3 ms·

>The first and third should not be on equal footing with the second. What? >> 1) Making their things easy to repair. 2) Creating in house recycling programs.

>The first and third should not be on equal footing with the second. What? >> 1) Making their things easy to repair. 2) Creating in house recycling programs. 3) Making equipment more durable and longer lasting I read as 1)Reuse 2)Recycle 3)Reduce. The best thing a manufacturer could do is create a bomb proof smartphone that will be usable forever.

shwestrick 6y ago
I think you and @stretchcat are saying the same thing. Ease-of-repair and durability are more important than recycling.
- stretchcat 6y ago
  Yes exactly. Recycling is better than nothing in cases where reuse or reduction aren't possible (many medical products probably fall under this category.) But reduction and reuse are preferable where possible.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> The best thing a manufacturer could do is create a bomb proof smartphone that will be usable forever. This is illogical. Smartphones become obsolete for technology reasons even if they're bomb proof and usable forever. So they need to recyclable (or components reusable) as the priority. Old Nokias were built to last and still work.. but they're e-waste because they're obsolete for the purposes almost everyone needs a phone for. Maybe it'd be better if they'd be more recyclable instead of more robust?
- michaelt 6y ago
  Presumably for smartphones, 'reuse' would mean devices that get software updates for long enough they can go through 2 or 3 users.
- riversflow 6y ago
  I’ve broken far far more phones than I’ve had to replace because they became obsolete. If we came anywhere close to most phones lasting until they are outmoded we’d be doing good.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > broken far far more phones Maybe just be more careful? 'Take reasonable care of your things' should possibly come between reduce, and reuse-recycle.
    - riversflow 6y ago
      Such condescension in response to breaking a piece of glass you carry with you in your pocket all the time. It’s honestly offensive. Its funny how people whom share my active lifestyle often have a similar problem, and lament how fragile phones are. Most of my phones have been broken between my hip/thigh and a blunt object. Most recently when I slipped and fell on some moss while backpacking. But other incidences including (literally) running into wheelbarrow in the dark, getting knocked out of my hand by a cyclist, a metal water bottle in a vehicle flying and smashing my phone into my hip. I don’t go out of my way to hurt myself, and am actually a careful, graceful person. I’ve never broken a camera in over 50k shutter pulls.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Honestly they seem plenty robust to me already - I’ve never had one break in any way and I never use a case and just keep it in my pocket for everything from daily use all the way up to tactical military exercises. Every phone I’ve ever had has become reasonably obsolete though. I think that’s the case for most people. That’s why recyclability is more important than excessive robustness.
  - google234123 6y ago
    How abotu you buy a case and screen protector?

shwestrick 6y ago

I think you and @stretchcat are saying the same thing. Ease-of-repair and durability are more important than recycling.

stretchcat 6y ago
Yes exactly. Recycling is better than nothing in cases where reuse or reduction aren't possible (many medical products probably fall under this category.) But reduction and reuse are preferable where possible.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> The best thing a manufacturer could do is create a bomb proof smartphone that will be usable forever. This is illogical. Smartphones become obsolete for technology reasons even if they're bomb proof and usable forever. So they need to recyclable (or components reusable) as the priority. Old Nokias were built to last and still work.. but they're e-waste because they're obsolete for the purposes almost everyone needs a phone for. Maybe it'd be better if they'd be more recyclable instead of more robust?

michaelt 6y ago
Presumably for smartphones, 'reuse' would mean devices that get software updates for long enough they can go through 2 or 3 users.
riversflow 6y ago
I’ve broken far far more phones than I’ve had to replace because they became obsolete. If we came anywhere close to most phones lasting until they are outmoded we’d be doing good.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > broken far far more phones Maybe just be more careful? 'Take reasonable care of your things' should possibly come between reduce, and reuse-recycle.
  - riversflow 6y ago
    Such condescension in response to breaking a piece of glass you carry with you in your pocket all the time. It’s honestly offensive. Its funny how people whom share my active lifestyle often have a similar problem, and lament how fragile phones are. Most of my phones have been broken between my hip/thigh and a blunt object. Most recently when I slipped and fell on some moss while backpacking. But other incidences including (literally) running into wheelbarrow in the dark, getting knocked out of my hand by a cyclist, a metal water bottle in a vehicle flying and smashing my phone into my hip. I don’t go out of my way to hurt myself, and am actually a careful, graceful person. I’ve never broken a camera in over 50k shutter pulls.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Honestly they seem plenty robust to me already - I’ve never had one break in any way and I never use a case and just keep it in my pocket for everything from daily use all the way up to tactical military exercises. Every phone I’ve ever had has become reasonably obsolete though. I think that’s the case for most people. That’s why recyclability is more important than excessive robustness.
- google234123 6y ago
  How abotu you buy a case and screen protector?