3 ms·

> I wonder where the biggest opportunities are to get people reusing and repairing their things rather than buying new ones. Back in the day you repaired thing

> I wonder where the biggest opportunities are to get people reusing and repairing their things rather than buying new ones. Back in the day you repaired things because a really well made thing would last a lifetime with proper care. But Amazon and Walmart made it their mission to get people to keep buying clothes, so now clothes are cheaper and more disposable. I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. Maybe encourage manufacturers to have a warranty program that works with independent repair shops. You spend more with the intention of keeping it longer, and can get it repaired if needed.

mellavora 5y ago
And less repairable. Fabrics are more often a blend. However, we are fighting against the market on this. It is the same as the software subscription vs one-time-purchase model. The economy depends on people constantly consuming, buying new things. Trend started long before Amazon and Wallmart; they just accelerated it.
- 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
  Well I think we can change that. There's no constitutional proclamation that says we have to be a consumer society. gen Z are much more conscious of these issues, we could help guide them towards more responsible purchases and intentional living, and the market should slowly follow
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Annatar 5y ago
  Only the American economy depends on the constant consumption, and we can clearly see how that ended: with riots and looting in the streets, a true beacon, pinnacle of success. Other economies are much more content to pay for reuse and repair.
coryfklein 5y ago
> I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. I would LOVE to do this, but I have absolutely no idea how to identify quality. Is the $50 t-shirt at Macy's actually going to last me longer than the $10 that looks identical at The Gap? Since I don't even know, I usually end up taking the $10 safer choice.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  Not really a measure of quality (rather of ethics), but I like Good on You’s ratings: https://directory.goodonyou.eco/ https://directory.goodonyou.eco/
- robocat 5y ago
  > I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. I’m unsure whether this would be good for the environment. What are the risks of not using it, or damaging it? Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn, so deciding if the environment is better off for that choice is not obvious. I just buy good second-hand clothes since that is more likely to be good for my pocket (and perhaps with luck, the environment).
  - 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
    Second-hand clothes have a huge positive effect on the environment! It's the "Re-use" in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/environmental-benefits-of-buying-second-hand-clothing https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/environmental-benefits-of-...
    - robocat 5y ago
      It really feels like it should be positive, but I am very unsure it is. 1. Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn. I spend less money buying second hand clothes, but I spend those savings elsewhere in the economy. 2. The revenue of a second-hand clothes dealer is spent in the economy, likely causing the average environmental impact of the economy where the store is located. 3. My marginal increase in second-hand clothing usage might cause a marginal increase in new clothes purchases. More likely for expensive “vintage” clothes since they have a limited supply, and vintage goods more likely cause a substitute goods effect for new clothes. Less likely for very low demand undesirable clothes (cheap thrift store clothes that would otherwise just be recycled). Generally I think that most things make little difference. To make a positive environmental impact I suspect requires one to do something that has a fairly direct effect (plant some trees, change legislation), or reduces societies total impact (war, death, reducing reproduction). Reducing your use of something that is very clearly 100% petrochemical-based (gas, plane flights) makes some difference, but mostly your money goes into the economy: even 100% “green” goods are actually only as green as your country’s economy. There is massive amounts of green-washing going on, so most green goods are actually no better than whatever they replace (and from what I can tell, most green goods are worse for the environment).

mellavora 5y ago

And less repairable. Fabrics are more often a blend. However, we are fighting against the market on this. It is the same as the software subscription vs one-time-purchase model. The economy depends on people constantly consuming, buying new things. Trend started long before Amazon and Wallmart; they just accelerated it.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago
Well I think we can change that. There's no constitutional proclamation that says we have to be a consumer society. gen Z are much more conscious of these issues, we could help guide them towards more responsible purchases and intentional living, and the market should slowly follow
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Annatar 5y ago
Only the American economy depends on the constant consumption, and we can clearly see how that ended: with riots and looting in the streets, a true beacon, pinnacle of success. Other economies are much more content to pay for reuse and repair.

coryfklein 5y ago

> I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. I would LOVE to do this, but I have absolutely no idea how to identify quality. Is the $50 t-shirt at Macy's actually going to last me longer than the $10 that looks identical at The Gap? Since I don't even know, I usually end up taking the $10 safer choice.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
Not really a measure of quality (rather of ethics), but I like Good on You’s ratings: https://directory.goodonyou.eco/ https://directory.goodonyou.eco/
robocat 5y ago
> I think the best thing we could do is encourage people to buy fewer things that are better quality. I’m unsure whether this would be good for the environment. What are the risks of not using it, or damaging it? Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn, so deciding if the environment is better off for that choice is not obvious. I just buy good second-hand clothes since that is more likely to be good for my pocket (and perhaps with luck, the environment).
- 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
  Second-hand clothes have a huge positive effect on the environment! It's the "Re-use" in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/environmental-benefits-of-buying-second-hand-clothing https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/environmental-benefits-of-...
  - robocat 5y ago
    It really feels like it should be positive, but I am very unsure it is. 1. Systematically, I believe our environmental footprint is approximately how much we earn. I spend less money buying second hand clothes, but I spend those savings elsewhere in the economy. 2. The revenue of a second-hand clothes dealer is spent in the economy, likely causing the average environmental impact of the economy where the store is located. 3. My marginal increase in second-hand clothing usage might cause a marginal increase in new clothes purchases. More likely for expensive “vintage” clothes since they have a limited supply, and vintage goods more likely cause a substitute goods effect for new clothes. Less likely for very low demand undesirable clothes (cheap thrift store clothes that would otherwise just be recycled). Generally I think that most things make little difference. To make a positive environmental impact I suspect requires one to do something that has a fairly direct effect (plant some trees, change legislation), or reduces societies total impact (war, death, reducing reproduction). Reducing your use of something that is very clearly 100% petrochemical-based (gas, plane flights) makes some difference, but mostly your money goes into the economy: even 100% “green” goods are actually only as green as your country’s economy. There is massive amounts of green-washing going on, so most green goods are actually no better than whatever they replace (and from what I can tell, most green goods are worse for the environment).