wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
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
The manufacture of durable goods is a tiny part
of any modern first and second world economy now.
Plenty else goes on here.
What I said.
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.
agreed
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.
New types of appliances yes, the fitted part of kitchens no.
I don't agree with that. The decent modern fitted
drawers with decent modern slides and that sort
of thing leaves what we had 70 years ago for dead.
Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new,
Don't agree with that either. The 1930s toasters that I
used were those ones with a door on each side which
you had to keep checking if the toast was done and
you had to toast each side separately as well. My current
popup up toaster leaves it for dead convenience wise.
The 1930s massive great china electric jug likely is
still in a tea chest somewhere but I much prefer a
decent modern one that you don't even have to
plug the cord into.
and far more reliable & durable.
I don't agree with the toaster. And I don't care with the jug.
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.
No, but beds can, and plenty of century old beds are still in service
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.
That's solvable,
Nope.
but something I won't go into here now
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 -
But you have to be able to replace
the ones that don't last that long.
have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that
hard to design in
User replaceable ones are. It costs more to have
someone in the west replace the element than it
costs to get a chinese person to make a whole
new toaster.
though toasters would be low on
my priority list for centurification.
It is one rather obvious example of
the 'waste' you are talking about.
sure, but the trivial end of it
But the same applies to all the other appliances
that are so commonly used in kitchens now.
Its true of microwave ovens and convection ovens too.
Its certainly completely trivial to plug in a new element
in the big wall oven and griller and I have done that
a few times with the oven, never needed to with the grill.
Lot harder with the hotplates that have a sheet of glass
over all the elements. That leaves 50 year old hotplates
for dead and nothing has ever failed in 40 years.
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.
an exceptional example
Not really. Its true of all light technologys.
If 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.
is it?
Have fun listing even a single example of a
smoke detector that will reliably detect smoke
for 100 years and turn a toaster sized load off.
I expect that to be required in 2115.
Bet it isn't.
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.
And it doesn't really make any difference
whether its owned or rented anyway.
It does,
Not for the economy of a country.
and more difference whether its shared digs or not
The only difference there is that you
aren't related to those you share it with.
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
I don't believe that. The real killers are lifestyle stuff like obesity.
The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population.
But you have to die of something.
Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50%
are due to personal choice, 50% other factors.
General consensus is irrelevant and those
are much too round numbers to be real.
That's just the top 2.
Which wouldn't be affected by spending more on the NHS.
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.
Yep, really.
Go 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.
So folk unsmart enough to play lottery
are hopeless with money. No news there.
Just as true of all big lump sums.
The only real exception is that it does usually
allow people who are stuck in a job they hate
to stop having to do that. But few manage to
find anything more useful to do even then.
Not 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,
obviously it takes resources, ie money
Money isn't resources. We have different words for a reason.
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.
politics stops it
Its public attitudes that stops that happening.
If it wasn't, there would be nothing to stop someone
setting up a new party with that policy getting elected
to do it.
That's essentially what happened after war.
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 
I think you would find that they are
harder to list than to just mention.
Most 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.
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.
What I said.
Some 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
****ed against the wall keeping everyone going,
fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.
food, housing, transport is useful. Entertainment not so
People have to have something to do when they arent
working or sleeping etc. That's why movies and TV and
radio took off.
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,
Just like plenty always did.
no, there's been a huge rise of it here
Not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.
or live in a room in shared houses.
Just like plenty always did.
again a big rise
Again, not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.
We 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.
The 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.
and 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.
same policy trend, for ever tighter
control, ever more red tape,
That isn't the reason for the immense rise in the
cost of houses and isn't seen everywhere either.
much of which isnt really needed
Sure. But we don't see the sort of
obscene slums we used to see either.
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.
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.
Lots of people have solved that problem.
More accurately they never had that problem.
Researchers can start by looking at how.
Don't need any research on that, you shovel
less calories into your mouth than you burn.
It sounds basic, but health professionals
are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.
Easy to claim. How odd that no one
world wide does it any differently.
Its epidemic.
And more research isn't going to change that.
identifying what works normally does
We have known what works for more than a century now,
you shovel less calories into your mouth than you burn.
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
Yes, but it you have to die of something.
but not prematurely
Depends on how you define prematurely. Its been
known for a long time now that you will live longer
on a starvation diet. Whether that is how anyone
much wants to live is a separate matter entirely.
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 problem
Nope, the zero calorie sugar substitutes
actually cost less than real sugar.
yup, hence its middling popularity.
That isn't the reason its popular.
in other cases not cheaper though
The vast bulk of them are.
Researching zero calorie cake,
Not even possible.
I don't agree at all.
With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.
not the point
Corse it's the point, if it isn't as good
or better, few will choose to eat it.
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.
None of which are PERFECT.
nothing is, so what
So that is the reason sugar continues to be used.
That nut was cracked long ago
Must be why we never use sugar in anything.
again thats addressable
Not in any feasible way it isn't.
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
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.
adequate comes first,
We've had that for ever now with drink, its called water.
better might come later
Didn't happen with what we drink.
There have been zero calorie drinks around
since before we even showed up on this earth.
Its unlikely that spending more
will make any difference now.
I totally disagree
But have no evidence for that disagreement.
theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day
**** all to type in a wikipedia link.
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.
cost is the issue.
It clearly isn't with a zero calorie drink.
Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit
I don't believe that given that zero calorie
drinks have been around for millennia now.
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.
Yes, but its not possible to do that and
waste less than with a 10 year toaster.
you dont think one could be made
with less than 10x as much material?
It isn't the material that is the main thing wasted.
It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.
doable with those bar cars
Which hardly anyone chooses to have for a car.
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.
But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.
not the point.
Corse it's the point. If few will buy it, very little waste will be saved.
And I don't believe its even possible with a smoke detecting toaster anyway.
Just begin by doing it. Hone it, cheapen it,
We did that with a zero calorie drink a number of time.
popularise it later
Easier said than done with zero calorie drinks.
If few are interested in buying it with a toaster,
you won't have any way of popularising it.
And I don't believe its even possible with
a 100 year life smoke detecting toaster.
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
Dramatically in fact.
Both do the same job
One does it much better than the other does.
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.
Its not an excuse, it's the reason.
Employ 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.
it does when folk stop ****ing their money
up the wall & spend it on more useful things
People spend **** all on what they **** up the wall.
and we'd see a great improvement in longevity
We haven't seen anything like that
in the last 50 years, for a reason.
sure we have
Like hell we have.
and quality of life.
In spades.
Begin by educating people about money.
They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.
Actually I do.
Fraid not.
Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.
Most people arent interested. Nothing you can do about that.