I appreciate you’re making a generalisation rather than stating a fact, but a lot of your points could just as easily be untrue as they are correct. It really d

I appreciate you’re making a generalisation rather than stating a fact, but a lot of your points could just as easily be untrue as they are correct. It really depend on the item. For example a lot of older stuff can be easier to maintain if the modern counterpart has some kind of electronic part that wasn’t in the original. And plenty of modern things aren’t made with the same longevity as older things. > not meet modern expectations I don’t see that as reason not to use old stuff in itself. If you’re changing something purely because of fashion then that’s a terrible reason to get rid of something older. But if there is another measurable differentiator then I’d see that as the reason rather than “expectations”. I guess my point here isn’t that I disagree with you per se, just that I’d be weary of citing “expectations” without breaking down what those expectations are (in any particular case). > be less energy efficient We also need to be careful here too because the impact of manufacturing and shipping new things, plus the impact of disposing old things might still work out greater than the impact of using that older thing for longer. > and the expense of repairing a crack in a 100 year old thing tends to be higher than repairing/replacing something modern. I’ve owned plenty of modern things that were impossible to repair once they developed a small crack. And things that should be easier to repair than they are because they manufactures have decided they don’t want people fixing their own stuff.