5 ms·

This attitude is the reason why we have so much e-waste. We need to stop treating technology as disposable. "The worst-case scenario is I’ll get a new one if i

This attitude is the reason why we have so much e-waste. We need to stop treating technology as disposable. "The worst-case scenario is I’ll get a new one if it stopped working for some reason." Sure, just chuck it in the trash and let it end up in the ocean—or dispose of it properly and it ends up in an e-waste pile halfway around the world.

ensiferum 5y ago
I agree. Also I find the word "disposable" to be q misnomer since it's actually very hard to dispose of this junk properly. One time use plastic, e-waste etc really should be called "non disposable" since that crap is still going be around somewhere 1000 years from now in the oceans and land fills.
- Retric 5y ago
  It’s easy to safely dispose of this stuff, there simply isn’t enough of an incentive to do so. Sure lead and mercury for example are toxic, but they where toxic sitting in the ground before we extracted them in the first place.
icegreentea2 5y ago
I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are simply not economical to repair. All sorts of things (both supply and demand side) are misaligned with respect to minimizing wastage as a whole. And that all being said, there really is something valuable about the 'cheap product' thinking - and that's specifically the mindset of decoupling your enjoyment and utility of a product from its up-front cost. And this is valuable, because the very thing that we need to do to minimize waste is to increase the up-front cost of like... everything.
- miltondts 5y ago
  > I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are simply not economical to repair. The primary reason this happens is that companies don't want you to repair their products because that hurts their revenue. It's only natural in a system that rewards profits above all else and has little to no mechanisms to enforce compensation for the externalities.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    A huge portion of the dynamic is that people will buy a $398 device over a $399 device. It isn't just companies relentlessly pushing unrepairable stuff.
    - yarky 5y ago
      I agree, it always comes down to how much the buyer cares about anything other than the price paid. Markets/companies care about whatever their customers care, and the way customers vote/express themselves is with their dollars. We can talk all we want about how wrong this is or not, but that doesn't change the underlying reality.
      - turnsout 5y ago
        Not disagreeing, but part of the underlying reality is that companies are not financially responsible for the externalities they contribute to (such as climate change) or post-consumer costs such as disposal. The result is that the "true" cost of the product to society is not reflected in the consumer-facing price. I think regulation should be a last resort, but in this case, some kind of taxation or regulation is necessary, because there is absolutely no incentive to be good stewards of the Earth within our current version of capitalism.
        yarky 5y ago
        It can sure help, but then, as a company, you might want to find a way to avoid the regulation to keep the price low if that's what your customers care about. Maybe some form of labelling could have a greater real impact: let the customer know what the real impact/cost of the product is, and let the customer made an informed decision.
GuB-42 5y ago
But it still works, it is still in use, so no e-waste. A product you don't use is waste all along. Maybe it will sit in a drawer for a decade or two before it becomes obsolete and you trash it. But it doesn't mean it lasted for decades, it means you kept your waste for decades. A cheap product you use to its fullest because you are not scared of breaking it is less of a waste than an expensive product you hesitate to use.

ensiferum 5y ago

I agree. Also I find the word "disposable" to be q misnomer since it's actually very hard to dispose of this junk properly. One time use plastic, e-waste etc really should be called "non disposable" since that crap is still going be around somewhere 1000 years from now in the oceans and land fills.

Retric 5y ago
It’s easy to safely dispose of this stuff, there simply isn’t enough of an incentive to do so. Sure lead and mercury for example are toxic, but they where toxic sitting in the ground before we extracted them in the first place.

icegreentea2 5y ago

I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are simply not economical to repair. All sorts of things (both supply and demand side) are misaligned with respect to minimizing wastage as a whole. And that all being said, there really is something valuable about the 'cheap product' thinking - and that's specifically the mindset of decoupling your enjoyment and utility of a product from its up-front cost. And this is valuable, because the very thing that we need to do to minimize waste is to increase the up-front cost of like... everything.

miltondts 5y ago
> I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are simply not economical to repair. The primary reason this happens is that companies don't want you to repair their products because that hurts their revenue. It's only natural in a system that rewards profits above all else and has little to no mechanisms to enforce compensation for the externalities.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  A huge portion of the dynamic is that people will buy a $398 device over a $399 device. It isn't just companies relentlessly pushing unrepairable stuff.
  - yarky 5y ago
    I agree, it always comes down to how much the buyer cares about anything other than the price paid. Markets/companies care about whatever their customers care, and the way customers vote/express themselves is with their dollars. We can talk all we want about how wrong this is or not, but that doesn't change the underlying reality.
    - turnsout 5y ago
      Not disagreeing, but part of the underlying reality is that companies are not financially responsible for the externalities they contribute to (such as climate change) or post-consumer costs such as disposal. The result is that the "true" cost of the product to society is not reflected in the consumer-facing price. I think regulation should be a last resort, but in this case, some kind of taxation or regulation is necessary, because there is absolutely no incentive to be good stewards of the Earth within our current version of capitalism.
      - yarky 5y ago
        It can sure help, but then, as a company, you might want to find a way to avoid the regulation to keep the price low if that's what your customers care about. Maybe some form of labelling could have a greater real impact: let the customer know what the real impact/cost of the product is, and let the customer made an informed decision.

GuB-42 5y ago

But it still works, it is still in use, so no e-waste. A product you don't use is waste all along. Maybe it will sit in a drawer for a decade or two before it becomes obsolete and you trash it. But it doesn't mean it lasted for decades, it means you kept your waste for decades. A cheap product you use to its fullest because you are not scared of breaking it is less of a waste than an expensive product you hesitate to use.