I think the statement is sufficiently applicable that it’s easier to list what is a proportionately small number of exceptions rather than listing the things that match.
Even when we look up we need to clean the air.
Of course, it's better to not make or buy useless things rather than recycle them...
i think Pendergrast used the quote to highlight the capitalist dynamic that incentivizes the profit-seeking economy towards creating low-quality single-use industrially-produced products, due to the parasitic economic rents from intellectual property making proper products overly expensive. in other words: the propertied class makes the working class pay double/triple.
that and planned obsolescence.
that's what i read in this article.
yeah fuck that. i live in an apartment block where i pay €3 for every wash. that's a fucking ripoff.
the solution is modular open source hardware and software.
seriously, why are you so people to give up all their power?
we need to start thinking outside the boundaries of the capitalist profit-motive.
to see the devastating impacts of planned obsolescence (e.g. the disgusting amount of e-waste shipped to African countries) and then think we should give more power to corporations is a bit of a mindfuck to me.
> Stripped of the class jargon
easy to frame or dismiss something as jargon if you're benefitting from the status quo, eh?
Although it isn’t part of the main thrust of the essay, this jumped out at me:
> “Every single thing you see is future trash,” says Robin Nagle, anthropologist of material cultures and anthropologist-in-residence at the New York Department of Sanitation. This system that “not only generates so much trash, but relies upon the accelerating production of waste for its own perpetuation”…