Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
HeavenlyPossum

Someone else recently claimed that the climate catastrophe is actually the result of “consumerism.” People always want the newest phone, they complained.

But when you need a smartphone to access services as basic as “not peeing yourself in public,” it’s easier to see how thin this claim is.

Not only do people need to purchase phones to survive daily life, but they need to frequently replace them—precisely because phones (and most every other product in our lives) are intentionally designed to wear our quickly, or otherwise stop working, to force us to frequently replace them.

I’ve written another thread on product crippling and planned obsolescence as examples of Veblen’s concept of “industrial sabotage,” so I won’t belabor the point here again. But suffice it to say: this is not a personal choice or preference. When our phones stop working, when our clothes fall apart, we have to buy new ones, and capitalists profit.

6/

uxplanet.org/planned-obsolesce

#PlannedObsolescence #ProductCrippling #IndustrialSabotage #ThorsteinVeblen

6 comments
Skuppr

@HeavenlyPossum also often missed in the planned obsolescence of phones conversation: who can afford to keep using a phone past the point where google/apple release security updates for it (usually only 3-5 years)? Who can afford an identity theft, leaked political actions, leaked dating app profile? Rich people, liberals, straight people.

HeavenlyPossum

These same firms have also designed their products in order to stymie repair by their purchasers, to ensure that they’ll either need to be replaced or repaired only by the seller, to the seller’s additional profit.

There are countless other ways that our purchases are compelled and shaped by people more powerful than us, from the ways in which creditors issue loans to the nearly $1 trillion firms spend each year on advertising to manipulate our decisionmaking to the careful tweaking of algorithms on social media to subtly influence our choices.

The point is—many, probably most, of our decisions to spend money to purchase, use, and discard products are not really ours to make, but are made by people who profit. We cannot, and never will, personal responsibility our way out of the present crisis.

7/end

nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion

#RightToRepair

These same firms have also designed their products in order to stymie repair by their purchasers, to ensure that they’ll either need to be replaced or repaired only by the seller, to the seller’s additional profit.

There are countless other ways that our purchases are compelled and shaped by people more powerful than us, from the ways in which creditors issue loans to the nearly $1 trillion firms spend each year on advertising to manipulate our decisionmaking to the careful tweaking of algorithms...

foresterr

@HeavenlyPossum what is really insane, is that when you dissect the "growth" which under capitalism is the justification to end all justifications, you get all those things. The gatekeeping, the anti-human design, everything. Basically, more waste=more growth. That might be obvious to everyone in this conversation, but it still blows my mind how *stupid* that is. It's the broken window fallacy writ large.

HeavenlyPossum

@foresterr

If we chopped down every tree in the world and processed them into single-use toothpicks, think of the GDP growth!

foresterr

@HeavenlyPossum exactly. You know, it's funny, I'm a big time science fiction fan, and I have only just realized that capitalism is a paperclip maximizer (the insane nanotechnology/AI combo which wants to convert everything into paperclips), only instead of paperclips, it wants to convert the planet and us into a number going up. Which, if anything, is even dumber. At least paperclips are real.

Go Up