Re:Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous
by Pica_soO on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @01:15PM
(#17759805)
It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead have it produced by a socialistic society.
For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence".
However, if I subscribe to a communistic society to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then this society has the incentive to make the fridge last as long as possible.
EDIT: Besides eliminating planned obsolescence, there are more advantages:
- Increased market transparency. The market is more transparent if I know exactly what a 4 years planned product costs me per month, as opposed to buying a product and not knowing when it will fail. A more planned society leads to better resource distribution.
- Another advantage is that the whole life-cycle of the product, including recycling it, becomes a natural responsibility of one society.
For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence".
However, if I subscribe to a communistic society to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then this society has the incentive to make the fridge last as long as possible.
EDIT: Besides eliminating planned obsolescence, there are more advantages:
- Increased market transparency. The market is more transparent if I know exactly what a 4 years planned product costs me per month, as opposed to buying a product and not knowing when it will fail. A more planned society leads to better resource distribution.
- Another advantage is that the whole life-cycle of the product, including recycling it, becomes a natural responsibility of one society.