On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:39:37 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
The 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
its very wasteful
That 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 - though toasters would be low on my priority list for centurification. If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires, I expect that to be required in 2115.
where 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.
For 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
Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations
Yes, particularly with the work they do.
due to lack of resources.
Hardly ever due to lack of resources
in the modern first and second world.
Really. Go ask some people how they'd improve their lives if they had a big lump sum. Not all would waste it on junk.
Most 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
Most do in fact spend heaps on their kids etc
and that has always been one of life's real issues.
that's one.
and 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. Some spends also create something useful
spending 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, or live in a room in shared houses. We do also have a homelessness problem, but thats something else.
The average young adult now has no
likelihood of being able to buy one.
I don't buy that
shrug
and that is due to a different
problem entirely, the outrageous price of them.
which is due to govt policy
more 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. Its epidemic.
as 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
Certainly 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 probelm
Researching zero calorie cake,
Not even possible.
I don't agree at all.
We 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. That nut was cracked long ago
as 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
Its unlikely that spending more
will make any difference now.
I totally disagree
Its 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.
Its 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.
Dualits 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.
Its 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.
I 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
and cost much more to run too.
yup
Whatever 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.
some 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. Employ people to do something useful and we'd see a great improvement in longevity and quality of life. Begin by educating people about money.
NT