• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    When planned obsolescence isn’t the cornerstone of the modern market, we might have the choice to consume less. Currently you cannot buy any product that hasn’t been intentionally designed to create as much waste as possible. That is on the companies, since they are legally people.

    Corporate death penalty needs to be levied against the largest corporations before they kill us all with their greed. We don’t need them. They need us.

    • IMALlama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree with you on planned obsolescence, but I think there’s more to the story. The quantity of things/conveniences in our lives is greater than at any point in history. We have two younger kids and the quantity of… junk they have is astounding. As parents, we’ve sought out lower quality/throw away/gimmicky toys for things like goodie bags at birthday parties. Sticky hands, silicone squeeze toys, etc. To some extent, the internet is contributing to this since shipping and handling aren’t free and buying a single fidget spinner for $5 doesn’t sound like a good deal when you can get a bag of them for $8.

      There are also plenty of instances of people replacing perfectly functional items because the newer version became available. People buy them for status or for a perceived increase in convince/quality. This is true for compute/tech, but has been extending into things like smart home (replacing a functional light-bulb, switch, doorbell, thermostat etc for a IoT device). I get that some people are into these things, but it seems disingenuous to say that the only thing driving this is planned obsolescence.

      We have to move toward less carbon intensive means of production, but we also need to figure out how to change the endless stream of “better/faster/newer” that people feel compelled to purchase.