Not a lot is being said: pictures talk from themselves. And anyways, it's nearly as if our vocabulary was lacking words when it comes to describing such insanity! The word "Landscapes" is used to refer to the huge scale of what's currently happening in the world on the name of Economical Growth. This documentary is a direct critic in regards to savage capitalism and its multiple consequences (human exploitation, environmental impacts, etc.).
I highly suggest you to watch it. And I can only hope for some of you to understand how crazy this world became.
Knee-jerk posts reflex theory based upon overgeneralized and oversimplified social, political, economic, environmental, etc. factors.
I'm tempted to say you've put no thought into all of this.
okay so
capitalism -> free market -> people choosing how the market works (vs. government managing and controlling market) degrowth: more like a principle that people should start choosing a more frugal manner of life/consumption free society, democratic society -> people choose how to live their own lives (to a reasonable degree) degrowth cannot be forced, only taught
if people start going by degrowth less incentive to mass produce high-quality
okay I'm just going to stop, the more I think about this, the stupider I become. It's just so incompatible with the present situation. People simply aren't very willing to go back in time. You're better off moving forward and supporting sustainable development and scientific research. People will get what they want for cheaper and at a higher quality with fewer environmental repercussions, versus people scaling back and not getting much back at all.
But I'm just going to stop now. I feel like I've had to lodge my head up my ass.
capitalism -> free market -> people choosing how the market works
Problem is, people aren't making an informed choice. Do you really think any of those brainwashed consumers have ever thought that the poorest working conditions in here aren't even near from representing what the "cheap labourers" have to endure? They just do not realize how far our current industry has gone, and how unknown that fact is. Let's just think in terms of printers: rare are the people that actually know the companies are making the printers intentionally unusable after a determined amount of time. Same for light bulbs... and let's not talk about fashions!
And then whenever someone realizes that he is doing something bad, what does he learn about? Oooh! Recycling? Oh yeah, that sounds great! Let's save the Earth! While recycling is good (to some extent), it is far from compensating for everything the current industry is doing. It's just a way for the companies to put the blame on the consumers, let them waste money on their "release", and make more money on their back by starting greenwahsing campaigns.
free society, democratic society -> people choose how to live their own lives
Now if you think we're currently living into democratic societies, you have quite a problem. I do not feel like the population has any power at all. We're forced to vote for "the lesser pain" (or "greater good") because only a very restrained range of political views and ways to manage issues are there for us to get represented by. Representative democracy is, to me, a false democracy.
Freakin' national-wide manifestations are happening here in Québec to tell our government we're against the raise of annual university fees, yet he just ignores everyone. A General Strike is being organized at the moment... and it's the second one we have within a single decade for the exact same reason! Some years ago, the exact same government promised the population they would freeze the tuitions. Governments are just laughing right in front of our faces. In a democratic world, it wouldn't take so much effort to, in the end, gain... nothing.
if people start going by degrowth less incentive to mass produce high-quality
If people start going by degrowth, it'll be because they'll have wanted it, as you've said. And degrowth is an anti-consumerist mentality. It isn't about refusing any advances in terms of quality of products, it's about stopping the useless mass-production of useless products. As an example, anything having to do with programmed obsolescence would still be produced, but without the forced "auto-destruction" of the product which was induced by the "need" of economical growth. If people agree that they do not need economical growth, they do not need to stimulate industries' commerce periodically. We'd then get to buy light-bulbs that would work for over 100 years and everyone would be happy.
EDIT: On a related note:
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Apr 17 2011, 4:53 am by payne.
Payne, we've discussed with each other before all this and that about democracy, so let's skip that part.
Uninformed decisions? Brain-washed consumers? They have no excuse. The information is out there. They need to take the time to learn what is going on. The bigger problem with our market is Consumer Apathy - no one cares what or how something is being made, as long as their standard of living remains the same. When the suicide scandals at the plants that make Apple products resurfaced, did you see any major decrease in sales over the long run? No, and proof of that is the recent release of the iPad 2.
Now I don't agree with greenwashing. But there are a lot of companies that honest-to-god are trying to be green. Like my card printing company. The paper I use has more recycled post-consumer content than Hallmark cards has. Or my paper guillotine surface is made out of 100% recycled resin. My printer is Energy Star rated. I print in small batches to reduce waste. There are a lot of products I am not making because the dimensions of the products (such as standard sized recipe cards) lead to incredible amounts of waste. Now there are a lot of companies out there that are light years ahead of me in these areas, but I do not pretend that this is where I intend to stay. I'd love to start using 100% post consumer paper. Until then, I save the paper I'm not using and I'll be making pressed paper out of it soon. It was too cold out to do it more recently. To be honest, I think the most inefficient equipment I use right now is my laptop. I need to find a good quality, economically sound paper to use. All good things in due time. I expect this to change very soon.
But this leads back to consumer apathy. There is no majority drive for environmentally sound products. Most consumers would rather purchase paper straight from the tree instead of 100% recycled. Why does it cost money to recycle glass, plastic, and paper? Who is that going to appeal to, especially in a recession? So if you're not apathetic, you're sorta trapped.
As for planned obsolescence: to be fair, it is ingrained in the field of technology. How many consumers replace their computers before they break? A surprising number of them. How many people impulsively buy new graphic cards or external hard drives, ergonomic keyboards, new speakers? And even if you wait to replace until its broken, you still lose, because you fall so far behind the curve that you can't use anything on your old computer without major refurbishing. I'm on a Vista OS, and I've nearly thrown this computer out the window several times. But should I go buy 7, or should I go buy a new laptop? This one obviously still works, it just drives me insane. To combat all this market risks, companies like Intel are actually developing products two generations ahead of what consumers see. So with or without obsolescence, if most consumers are still replacing, there isn't much of a reason to make the products last longer. And the worst part? It is nearly impossible to recycle all this waste. In Colorado, they used to have yearly fairs to recycle it for free, but since I haven't seen one of those in a while we finally caved and decided to take it down ourselves and pick up a hefty fee to do so.
Oh, and its only going to get worse, too. A lot of technologies that are used to make products green use materials that China is restricting export of. And the rest of the world doesn't have a lot of free capital to go find new sources. Japan had said they would be offering grants to companies that would look for REEs, but that was before the earthquake. I haven't heard anything since.
And the worst part? It is nearly impossible to recycle all this waste.
Indeed. They ship the "nearly impossible recyclable material" to the Third World. The poors then burn down that stuff (very toxic! yet they unfortunately get to breathe it), and try to get as much metal from that stuff in order to gain a bit more money. This situation is illustrated in the documentary I've posted in the OP. And yes, when it comes to computers and such, programmed obsolescence is hardly avoidable. However, all the rest, all the avoidable wastes... this is what I'm complaining about. There's no point for light bulbs and printers to see their life length reduced by so much.
Precision: I'm not against small companies... it's the goddamn multinationals that pisses me off.
EDIT: On a related note:
(French subtitles because, well... I wanted to ensure I could understand everything that was being said. )
EDIT: While being on a documentary sharing spree:
(I've edited my previous post as well.)
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 17 2011, 3:48 am by payne.
And the worst part? It is nearly impossible to recycle all this waste.
And yes, when it comes to computers and such, programmed obsolescence is hardly avoidable. However, all the rest, all the avoidable wastes... this is what I'm complaining about. There's no point for light bulbs and printers to see their life length reduced by so much.
Economic theory - whether capitalist, communist, or 'other' - is about allocating resources. Resources are finite. Regardless of what you do, you will never be able to replace all resources with something 100% renewable. Even the sun, should humans live that long, will explode.
Also, CFLs last 5-10 years. LED lights last at least 10 years. They're the type of lights you take with you when you move ;P
Economic theory - whether capitalist, communist, or 'other' - is about allocating resources. Resources are finite. Regardless of what you do, you will never be able to replace all resources with something 100% renewable. Even the sun, should humans live that long, will explode.
Also, CFLs last 5-10 years. LED lights last at least 10 years. They're the type of lights you take with you when you move ;P
I completely agree with you: there are resources we do need to use, and yet that we can't replace. My point is that we're currently creating our self needs. Most of our wastes are optional, but very few seems to realize it. Another good example of something that could be simply cut out from production: napkins, or hand dryers. We could easily use tissues (like our clothe) to replace them efficiently.
And about your lights, I'm 100% confident those are still under the pressure of programmed obsolescence. In the documentary I've posted in my 2nd post, they reveal corporations' agreement to deliberately reduce light bulbs' life length from over 100 years to something like 1000 hours. 10 years is thus still 10x less than their real life length.
EDIT: I've found an English version of the documentary that was previously into my 2nd post. I've updated it.
Economic theory - whether capitalist, communist, or 'other' - is about allocating resources. Resources are finite. Regardless of what you do, you will never be able to replace all resources with something 100% renewable. Even the sun, should humans live that long, will explode.
Also, CFLs last 5-10 years. LED lights last at least 10 years. They're the type of lights you take with you when you move ;P
I completely agree with you: there are resources we do need to use, and yet that we can't replace. My point is that we're currently creating our self needs. Most of our wastes are optional, but very few seems to realize it. Another good example of something that could be simply cut out from production: napkins, or hand dryers. We could easily use tissues (like our clothe) to replace them efficiently.
And about your lights, I'm 100% confident those are still under the pressure of programmed obsolescence. In the documentary I've posted in my 2nd post, they reveal corporations' agreement to deliberately reduce light bulbs' life length from over 100 years to something like 1000 hours. 10 years is thus still 10x less than their real life length.
Light bulbs: That's an unwarranted assumption. If corporations get together and do that, its a cartel and is punishable pretty much everywhere in the world. They are not all doing that, and the companies that are, in the long run, will suffer as a result. And if they're not suffering, there is a larger problem here: protectionism, consumer apathy, or an economy that has spiraled so far out of control there is no way to regulate what is happening.
On LED lifespan:
Quote
Typical incandescent bulbs last 1,000 to 2,000 hours. But in speaking about LED replacements, lamp life is routinely quoted as 25,000 to 50,000 hours. Long lamp life, and the reduced power used to create the same amount of light, is what makes this technology so promising.
But what does a 25,000-hour life mean? As it turns out, no one is quite sure yet. The definitions surrounding LED lamps, a nascent technology, are still being made up as we go along.
And I would disagree with you on replacing paper napkins with cloth tissues. If you replaced everything with cloth napkins, for example, you must clean them using water and (harsh) chemicals, that were probably from some of the plants that create the most emissions. Colorado is in a twenty year drought period - we have scheduled times we can water our lawn or else we get fined. Really? You want us to waste our scarcest commodity on that? Paper is first off recyclable, and also composts quickly.
The thing you got to remember is that everything in economics is a trade off. You probably face some sort trade offs daily. So, harsh chemicals or 'waste?' In my opinion, I would go with paper, and set up stringent recycling plans including requiring a certain amount of post consumer waste to begin with. Oh, and let's not even go into the issue of shrinkage.
Light bulbs: That's an unwarranted assumption. If corporations get together and do that, its a cartel and is punishable pretty much everywhere in the world. They are not all doing that, and the companies that are, in the long run, will suffer as a result. And if they're not suffering, there is a larger problem here: protectionism, consumer apathy, or an economy that has spiraled so far out of control there is no way to regulate what is happening.
Please watch the video I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HnW6Mm5sUI&feature=player_embedded It does qualify their acts as cartel, and they have documented poofs about it. The thing is, programmed obsolescence is actually a serious and well-supported way of production. Corporations adopted it because it was a very good way to get the USA out of the economical crisis linked to the fact that everything that was being produced was being produced to be extremely resistant and persistent, so whenever a family would buy a washing machine, they wouldn't need to buy a new one before 20 years passed... which was very bad for the economy.
Quote
And I would disagree with you on replacing paper napkins with cloth tissues. If you replaced everything with cloth napkins, for example, you must clean them using water and (harsh) chemicals, that were probably from some of the plants that create the most emissions. Colorado is in a twenty year drought period - we have scheduled times we can water our lawn or else we get fined. Really? You want us to waste our scarcest commodity on that? Paper is first off recyclable, and also composts quickly.
This is a rational thought for anyone that doesn't support 'voluntary simplicity' to an extent. Yes, people could argue that reusing the same piece of cloth without washing it thoroughly after each use might be bad for your health, while one could argue that such a thing is unnecessary. I very rarely use any napkin (I'd use one only after eating something like rib-bones because you inevitably are extremely dirty after eating some), and I don't understand people cleaning their mouth so frequently in between each bite. Superficial amount of food stuck on fingers or around the mouth do not require the rinse of anything you've used to remove it.
The one in my basement has lasted 20 years. Not always on though.
I can't watch the video, it's too long. So I'll just throw my opinion out there: we have an energy and waste problem which need to be solved in the future. One way to help alleviate the process is to become more efficient in all that we do, which means producing less waste and using less energy. Which of course means that we can't make stuff that is not designed to last a fairly long time unless it is almost completely recycled (aluminum cans and cars are good examples). The more we make, the more energy we use, but also the more economic impact we can utilize. So we have to find the right balance in economic efficiency.
Oh and paper towels/toilet paper should be brown. There's no reason I should pay extra for something that costs less make. Whoever decided it was necessary to see our shit clearly was a marketing genius, but seriously, we don't need it to be white with inked frills on it and fancy designs.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
When you make a me a lightbulb that never burns out I'll believe you. Until then, you have nothing more than a crack pot conspiracy theory. Because the first man to sell light bulbs that never die will be a very rich man. The more companies that exist to sell light bulbs, the less likely that a conspiracy exists to get you to buy light bulbs just for the hell of it.
If you're really so worried about the environment, log off your computer right now. It is powered by a distant coal plant, and it is connected to a very complicated system of routers all around the world so I can read your lunacy. Think about that Youtube video you posted. It is stored in one of Google's huge data centers that eat more power a day than your house does a year. If you really believe the things you claim, you will spurn the cushy life you are living now and live in the woods with nothing more than you can forage. Our modern standard of living is built on cheap energy, and to lose that would be the end of it.
Quote
Do you even realize what happens when there is no economical growth?
When you make a me a lightbulb that never burns out I'll believe you. Until then, you have nothing more than a crack pot conspiracy theory. Because the first man to sell light bulbs that never die will be a very rich man. The more companies that exist to sell light bulbs, the less likely that a conspiracy exists to get you to buy light bulbs just for the hell of it.
What about you watch the "programmed obsolescence" video I linked?
When you make a me a lightbulb that never burns out I'll believe you. Until then, you have nothing more than a crack pot conspiracy theory. Because the first man to sell light bulbs that never die will be a very rich man. The more companies that exist to sell light bulbs, the less likely that a conspiracy exists to get you to buy light bulbs just for the hell of it.
What about you watch the "programmed obsolescence" video I linked?
Why do you assume that anything that breaks is a result of programmed obsolescence? From the videos I've seen that you've posted, the evidence seems anecdotal at best.
When you make a me a lightbulb that never burns out I'll believe you. Until then, you have nothing more than a crack pot conspiracy theory. Because the first man to sell light bulbs that never die will be a very rich man. The more companies that exist to sell light bulbs, the less likely that a conspiracy exists to get you to buy light bulbs just for the hell of it.
What about you watch the "programmed obsolescence" video I linked?
Why do you assume that anything that breaks is a result of programmed obsolescence? From the videos I've seen that you've posted, the evidence seems anecdotal at best.
They show fucking documents of the cartel. Companies were forced to reduce the longevity of their light bulbs to 1000 hours, and if they refused to do so, they'd get to pay a fine. If that's not enough for you, gosh... And I'm not saying everything that breaks is a result of programmed obsolescence: I'm talking of light bulbs (and printers). Now, programmed obsolescence isn't only about "breaking". "Fashion" is an induced programmed obsolescence as well.
I was always under the assumption that bulbs are easily breakable because the smaller they are the brighter they get. If you use a thick filament, it is not bright, it lasts a very long time, and puts out more heat (ie less efficient).
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
I was always under the assumption that bulbs are easily breakable because the smaller they are the brighter they get. If you use a thick filament, it is not bright, it lasts a very long time, and puts out more heat (ie less efficient).
Pretty sure that's a fact. And the bulb that lasted 100 years isn't very bright. ;o
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
Well I don't know about light bulbs, but for printers, TVs, phones, etc. it's definitely the case that a decade or two ago the devices were better quality. Now they use cheap materials and production processes which reduce the lifetime significantly. This is partially due to demand (everyone wants to own them, so they have to be cheap) and partially to maximize profit by a) saving production costs and b) selling a new product once the old deceased.
)
