellent-looking games I'd probably love slip by and land on the "to do... someday, maybe" list. Even for a medium that new, I'm overwhelmed with great options.
  - samatman 7y ago
    Pure anecdote, I attended a Waldorf school in which some of the students were the children of devout Anthroposophists, hence were strictly prohibited from owning cheap plastic toys. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm, from what I recall.
- jfim 7y ago
  It's pretty interesting to contrast the old advertisements for disposable tablewares [0] ("Enjoy their beauty, use them --- throw them away!") with the result of decades of this approach (being stuck with mountains of throwaway crap). [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch
- rusticpenn 7y ago
  > They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging) Not really. Plastic was the more hygenic alternative and that was the main reason why it replaced the older packaging techniques.
FillardMillmore 7y ago
> Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products? Sounds good to me in theory, but the confusion for me has always been: how do you overhaul the packaging of all these small consumable items (like Pepsi and Coke) so they're either more easily recyclable or reusable and also benefit the manufacturer at the same time? I'm sure the government can create incentives but will that be enough? Will people be willing to pay more money for a more environmentally friendly option if a less environmentally friendly but more affordable option exists?
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I think you’re over constraining the solution. Why does the solution need to benefit the manufacturer? Coca Cola is a corporation with no feelings. The environment is a real living entity. If the costs of the corporation go up but the environment benefits this seems like a win. The corporation will balance out operations whatever costs are unless the restrictions are so onerous it can no longer operate, and I don’t think that’s the case. If anything the cost of soda would rise, which some places are already doing for public benefit through consumption taxes. If people drink less soda because the cost is slightly higher, that wouldn’t really be a negative outcome.
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    You're certainly correct, a solution does not require a benefit to the manufacturer. I suppose I was thinking about it from more of a laissez-faire point of view - that is essentially, how can we have our cake and eat it too (or in this case, our cheap soda)? If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation. In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.

karatestomp 7y ago

It doesn't help that plastics, in particular, derive a huge part of their utility from directly countering those two parts. They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging) and created new categories of ultra-cheap crap that couldn't have existed, or certainly not to that degree, without plastic, and often to dubious benefit to society—dirt-cheap toys, for example (dubious benefit to society because if not for marketing I very much doubt kids would be much less happy with a couple metal and wooden toys plus some rocks and sticks, versus a mountain of cheap plastic figures and playsets and such, source: have kids, have been a kid)

mumblemumble 7y ago
> I very much doubt kids would be much less happy. . . Perhaps they'd actually be happier. There's at least the beginnings of a body of research that suggests that owning a mountain of toys in childhood is associated with a lifelong increased risk of mood disorders.
- gramakri 7y ago
  very interested in reading more about this. do you have any pointers/links?
  - AndrewDucker 7y ago
    I'm afraid I don't have any handy links, but I've definitely read that kids with a few treasured toys play creatively with them, while children with a lot of toys move restlessly between them.
  - mumblemumble 7y ago
    If you'd like a fairly short book, The High Price of Materialism by Tim Kasser isn't focused specifically on early childhood, but, if I recall correctly, it does touch on the subject. It's all correlational, of course, so it's not like this is a scientific certainty. But still, interesting to see.
    - karatestomp 7y ago
      As an adult, I'd definitely say that at some point we passed from "plenty of options" to "so many options it's actually worse than having fewer", at least when it comes to entertainment and information consumption and such. Probably passed the tipping point some time between the 70s and very early 2000s at the latest. But I'm getting old enough that that might just be a preview of the "back in my day!" stories that are surely in my future.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - FooHentai 7y ago
        Sounds like the paradox of choice: https://medium.com/@FlorentGeerts/the-jam-experiment-how-choice-overloads-makes-consumers-buy-less-d610f8c37b9b https://medium.com/@FlorentGeerts/the-jam-experiment-how-cho... And yeah, agree. I'm looking at you, enormous steam games list.
        karatestomp 7y ago
        Really, if all new recorded & digital entertainment stopped being created right now and I was stuck with only things already made, and even if I were born today, I'd easily have a lifetime's worth of material even if I were pretty picky, so the lack of new media, though a bit weird, wouldn't really harm my enjoyment of life that much. There are whole, giant genres of music I've barely listened to, hundreds of highly-regarded films from the last 140ish years I've not seen, more reputedly-excellent written works from the last ~3500 years than I've got time for even if that were my only entertainment. Shit, as far as games go I'm still trying to catch up on top-tier or just-under-top-tier games from the 90s I missed the first time around, and I played quite a few games back then. Now that I have less time, a bunch of excellent-looking games I'd probably love slip by and land on the "to do... someday, maybe" list. Even for a medium that new, I'm overwhelmed with great options.
- samatman 7y ago
  Pure anecdote, I attended a Waldorf school in which some of the students were the children of devout Anthroposophists, hence were strictly prohibited from owning cheap plastic toys. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm, from what I recall.
jfim 7y ago
It's pretty interesting to contrast the old advertisements for disposable tablewares [0] ("Enjoy their beauty, use them --- throw them away!") with the result of decades of this approach (being stuck with mountains of throwaway crap). [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch
rusticpenn 7y ago
> They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging) Not really. Plastic was the more hygenic alternative and that was the main reason why it replaced the older packaging techniques.

FillardMillmore 7y ago

> Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products? Sounds good to me in theory, but the confusion for me has always been: how do you overhaul the packaging of all these small consumable items (like Pepsi and Coke) so they're either more easily recyclable or reusable and also benefit the manufacturer at the same time? I'm sure the government can create incentives but will that be enough? Will people be willing to pay more money for a more environmentally friendly option if a less environmentally friendly but more affordable option exists?

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I think you’re over constraining the solution. Why does the solution need to benefit the manufacturer? Coca Cola is a corporation with no feelings. The environment is a real living entity. If the costs of the corporation go up but the environment benefits this seems like a win. The corporation will balance out operations whatever costs are unless the restrictions are so onerous it can no longer operate, and I don’t think that’s the case. If anything the cost of soda would rise, which some places are already doing for public benefit through consumption taxes. If people drink less soda because the cost is slightly higher, that wouldn’t really be a negative outcome.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  You're certainly correct, a solution does not require a benefit to the manufacturer. I suppose I was thinking about it from more of a laissez-faire point of view - that is essentially, how can we have our cake and eat it too (or in this case, our cheap soda)? If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation. In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.