3 ms·

Right to Repair is incredibly important, but also feels incredibly insufficient in this context. What we really need is Obligation to Repair, or something of th

Right to Repair is incredibly important, but also feels incredibly insufficient in this context. What we really need is Obligation to Repair, or something of that nature. Producers of goods need to be accountable for the lifecycle of those goods.

bborud 4y ago
I don't agree. If we move to goalposts too far down the field the political resistance will guarantee that we accomplish less. We have to focus on making repairing stuff possible and economically feasible first. And I think it will need to happen somewhat gradually so the industry can learn how to design things that can be repaired. We also need to build a robust repair industry. With training for repair personnel as well as the supply chain and logistics side. Make repairs attractive, and cheap enough and we might not need to bring up a wall of legislation that makes market access too hard for new entrants. This could quickly develop into a game where only companies with really deep pockets are even able to produce anything. (I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware. Enabling people to repair the stuff we make is something we're happy to do. But if we had to be accountable for the entire lifecycle, that would be another thing. What happens if we go tits up?)
- strbean 4y ago
  Totally agree from a practicality standpoint. In regards to undue burden on companies: > I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware. > What happens if we go tits up? I think if you go tits up, it's the same situation as when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind a contaminated site. But goods produced by small businesses and startups are marginal compared to those produced by big businesses. There should be strong incentives for businesses to manage the end of life for their goods, so they will attempt to recover those goods and see that they are recycled. That will also incentivize them to design products that can be recycled, and as profitably as possible.
f4c39012 4y ago
And further, the seller of a product should be responsible for the disposal of waste from that product (subtracting the recyclable parts). For example, supermarkets would be less inclined to wrap _everything_ in plastic if they were on the hook for the disposal of tonnes of wrap arriving at their stores every day and the disposal part of a products lifecycle would have to be taken account of in its costing - if the waste isn't free to the person who makes it, the waste will be minimised in the design

bborud 4y ago

I don't agree. If we move to goalposts too far down the field the political resistance will guarantee that we accomplish less. We have to focus on making repairing stuff possible and economically feasible first. And I think it will need to happen somewhat gradually so the industry can learn how to design things that can be repaired. We also need to build a robust repair industry. With training for repair personnel as well as the supply chain and logistics side. Make repairs attractive, and cheap enough and we might not need to bring up a wall of legislation that makes market access too hard for new entrants. This could quickly develop into a game where only companies with really deep pockets are even able to produce anything. (I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware. Enabling people to repair the stuff we make is something we're happy to do. But if we had to be accountable for the entire lifecycle, that would be another thing. What happens if we go tits up?)

strbean 4y ago
Totally agree from a practicality standpoint. In regards to undue burden on companies: > I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware. > What happens if we go tits up? I think if you go tits up, it's the same situation as when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind a contaminated site. But goods produced by small businesses and startups are marginal compared to those produced by big businesses. There should be strong incentives for businesses to manage the end of life for their goods, so they will attempt to recover those goods and see that they are recycled. That will also incentivize them to design products that can be recycled, and as profitably as possible.

f4c39012 4y ago

And further, the seller of a product should be responsible for the disposal of waste from that product (subtracting the recyclable parts). For example, supermarkets would be less inclined to wrap _everything_ in plastic if they were on the hook for the disposal of tonnes of wrap arriving at their stores every day and the disposal part of a products lifecycle would have to be taken account of in its costing - if the waste isn't free to the person who makes it, the waste will be minimised in the design