|
Post by Alrik on Jul 28, 2009 18:07:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 3:29:48 GMT
Yes, I've heard of it. They could easily manufacture lights that'll last for a few hundred years (if Edison could do it, they can easily do a lot better now), but they don't want to because it'd be bad for their business. How selfish can corporations get?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 29, 2009 8:54:44 GMT
Companies exist to make money for their owners.
If they don't make money they go out of business.
If they go out of business, their owners stop making money.
If they start doing something that will inevitably lead to them going out of business, their owners are going to get very cross and start firing people (who incedently are there to make money)
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 29, 2009 11:09:20 GMT
Or, to put in on a positive side, if you produce something that works eternally, you stagnate. While the better is the enemy of the good, and could replace it anytime, generally one usually would only consider changing a light bulb when it does NOT work. Otherwise, why touch a running system? The inertia of systems and processes may be physics, but it also is human...
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 11:11:57 GMT
Companies exist to make money for their owners. If they don't make money they go out of business. If they go out of business, their owners stop making money. If they start doing something that will inevitably lead to them going out of business, their owners are going to get very cross and start firing people (who incedently are there to make money) *sigh* I suppose so... @ Glance: Yes, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Jul 29, 2009 19:42:59 GMT
Which means that the more product that break after the shortest possible time (without letting customers becoming angry) you make, the more profits you make ?
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jul 30, 2009 3:10:34 GMT
Currently, yeah... Look at today's electronics, appliances, cars... Otherwise, the only motivation for people to replace their goods is added/improved features. And companies will try to get the cheapest materials possible that can do an 'acceptable' job, and the more complex a device is, the more ways it can break... Some severe [environmental] laws that would constrain companies to a compensation for the waste/pollution created by that kind of consumption could maybe mitigate it some, but it's doubtful that such would be put in place soon, especially in the current economic context. Right now, they seem to put all the 'environmental argument' pressure on the consumer/individual and leave the companies much looser on it, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 30, 2009 8:37:06 GMT
In the UK new products like computers and ipods that are bought by the public (companies have different rules) are now supposed to be disposed of by the supplier for free when their useful life has ended.
Also almost every company will ignore any external costs as not ignoring them hurts the bottom line to much. This is why identity theft, credit card fraud, etc are so prevalant these days.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 30, 2009 10:12:14 GMT
WEEE!(Which is Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment - a European Union guideline, which, as often, covers a basically good intention with a heap of administrave reporting paperwork ) In principle you're not supposed to trash your appliances yourself but to return it to the supplier (manufacturer) for proper disposal and recycling of materials. {In Germany that is slightly redundant, as we already have a system of 'trash separation' in place, which allows separate collection of biological waste, recyclable materials and 'remaining waste' - which then are not defined as waste, but as resource or scrap. (And there is indeed money to be made on scrap value!)}
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jul 31, 2009 16:28:44 GMT
We have that too, but while it's a good thing that's not something that makes so much of difference on the consumption level, the spread of short-lifespan products and cheap/dirty manufacturing processes. I had more in mind things like carbon banks (no sure how it's called in English), taxes/fees for the use of non-recyclable materials, more severe norms on what consists in "minimum duration of use" before something breaks, obligations to invest/produce in sustainable development, etc..
|
|