Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: green and "Story of Stuff"
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:14:56 -0800
________________________________________ From: Bob Drzyzgula [bob () drzyzgula org] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:40 PM To: David Farber Cc: ip Subject: Re: [IP] green and "Story of Stuff" OK, so I actually sat through this whole thing; it is actually a fairly fascinating exercise in political rhetoric. I'm thinking of having my daughter sit through it just to see how many fallacious arguments she can identify. Don't get me wrong, I think that the video makes some valid points. It's too bad it has to be wrapped up in so much nonsense. One simple case in point: Her argument that personal computers are an example of planned obsolescence because there is only a single part (presumably the CPU) that needs to change from generation to generation. But, she claims, the manufacturers keep changing the way in which these parts fit into the device so that you have to buy a whole new system. This argument, of course, completely ignores the fact that part of the reason that the new devices are faster is *because* the new devices have a different interface, e.g. with more I/O pins. It also ignores all the other parts that typically change from generation to generation, such as the core logic, memory, and display technology. In my place of work, one thing I have done is to get my employer to allow us to build PCs from commodity parts instead of buying whole systems from e.g. Dell. By doing this we are able to maximize the reuse of computer parts (e.g. sheet metal and fiber optic network interface cards) while still staying in sync with the performance curve; old parts are then sold to recyclers. This seems to me to be a rational response to the technological realities. The video instead just screams "planned obsolescence!" and lumps the computer industry into a grand conspiracy. I guess I just think that there are far better, more egregious examples of planned obsolescence out there. She does mention the tragedy of coltan mining, but again the complexities of this issue are lost in this telling. Her point about perceived obsolescence was a good one, but I think that the argument should at least recognize that the role of style has been part of the human cultural landscape throughout recorded history, and thus should perhaps not be lumped in with the more modern invention of planned obsolescence. The brevity of the product cycles, the cynical application of marketing, and perhaps the proportion of the population that finds themselves caught up in the cycle, may well have changed in modern times. But I suppose that 20 minutes is not sufficient to convey such complexity. As another example, her point that 1% of the resources that go into consumer goods are still in use 6 months after purchase just made me speculate that much of other 99% were things like food and packaging, as well as e.g. slag that is separated from iron ore. It made me wonder what proportion of the *finished* goods -- net of the packaging and excluding intended consumables such as food -- that we purchase is still in use six months after purchase. But the video offers no help here. Whatever. --Bob Drzyzgula ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- green and "Story of Stuff" David Farber (Jan 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: green and "Story of Stuff" David Farber (Jan 08)