3 ms·

>here is strictly no reason for each person to own a TV, PC, dishwasher, washing machine, etc. - most of that could be shared so as to reduce electronic waste a

>here is strictly no reason for each person to own a TV, PC, dishwasher, washing machine, etc. - most of that could be shared so as to reduce electronic waste and increase sustainability. This sounds nice in theory, but doesn't work out well in practice. You get a tragedy of the commons situation where people don't take care of the equipment and it gets broken, or dies early. Also, some people are just really bad with handling and taking care of things: some people will buy some item, and then you look at it again years later and it's in pristine condition. But look at another person's identical item after that time and it's either destroyed, or looks really beat-up. Maybe they're too rough with it, maybe they never clean it, maybe they don't maintain it, but I've noticed some people just seem to destroy everything they use. Also, trying to share many things doesn't work out in practice because people want to use them at the same time. You can see this at places like laundromats; you can't expect people to wake up at 2AM to do their laundry. People usually like to watch TV at the same time too. So you need enough equipment to handle peak times. And sharing a PC? What do you do when someone in your commune insists on clicking on every potentially malicious attachment on your shared Windows PC?

ebb-tide 2y ago
This is a overgeneralization and a sad belief to hold on to. There are many many communities which share resources where things do not fall into tragedy of the commons. There are communal houses, coliving spaces, makerspaces, people co buying second homes, tool libraries, heck! libraries themselves. There is a whole advertising culture that is trying to reinforce the "we couldn't possibly share things" narrative, I urge you to go out and experience alternatives!
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Nothing "sad" about it; it's true. There's no shortage of accounts on the internet of someone loaning a tool to their neighbor and then either not getting it back, not getting it back for months or years, or getting it back broken or otherwise damaged. You can't trust random people to take good care of your stuff. Co-buying second homes? How many people are involved in a transaction like that? That's not communal at all, that's a partnership. Of course you can be selective with whom you partner and only partner with someone trusted, plus you both have a strong economic interest in taking care of the property. Same with your so-called "communal houses": it's not like dozens or hundreds of people are going to live in a house. Makerspaces, etc., can screen their members, and keep track of who does what to penalize people who abuse things. Libraries have occasionally had trouble with people abusing books (ever seen a loaned-out book with folded-down corners, or writing in them?). However books don't need nearly as much care and maintenance as complex machinery (i.e. power tools) so of course you don't have to worry about it as much, and normal libraries budget and plan for books having a limited lifetime anyway. Extremely rare and valuable books aren't left out for random people to handle either.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
There's a way to fix this, it's called an "extended family". But that's, like, the Patriarchy. That would really harsh our buzz, so we need to reinvent, in a broken and stupid way, what previously worked fine for tens of thousands years.

ebb-tide 2y ago

This is a overgeneralization and a sad belief to hold on to. There are many many communities which share resources where things do not fall into tragedy of the commons. There are communal houses, coliving spaces, makerspaces, people co buying second homes, tool libraries, heck! libraries themselves. There is a whole advertising culture that is trying to reinforce the "we couldn't possibly share things" narrative, I urge you to go out and experience alternatives!

shiroiushi 2y ago
Nothing "sad" about it; it's true. There's no shortage of accounts on the internet of someone loaning a tool to their neighbor and then either not getting it back, not getting it back for months or years, or getting it back broken or otherwise damaged. You can't trust random people to take good care of your stuff. Co-buying second homes? How many people are involved in a transaction like that? That's not communal at all, that's a partnership. Of course you can be selective with whom you partner and only partner with someone trusted, plus you both have a strong economic interest in taking care of the property. Same with your so-called "communal houses": it's not like dozens or hundreds of people are going to live in a house. Makerspaces, etc., can screen their members, and keep track of who does what to penalize people who abuse things. Libraries have occasionally had trouble with people abusing books (ever seen a loaned-out book with folded-down corners, or writing in them?). However books don't need nearly as much care and maintenance as complex machinery (i.e. power tools) so of course you don't have to worry about it as much, and normal libraries budget and plan for books having a limited lifetime anyway. Extremely rare and valuable books aren't left out for random people to handle either.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

There's a way to fix this, it's called an "extended family". But that's, like, the Patriarchy. That would really harsh our buzz, so we need to reinvent, in a broken and stupid way, what previously worked fine for tens of thousands years.