Designed Obsolescence v. Perceived Obsolescence et al.

RAGE CAGE

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
968
Location
OH
No intent to start any flaming rants/political arguments here. Just a topic that is relevant to our hobby and interesting. Please discuss with civility if you wish to share your thoughts. Thanks.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/


"Our enormously productive economy... demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption... we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate."[
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
I did not bother to watch the flash presentation on the link. I prefer actual text. I guess text is obsolete. :)

We have long had a culture of waste. Before the 1970's the average appliance, toy or tool was designed to be maintained. They used screws and removable covers and spare parts were often easy to get, even if you had to buy a used one to use for parts.

Since the electronics revolution of the 70's, more and more devices were transistorized and marked with "No user serviceable parts inside". Fuses went from little glass tubes on the back of the TV to rice grain sized devices on a circuit board. Replace instead of repair became the norm.

While we think of the automobile as the poster boy for planned obsolescence, the computer is really the leader in this area. By design, each version of Microsoft's products require better hardware. By design, they refuse to provide support for older versions and will not license it. By design, they lobbied for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which makes it illegal for anyone else to provide fixes for their products.

The end result has been a self perpetuated cycle of needing new computers to run the new software that you have to buy to be able to run current applications. The new computers, of course, have to have the new OS to ensure that you have to upgrade your applications too.

This could only happen if we are already conditioned to the idea that things are disposable.

Daniel
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Well, I've been saying for a long time that we need to replace the model of consumption upon which our economy is based, but not solely for environmental reasons, either. If consumption and planned obsolescence is the goal, then people will go into debt to acquire what society tells them they should have, whether they need it or not. As living beyond your means ( both in terms of money and resources ) is unsustainable in the long haul, eventually you'll have a catastrophic crash. No idea what could replace consumption. However, it is encouraging that we had an economy in the past not based on consumption. Maybe we should seek to gradually return to that.

On a related note, anyone watch Hoarding:Buried Alive on The Learning Channel? Having too much stuff is yet another symptom of a society driven by consumerism.
 

gcbryan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Seattle,WA
Computers bother me the most in this area. My household appliances don't seem to break down.

The exception is a small room sized airconditioner. When the coolant needs replacing it's cheaper to buy a new unit than to call a repairman.

Another area where this has effected me was replacing my last lawnmower. I decided to go to a smaller one and didn't notice that there is no throttle control or adjustment until after I had already bought it. If the engine starts to cut out...the manual says to take it to a repairman. That's gone too far in my opinion.

To a certain extent you can control most of this though. I keep my cars far longer than most people. You don't have to have the latest gadget unless it's something that you really want. I don't have a DVD or any "internet appliances" other than a desktop 10 year old dial-up computer.

It is refreshing to see led flashlights with self-repairable parts rather than glued and molded plastic parts.

If we were taxed on consumption rather than on income it would promote buying less and making what you have work longer.

Ultimately, efficient behavior is better for the economy anyway.
 

RAGE CAGE

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
968
Location
OH
Well, I've been saying for a long time that we need to replace the model of consumption upon which our economy is based, but not solely for environmental reasons, either. If consumption and planned obsolescence is the goal, then people will go into debt to acquire what society tells them they should have, whether they need it or not. As living beyond your means ( both in terms of money and resources ) is unsustainable in the long haul, eventually you'll have a catastrophic crash. No idea what could replace consumption. However, it is encouraging that we had an economy in the past not based on consumption. Maybe we should seek to gradually return to that.

On a related note, anyone watch Hoarding:Buried Alive on The Learning Channel? Having too much stuff is yet another symptom of a society driven by consumerism.


All excellent points- thank you for your feedback....if we could all learn to return to some level of self reliance- it might just be a wonderful thing. :grin2:
 

kitelights

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
1,377
Location
Richmond, VA
Relevant, but not precisely on topic is the issue of getting rid of perfectly good cars to replace them with a model that gets better gas mileage, such as the Cash for Clunkers program.

Those that got rid of junk and were well compensated for junk ..... well, just our government at its best.

Those that had perfectly good, well maintained older vehicles that were long ago paid for and traded them to spend another $15-25K for the government's intended purpose of using more fuel efficient vehicles ..... you can buy a hell of a lot of gas for a long time to make up for the 5-15 mpg difference in fuel economy.

My comment is not aimed at those that regularly buy new or newer vehicles, but rather at those who usually keep a vehicle well cared for, for a much longer period of time.

I'm still reeling over the 1000's of good vehicles that were destroyed.

And jtr, hoarding has nothing to do with consumerism. It is a mental disorder.
 

RAGE CAGE

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
968
Location
OH
I'm still reeling over the 1000's of good vehicles that were destroyed.

I have heard that the majority of the scrap gleaned from this program is crushed, loaded onto container ships and returned to countries like China for them to make the stuff that we consume but no longer make....it is great that the materials are being reused- just wish we could re enter the durable goods market someday prior to or wages being at or below the countries that are using them now.
 
Last edited:

flashfan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
1,301
Location
USA
Poster child for this problem is Steve Jobs and the ipod/iwhatever revolution. New models seem to be introduced every other week or so (okay, so slightly exaggerated). No easy battery/parts replacement by the user...replacing the whole unit is "cheaper" than repair, etc. Ugh.

Obsolescence is a great topic for CPF. Do we really need the latest mega bright beam, or that newest-model light with multi-modes, in titanium, with designer holster...times 10, or 20, or 50??? Of course if you visit many of the different hobbyist forums, you'll see the same pattern repeated, just with a different product...

Is the problem obsolescence or conspicuous over-consumption? Where do collectors end, and hoarders begin?

Just some random thoughts...
 

RAGE CAGE

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
968
Location
OH
Is the problem obsolescence or conspicuous over-consumption? Where do collectors end, and hoarders begin?

Just some random thoughts...

So true about the consumer electronics...LCD, PLASMA, HDTV....now I am supposed to go out and buy a 3D LED HDTV to have the latest and greatest? Excellent dialog here- many good points made. I guess one can choose not to drink the kool aid to a certain extent and minimize over-consumption. I still like using my old nichia lights. Cash for Clunkers, mandatory conversion to digital TV- some actions are more aggressive than others i guess.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
In some cases what's new in consumer electronics is a marked improvement over the old. Such examples include flat panel displays, HDTV, solid-state storage. All are much better than what they've replaced. Of course, if the old is still meeting your needs, then no big hurry to run out and buy the latest.

What really makes no sense is when the changes offer no functional improvement over what they're replacing. Clothing provides the best example. Each year many consumers brainwashed by relentless advertising discard their perfectly good clothing from last year in order to wear whatever "they" say is "in style". First off, who are "they"? Nothing drives me crazy more to hear someone say they're wearing such and such because "they said it's in". Second, "in style" should mean whatever you feel comfortable wearing. It shouldn't mean spending money each year to wear what everyone else is wearing.

Cars provide another great example. Nothing much has changed in terms of roads or driving speeds in the last 40 years. A car built 40 years ago, if maintained, is perfectly useable nowadays. Unless the new car offers something the older one lacks in terms of functionality, why replace it unless the older one is worn past the point of reasonable repair? A new zero emissions EV might offer huge improvements over what it replaces in terms of operating costs and cleaner air. However, replacing a perfectly serviceable gas car with another gas car offers nothing I can see to make the switch worthwhile. Bottom line-unless something much better is available, everyone should keep driving their cars until repair isn't feasible. And once those EVs come out, I'm not seeing any good reason not to design them for 50 year life, if not more. If improved batteries or motors or electronics come out, then design them to allow a swap. However, design the basic body and running gear to last the lifetime of the person who buys it.

So yes, change is good if the new is better than the old in some functional way. Unfortunately in our society it seems change is often done simply for the sake of change.

And on the subject of hoarding, yes, it's a disease but I was referring more to the clutter often seen in today's households. People buy new even when the old still works, but often keep the old because it's still useable. End result is clutter. Often you end up with other people's "seconds" simply because you can't bear to see perfectly useable things end up in landfill. Hmm, maybe there is some value in conspicuous consumption after all. You can end up with all sorts of gadgets for free once their original owners buy the next iteration. Of course, it's not the latest and greatest, but the price is right! That's how I ended up with most of my flashlights, among other things. And if you're handy, you can upgrade other people's cast offs to nearly match the state-of-the-art. Of course, I never mention that. :sssh:
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
What really makes no sense is when the changes offer no functional improvement over what they're replacing.
...or when people make a big fuss over an upgrade from a "P" to a "Q" bin.

I can understand being wowed by a swap from a Luxeon to a P4 or an XP-G, but a rank change provides no significant advantage worth considering (at least that's my position).
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
I just remembered that I started a similar thread a couple of years ago:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/166318

I didn't deal with designed obsolescence but rather with technological obsolescence. Sometimes perfectly serviceable devices end up getting replaced long before their service life is up because they simply become uneconomic and/or socially unacceptable to operate. Such was the case with steam locomotives in the 1950s. Many locomotives were retired after only 5 or 10 years of service ( of course, quite a few had a lot more years on them and were long overdue ). It simply cost more to keep these locomotives running than it did to replace them. My other thread mentions some similar examples which are either in the process of occurring, or will occur in the not too distant future.

Sometimes it's not economics, but other factors, which force early retirement. Even if the economics suddenly changed overnight and steam locomotives became more economical than diesels or electrics, they still wouldn't be used again. It would simply be unacceptable nowadays to spew thick black smoke everywhere the train traveled. And for similar reasons diesel locomotives ( and internal combustion engines in general ) are starting to lose social acceptability. However, at the same time their operating costs are increasing to match or exceed the alternatives. It's safe to say though that once ICE's are largely replaced, there would likely be no going back, even with $1 per barrel oil. They would become unacceptable for the same reasons steam locomotives did.

In the end, obsolescence is often due to a combination of engineering, economic, and social factors. It's often difficult to determine exactly which factor makes a particular product obsolete. CRTs might provide an example. They could still match or better LCD price points even though flat panels have dropped in price enormously. However, they're no longer being made because almost nobody would want them. They're just not perceived as desireable any more even if they might still be economically and functionally viable.
 

kingofwylietx

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
446
Location
DFW, TX
As most of you know, and will agree, our economy is now based on consumerism. Without it, today, our current economic system will crash. How do we migrate away from it, and towards what, should me move?

Back to the title of this thread:
I do get tired of being told that I need the newest widget. I just bought a new computer, though I didn't want to buy a new computer. But, as mentioned in this thread, my OS was no longer supported and it didn't run well with the newer programs of today. My newest pc is a monster, I hope that will help future-proof it a while longer. That is designed obsolescence.

Perceived obsolescence was when I bought a new 4Sevens Ti flashlight shortly after finding and joining this forum. I am a bit of a flashaholic.......I just never realized there were so many others with resources for so many cool lights that make all the great lights I [currently] own, obsolete. I just tossed a combo incan/led light in the trash this week because it's not nearly bright enough. However, before this forum.....it worked just fine.

I have mixed feelings about spending too much time here. I am already drooling over lights I would like to have, yet I have not figured out what I will do with them. I only know that I should get a few of these......I've been programmed to believe that the newest iteration of any product is inherently more functional and superior to whatever similar product I presently own. Gosh, if I don't have the money, my magic plastic rectangle will let me buy it now and figure out how to pay for it later.

In closing, I want to ask, is consumerism a poor system on which to base our economy? If so, what is a better one and how do you convince folks of that?
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
I can understand being wowed by a swap from a Luxeon to a P4 or an XP-G, but a rank change provides no significant advantage worth considering (at least that's my position).
Mine as well, but we're probably in the minority here. When Cree releases the S2 XP-G bins you'll probably see a lot of people here jump on them, even though they offer only a few percent improvement over the R5s. Sure, I'll want one to lumens test, but I'll only replace emitters if it's at least a 50% improvement.

Same line of thought with PCs. When the fastest system out there is at least 10 times faster than what I'm using, I'll think about replacement ( but only if my PC lacks the horsepower to do some things I want it to do ). And then I still won't go for the greatest, but maybe get someone's hand-me downs which are 3 times faster. Right now my latest build still meets my needs even though I made it 4 years ago. When it doesn't, I'll think about an upgrade.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
In closing, I want to ask, is consumerism a poor system on which to base our economy? If so, what is a better one and how do you convince folks of that?
It's a poor system because it's not sustainable long term either environmentally OR economically. If you must continually borrow money, spend beyond your means, the time comes when the interest alone on your borrowed dollars exceeds your income. At that point you have little hope of ever repaying the principal. Somebody loses, even if that somebody isn't you. Usually that somebody is the money loaner. Once they're burned too many times, they are more cautious loaning out money. End result, the system crashes and burns. This is more or less what nearly occurred two years ago. It will occur again, indeed must occur again, if our economic model doesn't change.

Second reason it's a poor system is the sheer amount of wasted economic activity. People working to make these items aren't creating anything of lasting value. Think what would happen if you took the same labor used to make the consumer stuff we buy these days, but put it instead towards building infrastructure such as housing, high-speed rail, subways, etc. These assets would last far longer, and be far more useful to the economy, than the latest widget whose only purpose is to make some company a quick profit. Once it gets sold, it has fulfilled its only economic reason for being. This is why obsolescence must be planned in, so the consumer can buy another as soon as possible. The labor used to make the device essentially ends up going towards increasing our landfill, which is not a productive purpose by any stretch. Add to this unproductive labor the equally unproductive labor ( at least in terms of creating lasting assets ) going into the advertising to get the consumer to buy the product. Junk mail, junk phone calls, TV commercials. Not only are the end results of the labor not of lasting value, but the labor itself is less satisfying/interesting compared to building real projects with a real, lasting purpose. I'd much rather help design a high-speed rail system than think of ways to get consumers to buy the latest iPhone or iPod.

Now visualize instead using all this labor to create/maintain concrete assets with an economic purpose. Each generation will leave the next one an ever better infrastructure, measureably increasing that generation's quality of life. Better, more reliable food, faster travel, more choices where to live, etc. Not sure how to make this work economically again, but it's this line of thought which first built up the US, and much of the infrastructure which exists. We can eventually go back to it. Only question is how.
 

kingofwylietx

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
446
Location
DFW, TX
Now visualize instead using all this labor to create/maintain concrete assets with an economic purpose. Each generation will leave the next one an ever better infrastructure, measureably increasing that generation's quality of life. Better, more reliable food, faster travel, more choices where to live, etc. Not sure how to make this work economically again, but it's this line of thought which first built up the US, and much of the infrastructure which exists. We can eventually go back to it. Only question is how.

I like the way you think, so let me play the devils advocate. If that you propose is what first built up the US, then was it not that course of action that eventually led to consumerism? I support my point by saying that once a solid infrastructure was built and appliances were of good quality and well made, it was then that the manufacturers needed to find something else to build. If everything lasted forever and had utility, there would be very few things left to make and sell. However, there are a great number of people that derive their livelihood from the manufacturing sector.

If we look at infrastructure, you will see that it is driven by consumerism. Many homes are sold each day because people want a nice, new, larger home. Generally, it isn't out of necessity. How much more infrastructure would we need if people stayed in homes that were sufficient for their family size and just updated it as needed? There are a lot of people that derive their livelihood from the home market.

If we look at retail sales, you will see that it is driven by consumerism. If everyone only bought what they actually needed and avoided fashion and widgets.....we could probably eliminate 80% of those businesses. Plus, if people didn't upgrade their homes every 7 years, then the suburbs would stop sprawling.

We're cutting out a lot of jobs.

It's an interesting concept. Certainly, we can't all be farmers. What is the compromise?
 

blasterman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
1,802
We're cutting out a lot of jobs.

Since we don't make anything anymore why does this matter? So...we put some minimum wage store clerks out of a job...... {sigh}

I've worked with perhaps one of the worst offenders of wasteful consumerism, and that's the computer industry. The amount of functioning computer gear I've disposed of in the past decade during various corporate rollouts would likely fill an entire landfill. Old CRTs are a big problem because now everybody wants a new LCD, and what to do with that 19" Viewsonic you have to haul down from the second floor Q/C lab. Still works, but nobody wants it. I've gone into companies where entire office wings and acres of warehouses are nothing but old computer gear waiting to be salvaged.

The power cables alone could be daisy changed and circumnavigate the globe several times. It's not like the power cable on your PC wears out, but of course you unwrap the new one and toss the old one. A large company I was in this fall had three skids full of the things - roughly 7 cubic yards of power cables packed into large crates that were being disposed of.

How long does a PVC jacketed power cable last in a landfill? Probably a long time. You'd think somebody would come up with an adapter so these things could be converted to something usefull, or plugged in together to make a long extension cord. As it is, we need to ban these things from being made for the next 100 years.

This was less of a problem in the 90's when a basic desktop PC cost over $1500 to replace. Companies were more careful planning software rollouts when PC's rollouts were so expensive. Now since the things only cost a couple hundred bucks if your new software package runs slow, screw-it, just replace it with the lastest 8 core beast so you developers don't have to waste time writing efficient code.

Friends are constantly asking me to fix their 4-5yr old laptops, and I'm getting tired of telling them their 'Best-Buy' portable has a designed lifetime of 2-3yrs, tops. I don't care how much you paid for it...if it's a laptop, it's average lifespan is 1/3 of a desktop, or less.

This is one reason I build LED lamps with scrap wood and parts I find laying around as mich as possible. I'd like to be able to mold clear recycled plastic into specially textured panels and have a double eco friendly lamp.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
I like the way you think, so let me play the devils advocate. If that you propose is what first built up the US, then was it not that course of action that eventually led to consumerism? I support my point by saying that once a solid infrastructure was built and appliances were of good quality and well made, it was then that the manufacturers needed to find something else to build.
And I knew you or someone else would bring up exactly this point, so I submit that the infrastructure you speak of may have been solid and adequate 50 years ago, but unfortunately time has passed. Much of what was built wasn't even maintained well, never mind updated to meet modern demands. And then you have what wasn't built due to the movement of labor into the service sector. Outside of NYC, mass transit of the kind useful for day-to-day tasks plain just doesn't exist in the 50 states. The electrical grid is old, fragile, one step away from disaster. I won't even speculate on the condition of our power generation infrastructure other than to say the picture likely isn't pretty. As far as structures, most of what has been built in the last 50, and especially last 20, years has been low quality housing designed mostly to make a quick buck for real estate speculators. I'd love to see the shape these houses will be in 50 years from now. Then again, given their location, it likely won't matter ( more on that later ).

If everything lasted forever and had utility, there would be very few things left to make and sell.
No matter how well we make things, nothing can be made to last forever. There will always be things which need to be replaced or repaired. If we had much more infrastructure that alone might create sufficient jobs to employ many of those displaced from manufacturing/selling "widgets". In fact, there is a lot of infrastructure work which should be done, but isn't, for reasons I can only speculate.

If we look at infrastructure, you will see that it is driven by consumerism. Many homes are sold each day because people want a nice, new, larger home. Generally, it isn't out of necessity. How much more infrastructure would we need if people stayed in homes that were sufficient for their family size and just updated it as needed? There are a lot of people that derive their livelihood from the home market.
You're right here, and unfortunately a consumer-driven rather than necessity-driven housing market means houses are no longer built to last. Here in the US we make wood-framed, shingle houses with no selling point other than the fact that they're bigger than what they replace. They're poorly designed in terms of both ergonomics and construction. In other places where space/raw materials are at a premium living spaces are made to make the most efficient use of available space, and are also made to higher standards ( reinforced concrete, metal window frames, ceramic or marble flooring, etc. ).

However, remember I mentioned earlier about these houses likely not needing to last much longer than their poor construction will allow them to? The reason ties in quite neatly with your mention of sprawling suburbs. Because housing designers in the US chose to be lazy, and make houses big rather than making smart use of less space ( or just building them up instead of out ), they were forced to put these houses where cheap land for them existed. End result is the suburban sprawl and the spreading of familes with each generation to ever more remote locations. Except there is one problem. We're loathe to spend money on infrastructure. Sure, we spent once in a frenzy to build the roads and electrical infrastructure which let surburbia sprawl. However, we never planned for the long-term maintenance of this infrastructure.

This is a problem that can never be fixed because the massive construction of roads and bridges in the 1950s and 1960s was never sustainable. This infrastructure was built in a euphoria of suburbanization at the behest of real estate developers, with no concern regarding the future maintenance of these relatively lightly used facilities. It is time to just let some of these roads and bridges terminate, and relocate the communities they support to places with denser/smarter housing. We simply cannot afford to maintain thousands of miles of roads and hundreds of bridges that support moderate to light density housing areas. We'll go bankrupt if we try. Like I said earlier, consumerism on any level is unsustainable. The great, failing experiment with suburbia is perhaps the clearest example of that, and also the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the planet.

It's an interesting concept. Certainly, we can't all be farmers. What is the compromise?
We can't all be farmers, but I'm envisioning us going back to a system where more goods and services are produced locally. Make things we need less expensive and people will need less money. It won't matter if fewer people have jobs. Right now in many places just the cost of necessities exceeds an average salary. This is largely because there are unproductive middlemen in all levels of the chain, each taking their cut. Let's just look at one example-generating power. You have people making profits selling fuel, running generators, and supplying the grid. The end user must supply a continual income stream to these people in order to have electricity. Now envision where this same person buys solar panels and storage batteries. In principle, they pay once for the system, and get electricity forever. Of course, nothing is forever, but apply a similar model to everything else. End result-costs of living drop, maybe you only need work one year out of three ( or part-time 15 hours a week ) to support yourself. Sure, perhaps fewer jobs, and fewer "extras", but also a lot more leisure.

I'll add that the above model is far from coherent or well-thought out. The general idea though is the more lasting useful assets the previous generation makes, the less the present one needs to work for the same quality of life. Taken to an extreme, imagine that prior generations had set up a system of androids doing all labor and also building/repairing themselves. End result is the current generation doesn't need jobs from an economic point of view.

Right now we're doing the reverse. We're making things which don't last, essentially leaving our offspring no better off than we were. In some ways they're worse off because sooner or later things will come crashing down. Those currently in charge are just hoping this occurs after their time on the planet is done. I do see the trend on the cusp of reversing. Consumers are starting to get wiser, and not buying into the idea of needing to get every incremental upgrade. This is probably because they've been burned too many times, spending big bucks only to see what they bought selling for half the price a month later. Now they're more content to just wait a month, or three, or not buy at all. Consumers are also becoming less receptive to advertising, probably because it long ago reached a saturation level like white noise everywhere. Now it's up to businesses to catch on. Make lasting products fulfilling a real, long-term need, not one-shot gimmicks. Moreover, start to make more products easily upgradeable/repairable rather than throw-away. You could charge more for such a product. Moreover, you could save substantially in advertising if such products are good enough to sell themselves.
 

RAGE CAGE

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
968
Location
OH
Since we don't make anything anymore why does this matter? So...we put some minimum wage store clerks out of a job...... {sigh}

I've worked with perhaps one of the worst offenders of wasteful consumerism, and that's the computer industry. The amount of functioning computer gear I've disposed of in the past decade during various corporate rollouts would likely fill an entire landfill. Old CRTs are a big problem because now everybody wants a new LCD, and what to do with that 19" Viewsonic you have to haul down from the second floor Q/C lab. Still works, but nobody wants it. I've gone into companies where entire office wings and acres of warehouses are nothing but old computer gear waiting to be salvaged.

The power cables alone could be daisy changed and circumnavigate the globe several times. It's not like the power cable on your PC wears out, but of course you unwrap the new one and toss the old one. A large company I was in this fall had three skids full of the things - roughly 7 cubic yards of power cables packed into large crates that were being disposed of.

How long does a PVC jacketed power cable last in a landfill? Probably a long time. You'd think somebody would come up with an adapter so these things could be converted to something usefull, or plugged in together to make a long extension cord. As it is, we need to ban these things from being made for the next 100 years.

This was less of a problem in the 90's when a basic desktop PC cost over $1500 to replace. Companies were more careful planning software rollouts when PC's rollouts were so expensive. Now since the things only cost a couple hundred bucks if your new software package runs slow, screw-it, just replace it with the lastest 8 core beast so you developers don't have to waste time writing efficient code.

Friends are constantly asking me to fix their 4-5yr old laptops, and I'm getting tired of telling them their 'Best-Buy' portable has a designed lifetime of 2-3yrs, tops. I don't care how much you paid for it...if it's a laptop, it's average lifespan is 1/3 of a desktop, or less.

This is one reason I build LED lamps with scrap wood and parts I find laying around as mich as possible. I'd like to be able to mold clear recycled plastic into specially textured panels and have a double eco friendly lamp.

Excellent point...I love to take things apart at the end of their useful life to see what all is inside. My first few desktops that I trashed- I was only concerned with removing the hard drive and smashing it with a hammer out of identity/electronic theft concerns (and stress relief). This last one I took out all of the components- there is a most excellent hefty chunk of finned aluminum heat sink that could be re tasked for a CPF project, and the power cord issue that you brought up- I am assuming they are PVC jacketed copper wiring- feel free to correct me if I am wrong-so how much copper is litteraly wasted from that alone? I think there are some modest e-salvage/reclamation efforts in our country- but I wonder what percentage of e waste ends up comingled and buried with dirty diapers?
And like jtr so elegantly pointed out- the Grid is in need of a major overhaul. I did not want to buy 2 new small flat screen tv's to replace the glass behemoths for my kids rooms- but I used the plastic rectangle to go to the big blue box store and did it at my wife's urging -and that's on me. I do have basic cable- no dvr/tivo and only on one set- so I used the rabbit ears that came with the sets- and the reception is terrible- like a bad dot matrix acid trip. I can identify with the clutter issue- trying to address that now. Luckily I have found someone who can actually wear our old clothes instead of them being ground up for shop rags in some third world country. I need to go back and look at jtr's thread as he is a much better writer than I am- thank you all for your contributions. The depth of wisom her at CPF never ceases to amaze me.:thumbsup:
 

3000k

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
112
My parents have a refrigerator from 1988 that is still working and is in great condition. I know a few people who have had brand new refrigerators last for only 3-5 years. The same seems true with air compressors. My father has an old 35 gallon compressor from the 70's that has its own oiling system, it is just starting to leak. Most of the new compressors are oiless ones which depend on teflon seals and are unserviceable, they only seem to last for a matter of months.
 
Top