3 ms·

Planned obsolescence is pure evil. A broken market, based on broken regulation, based on broken politics, based on broken morals. We need to find ways to rewar

Planned obsolescence is pure evil. A broken market, based on broken regulation, based on broken politics, based on broken morals. We need to find ways to reward the exact opposite mindset and behavior: planned permanence.

incrudible 3y ago
These chromebooks remain operational. As someone who does not plan on actively using the same computer for a decade, I am unwilling to pay a premium on any future purchases so that my museum pieces remain fully supported. Mind you, I have never thrown away a computer and keep a large collection of obsolete hardware.
- nologic01 3y ago
  I could turn the argument around: People who want to churn devices should be paying a premium for any and all recycling costs (assuming perfect recycling is even possible). I am unwilling to pay with a permanently degraded environment so that some people satisfy their consumption urges. Clearly we shouldnt want to keep archaic stuff functional. But for some time now easily upgradeable/repairable hardware and software is effectively suppressed.
  - Libcat99 3y ago
    I'd take that a step further. Every item manufactured should have, at minimum, it's recycling or safe disposal cost included in the price. Let consumers make decisions based on the real costs.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      when you buy a new machine in europe, then the seller has to take back the old one for free. this at least applies to household appliances. i think it applies to computers too, but i am not sure. i think that approach solves the problem. it pushes the cost and responsibility of recycling or disposal to the seller of the new device. they will factor that into their calculation so the consumer pays for it.
      - Libcat99 3y ago
        It helps, but without other controls (which may exist, of course) it means that the shittiest manufacturer wins. If company A makes a product that is cheap to make, but expensive to recycle, and company B makes a product that is expensive to make but has recycling as a core value, and thus is cheap to recycle, company B loses when they have to take on company A's device after a sale. The costs should be on the original manufacturer and as such, reflected in the purchase price.
        em-bee 3y ago
        well, in most cases you don't buy directly from the manufacturer but from a shop who can send the device to the original manufacturer if appropriate. but i have also doubt that anything can be so expensive to recycle that it would cause a problem. how big could possibly be the difference between an expensive to recycle washing machine and a cheap one? not to mention laws that favor the use of materials that are easy to recycle. and a brief search suggests that some in europe are considering taxes for the use of difficult to recycle materials, like plastic.
      - throwawaymobule 3y ago
        I think most everything with a plug on it is covered by WEEE, and has a deposit baked into the price. Sellers taking returns is also mandated, but the real meat is in getting paid the deposit when you properly recycle the electronic.
  - mavhc 3y ago
    Everyone should pay for the pollution costs of everything they buy. A tax that covers 100% of the cost of cleaning up the pollution the thing you bought has and will create. Right after this companies will invest in reducing the pollution making things and disposing of things cause. And other companies will invest in making cleaning up pollution cheaper.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomjen3 3y ago
    If you reread the post you are commenting on, he literally says he is not going to throw it away, so the environment cost is zero.
    - Libcat99 3y ago
      There is still an environmental cost of production of the new hardware, even if the machines pile up in a barn for the next 50 years.
  - incrudible 3y ago
    > People who want to churn devices should be paying a premium for any and all recycling costs Not just people who churn, eveybody. If you live in the state of California, you already do.
scns 3y ago
A market, where some indiviuals, without ethical concerns, spoil it for the rest. Love your solution.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
The only thing that seems to motivate people to care about the future is their children. A feudal monarch worries about his heirs. A modern CEO cares about this quarter. But people have no children (maybe fine -- we're overpopulated anyway), and there is no future. It's just about affording the nicest house you can before your consciousness goes black forever.

incrudible 3y ago

These chromebooks remain operational. As someone who does not plan on actively using the same computer for a decade, I am unwilling to pay a premium on any future purchases so that my museum pieces remain fully supported. Mind you, I have never thrown away a computer and keep a large collection of obsolete hardware.

nologic01 3y ago
I could turn the argument around: People who want to churn devices should be paying a premium for any and all recycling costs (assuming perfect recycling is even possible). I am unwilling to pay with a permanently degraded environment so that some people satisfy their consumption urges. Clearly we shouldnt want to keep archaic stuff functional. But for some time now easily upgradeable/repairable hardware and software is effectively suppressed.
- Libcat99 3y ago
  I'd take that a step further. Every item manufactured should have, at minimum, it's recycling or safe disposal cost included in the price. Let consumers make decisions based on the real costs.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    when you buy a new machine in europe, then the seller has to take back the old one for free. this at least applies to household appliances. i think it applies to computers too, but i am not sure. i think that approach solves the problem. it pushes the cost and responsibility of recycling or disposal to the seller of the new device. they will factor that into their calculation so the consumer pays for it.
    - Libcat99 3y ago
      It helps, but without other controls (which may exist, of course) it means that the shittiest manufacturer wins. If company A makes a product that is cheap to make, but expensive to recycle, and company B makes a product that is expensive to make but has recycling as a core value, and thus is cheap to recycle, company B loses when they have to take on company A's device after a sale. The costs should be on the original manufacturer and as such, reflected in the purchase price.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        well, in most cases you don't buy directly from the manufacturer but from a shop who can send the device to the original manufacturer if appropriate. but i have also doubt that anything can be so expensive to recycle that it would cause a problem. how big could possibly be the difference between an expensive to recycle washing machine and a cheap one? not to mention laws that favor the use of materials that are easy to recycle. and a brief search suggests that some in europe are considering taxes for the use of difficult to recycle materials, like plastic.
    - throwawaymobule 3y ago
      I think most everything with a plug on it is covered by WEEE, and has a deposit baked into the price. Sellers taking returns is also mandated, but the real meat is in getting paid the deposit when you properly recycle the electronic.
- mavhc 3y ago
  Everyone should pay for the pollution costs of everything they buy. A tax that covers 100% of the cost of cleaning up the pollution the thing you bought has and will create. Right after this companies will invest in reducing the pollution making things and disposing of things cause. And other companies will invest in making cleaning up pollution cheaper.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 3y ago
  If you reread the post you are commenting on, he literally says he is not going to throw it away, so the environment cost is zero.
  - Libcat99 3y ago
    There is still an environmental cost of production of the new hardware, even if the machines pile up in a barn for the next 50 years.
- incrudible 3y ago
  > People who want to churn devices should be paying a premium for any and all recycling costs Not just people who churn, eveybody. If you live in the state of California, you already do.

scns 3y ago

A market, where some indiviuals, without ethical concerns, spoil it for the rest. Love your solution.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

The only thing that seems to motivate people to care about the future is their children. A feudal monarch worries about his heirs. A modern CEO cares about this quarter. But people have no children (maybe fine -- we're overpopulated anyway), and there is no future. It's just about affording the nicest house you can before your consciousness goes black forever.