Economics: Technologies continually advance some feature or aspect of most every item we produce. Except for food and other consumables, most of the products we manufacture are designed with the idea that they will wear out or fail, fall out of fashion, or be replaced by advancing technologies, and thus are considered disposable. Because the vast majority of the things we build will inevitably be replaced, the concept of making products that last doesn’t make sense, or does it? Throwaway economies count on the continual consumption or advancement of products. To build products that are designed to last for millennia or even a lifetime would certainly slow down the development of new or replacement products, and governments, economists, and certainly manufacturers view such an objective as poor economics and counterproductive to their agenda.
While the logic to continually advance things like computers may make sense, the vast majority of products that are manufactured could be made to last a lifetime. Imagine buying a pencil when you enter kindergarten, and you pass it on to your grandchild when he or she enters kindergarten. Such notions would nearly destroy a whole industry once everyone owned such an instrument, yet, if it were practical to build, wouldn’t it be worth the effort?
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form