4 ms·

> Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources needed. I don't think this is in dispute, is it? The point is that manufacturers must now co

> Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources needed. I don't think this is in dispute, is it? The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring. > People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old device If the old device still has value, then both can happen - I can get a new device, and pass my old device on for repair and re-use.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring. If this was the goal, then simply taxing fossil fuels and other polluting sources would be the ideal and simple solution. How high would the taxes need to be? However high it takes to get pollution levels down to where they need to be. The actual cost of a new item would be properly reflected in the price, and therefore incentivize the purchasing of reusable and repairable items, which would incentivize manufacturers making reusable and repairable items. Of course, that would bring the world’s economy to a half, as governments’ expectations and calculations are assumed on continuously increasing consumption.
- statstutor 6y ago
  I'm a bit lost. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at all. Manufacturers already pay $ proportional to the amount of fossil fuels spent, and this doesn't cause them to consider future consequences on the consumer. They still think vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence are to their advantage.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Only because the true cost of fossil fuels and other pollution isn't reflected in the sale price to the end users, so it's often cheaper to buy new rather than repaired products. If the true cost of pollution were pushed into the sale price for end users, end users would have to reduce their purchases of non repairable items, and consumers would then value repairability as a feature, incentivizing manufacturers to cater to that. It's much easier to force the change this way than through figuring out the correct wording in legislation, which is bound to have loopholes and be subject to costly (time wise) legal conflicts. The root of the issue is that things are so cheap, repairing them makes no sense, regardless of repair-ability. Manufacturers didn't one day decide to drop repair-ability. One did it, and found that they were not punished by consumers. In fact, they were probably rewarded by offering new "features". Then another manufacturer did it, then another, and so on. And obviously, it works. I just went to someone's house who was showing off their fancy new fridge with a see through door. Of course, the very very root of the issue is humanity's excess consumption which is causing harm to the environment we live in, but as I wrote earlier, that faces insurmountable political headwinds.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring. If this was the goal, then simply taxing fossil fuels and other polluting sources would be the ideal and simple solution. How high would the taxes need to be? However high it takes to get pollution levels down to where they need to be. The actual cost of a new item would be properly reflected in the price, and therefore incentivize the purchasing of reusable and repairable items, which would incentivize manufacturers making reusable and repairable items. Of course, that would bring the world’s economy to a half, as governments’ expectations and calculations are assumed on continuously increasing consumption.

statstutor 6y ago
I'm a bit lost. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at all. Manufacturers already pay $ proportional to the amount of fossil fuels spent, and this doesn't cause them to consider future consequences on the consumer. They still think vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence are to their advantage.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Only because the true cost of fossil fuels and other pollution isn't reflected in the sale price to the end users, so it's often cheaper to buy new rather than repaired products. If the true cost of pollution were pushed into the sale price for end users, end users would have to reduce their purchases of non repairable items, and consumers would then value repairability as a feature, incentivizing manufacturers to cater to that. It's much easier to force the change this way than through figuring out the correct wording in legislation, which is bound to have loopholes and be subject to costly (time wise) legal conflicts. The root of the issue is that things are so cheap, repairing them makes no sense, regardless of repair-ability. Manufacturers didn't one day decide to drop repair-ability. One did it, and found that they were not punished by consumers. In fact, they were probably rewarded by offering new "features". Then another manufacturer did it, then another, and so on. And obviously, it works. I just went to someone's house who was showing off their fancy new fridge with a see through door. Of course, the very very root of the issue is humanity's excess consumption which is causing harm to the environment we live in, but as I wrote earlier, that faces insurmountable political headwinds.