Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by michael adamsPost by m***@care2.comThe exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought
and buy again. Why choose to follow it.
Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading
people to buy things they don't really need, everything from new
cars to new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides
more work for everyone. Rather than having them sitting around
with too much time on their hands, and boring one another to
death by contemplating the essential meaningless of life.
No, its how a wasteful economy works,
Yes, but that is what employment is about
in modern first and second world economys
It is partly,
Not just partly, its entirely what modern first
and second world economys are about now.
No there's plenty of useful work done here too
The manufacture of durable goods is a tiny part
of any modern first and second world economy now.
And while its certainly feasible to have cars that are
used for say 40 years, its less clear that that is actually
very desirable given the significant improvements we
have seen in cars over that time.
Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.
While in theory say beds haven't changed than much in say
50 years, in practice it isn't really viable to expect a mattress
to work just as well when its 50 years old as when new etc.
Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
leather is worn out well before that.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedThat is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.
You can make a case that it makes more sense
to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
be repaired when anything fails.
Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
china to make you a new one than to have a
fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
year life toaster. The production of the parts
is likely to involve exactly the same as the
production of the whole toaster etc.
If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
elements that seldom fail. Its doable -
But you have to be able to replace
the ones that don't last that long.
Post by m***@care2.comthough toasters would be low on
my priority list for centurification.
It is one rather obvious example of
the 'waste' you are talking about.
Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
sense to design them the other way and replace
them more frequently than that and get a much
better light from them.
Post by m***@care2.comIf I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,
But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
one of those that will last for 100 years.
Post by m***@care2.comI expect that to be required in 2115.
Bet it isn't.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod Speedwhere most do have basically
what they need even with houses
depends how you define need.
No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
even those in squats are basically just doing that
because of the insane prices of houses today.
And it doesn't really make any difference
whether its owned or rented anyway.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comFor survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
to limited medical budgets and lack of research.
Not in the modern first and second world anymore.
Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
disease anymore.
Lack of funding for NHS and research
are significant killers in the top 10
I don't believe that. The real killers are lifestyle stuff like obesity.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comLoads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations
Yes, particularly with the work they do.
Post by m***@care2.comdue to lack of resources.
Hardly ever due to lack of resources
in the modern first and second world.
Really.
Yep, really.
Post by m***@care2.comGo ask some people how they'd improve
their lives if they had a big lump sum.
But its clear from those that do get big lump
sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.
Post by m***@care2.comNot all would waste it on junk.
Sure, plenty of renters would buy
somewhere better to live instead.
That's got nothing to do with resources,
everything to do with the insane way that
the housing market has ended up now.
Trivially fixable in the same way as
was done after the war had ended.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comMost would rather throw their money away
on crap than pay attention to life's real issues
Just what do you believe those are ?
maybe when I have more time :)
I think you would find that they are
harder to list than to just mention.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedMost do in fact spend heaps on their kids etc
and that has always been one of life's real issues.
that's one.
The other obvious one is what work you do
but its very far from clear how to do much
about either of those life's real issues.
Another is the utter insanity house prices.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comand address them in any way.
In fact its what they spend on that provides
employment for everyone else, even if its
frivolous stuff like football or a haircut.
whateevr one spends on creates employment.
What I said.
Post by m***@care2.comSome spends also create something useful
That's a tiny part of what is spent in modern
first and second world economys.
The absolute vast bulk of what gets spent is just
pissed against the wall keeping everyone going,
fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comspending lots of resources on crap instead
of useful things like more construction,
Construction of what ?
UK is very short of houses.
I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.
they live at home with parents,
Just like plenty always did.
Post by m***@care2.comor live in a room in shared houses.
Just like plenty always did.
Post by m***@care2.comWe do also have a homelessness
problem, but thats something else.
Yeah, the bulk of those used to be kept in locked
wards and aren't anymore and they mostly do
prefer to not be kept in the locked wards anymore.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comThe average young adult now has no
likelihood of being able to buy one.
I don't buy that
shrug
Doesn't really matter if you are renting
or paying off a mortgage anyway.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod Speedand that is due to a different problem
entirely, the outrageous price of them.
which is due to govt policy
Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
has happened everywhere, right thruout the
entire modern first and second world now.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.commore medical research etc etc.
Its far from clear how much difference that would
make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.
great topic to research,
That is well understood, no need for research on that.
ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
to motivate overweight people to get healthy.
And we have been trying to work out how to do that for more
than half a century now and still haven't worked that out.
And more research isn't going to change that.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comas with all the major ones.
There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
most of us if there can be significant advances made.
/All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us
Yes, but it you have to die of something.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedCertainly if you could come up with something that
allows you to eat anything you like without getting
fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
possible.
Zero calorie foods do exist.
But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.
cost is the problem
Nope, the zero calorie sugar substitutes
actually cost less than real sugar.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comResearching zero calorie cake,
Not even possible.
I don't agree at all.
With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedWe haven't even been able to come up with a
perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
tried to do that for more than half a century now.
we have several zero calorie sweeteners.
None of which are PERFECT.
Post by m***@care2.comThat nut was cracked long ago
Must be why we never use sugar in anything.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comas trivial as it might sound, could
save a huge number of life years.
But we have been trying to do that
for more than half a century now.
rather inadequately
Because its impossible to produce a
zero calorie food that is even better
than the real thing.
If it was possible we wouldn't have
an obesity problem.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedIts unlikely that spending more
will make any difference now.
I totally disagree
But have no evidence for that disagreement.
Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
food that was even better than the real thing
would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
happened is because it isn't even possible.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedIts certainly possible to design and produce say a
toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
point in going that route for the manufacturers.
I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.
I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.
that only means a long life toaster either wouldnt need repair,
or would be user repairable. Both of which are doable.
Yes, but its not possible to do that and
waste less than with a 10 year toaster.
It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedIts certainly possible to design one that can have
say the element replaced by anyone in their own
home, but that element would cost more than
a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
market would be those who have a philosophical
objection to replacing the whole toaster when
anything fails.
And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
too given that the user replaceable element
would involve just as much resources as a whole
new toaster that will only last 10 years.
Post by m***@care2.comDualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.
And they don't last for anything like 100 years.
they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.
But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedIts less true with cars where cars are vastly
better than they were 100 years ago.
Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
though, even if nuttily designed.
Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedI don't know of any 100 year old houses that
I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
designed and built myself on a bare block of land.
Theyre still highly valuable
Yes, but a lot less useful
only slightly
Dramatically in fact.
Post by m***@care2.comPost by Rod Speedand cost much more to run too.
yup
Post by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by Rod SpeedPost by m***@care2.comPost by michael adamsWhatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.
I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik
I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.
Not possible tho quite a bit of the time,
particularly with stuff like cars and clothes etc.
Thankfully with many things one can bypass fashion completely,
Yes, most obviously with cutlery and plates and stuff like that.
I've just bought another example of some heavily plated
nail clippers that I had when I was a kid more than 60 years
ago now. Identical and they will certainly last more than
hundreds of years with only the most minimal of care.
Not so practical with a toaster or a car tho.
Post by m***@care2.comsome its impossible. But its seldom
sense chucking stuff out over it.
But it does provide significant employment and
is one of the areas where it hasn't all been exported
to china particularly with kitchens and houses.
Employment is the big excuse for the waste.
Its not an excuse, it's the reason.
Post by m***@care2.comEmploy people to do something useful
We do that too, most obviously with education.
But that doesn't provide enough employment
in modern first and second world economys.
Post by m***@care2.comand we'd see a great improvement in longevity
We haven't seen anything like that
in the last 50 years, for a reason.
In spades.
Post by m***@care2.comBegin by educating people about money.
They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.
