reverseallthethings t1_j7ajkn0 wrote
Not a weak signal, but something which has been lurking in the shadows for a long time, is already having impact but is still notoriously ignored.
The unsustainability of consumerism. This is not meant to be a critique on capitalism, just an observation which can be distilled from the "Right to repair" movement, crappier products and the unwillingness of the industry to build durable products.
Let me give a few examples.
Almost all consumer-grade mobile phones are not only hard to repair, but vendors make it deliberately hard for them to be repaired. In certain edge cases they even use proprietary screws for which tools are unobtainable. Planned obsolescence renders devices nonoperational after a while, may it be to non-replaceable batteries, deliberate crappy engineering, refusing to ship firmware upgrades after two years or even make the latest version of the operating system so complex that it won't run on older models.
Household appliances include unnecessary electronics adding absolutely no value except vanity and business opportunities to vendors. What about all of the Iot-enabled washing machines, microwave ovens and what not? The added complexity is adding more point of failures and when a vendor discontinues their Internet endpoints the whole Iot-part becomes unusable. In the worst case, the whole appliance will stop working.
In general, in pretty much all appliances the trend is "glue it together, make it as hard as possible to dis- and reassemble.
All of this is leading to a massive generation of waste, pollution and unnecessary consumption of energy. We are already drowning in waste, recycling of certain components is still in it's infancy. Think of LiIo batteries, broken touchscreens or PCBs ending up somewhere in countries with substandard worker's- and environmental protection laws.
One may wonder, why. It's part of the overall scheme of consumerism; corporations need to maintain or improve growth. That's not necessarily a bad thing and always due to greed, but also due to inflation. If consumers are not willing to go with inflation, the product must be produced cheaper or, the nefarious way, self-destruct after it's planned lifetime.
Regulators shall take appropriate actions to incentivize vendors to build durable products and offer support even beyond their mandatory warranty period. If that can't be guaranteed or is not viable economically, vendors shall take back broken devices to recycle them.
It can even be a selling point for vendors: Our products are more durable and we make ourselves accountable & liable.
Vendors shall stop equipping devices with unnecessary vanity electronic and even more so, force their devices to communicate with their dedicated proprietary cloud services which may vanish anytime something realizes the business case just went boom.
Different_Owl_9715 t1_j7b4ixr wrote
Technology continues to make workers more productive, but that means that you need fewer workers to make what you need. So if all goods were durable, lasting a long time and not breaking, and if people only bought stuff they actually needed, then pretty soon unemployment would skyrocket. Not sure if consumerism was specifically promoted as a jobs creation idea, or not, but it's been filling that purpose to an extent.
The idea that technology displaces workers hasn't exactly been in the shadows, but with AI, it is starting to impact more employment sectors.
Technology also enables a rapid expansion of the wealth gap, which generates discord in society.
The impacts of consumerism are just one aspect of the larger problem of technology displacing workers. It would be great if we could all start working just one or two days of the week and share all the wealth, but psychologically, humans don't do well when they are not working towards a worthwhile goal.
craeftsmith t1_j7bkxxv wrote
I agree that right now, surplus productivity must be destroyed. In 1984, surplus productivity was destroyed by endless war. Right now, it is destroyed by making less durable products. I don't know of any attempts to destroy the surplus by making workers less productive, eg, only work two days a week.
I think it would be better if we could circumvent the need to destroy excess productivity, but I have no idea how to do that.
Unobtanium_Alloy t1_j7ehh9j wrote
See "The Midas Plague" by Fredrick Pohl, 1954
Wild_Sun_1223 t1_j7e3ezc wrote
Sure, but why must all "working toward goals" be driven by another, imposed, need - especially one that's going to ruin the ecosystems we depend on so thoroughly? Is it worth the "psychological" benefit if the alternative is a whole planet turned to a toxic hellscape?
Unobtanium_Alloy t1_j7ehps9 wrote
Why does a toaster need a microprocessor and LCD screen? Simple: it doesn't. But many these days, even on the low end, have them.
Surur t1_j7ar86v wrote
I think you need to add some balance to your rant. Implying things are done for no reason just makes you unconvincing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments