@gerrymcgovern
I guess vapes are just another excellent example of "Business-as-Usual":
Develop a new product to keep people addicted to habits that are both bad for themselves and for the planet.
They really serve no other purpose whatsoever than ripping people of and sustaining a consumerist culture.
@crash_course@gerrymcgovern We need to get rid of almost all disposable products ASAP, except for very simple ones made from abundant biodegradable materials, like wooden forks or bamboo chopsticks. We also need to get rid of planned obsolescence, things need to be designed and built to last as long as possible, to be easy to repair, easy to upgrade, and also easy to take apart for spare parts with which other things can be built or repaired. We need to get ready for a world in which not production is the main driver of the economy but repairs and refits.
@LordCaramac@crash_course@gerrymcgovern Also, stuff still needs to be affordable, especially essentials. This is not about replacing product A with product B and everything's fine, this is about a whole global societal and economic change. And I have no fucking clue how to realistically reach such a goal.
@bwana@crash_course@gerrymcgovern Well, if things last almost forever, then it isn't necessary that everybody can afford new things, as long as there is a big second hand market. Which means, of course, freezing certain technical specifications for decades -- imagine computer would simply stop getting faster, getting more and more CPU and GPU capacities, getting ever bigger memories, but simply staying the same for the next 50 years or so. We would still see progress--making manufacturing more efficient and sustainable, reducing energy use, making electronic components more robust so that they last longer, improving designs to be easier to repair and harder to break, making software more efficient so that it can do the same with less resources, or that it can do more with the same system resources. Basically switching from the current path of technological progress, which makes everything always bigger, faster, more powerful, and constantly changing standards and connectors so you always have to buy new stuff, towards a path that preserves backwards compatibility over decades and only finds new ways of making the same old stuff in new and better ways.
Imagine you had a computer, one of the huge chunky tower case PCs, that can last for a century. Of course individual components break every now and then, but you can always find a replacement part because the specifications just don't change. Software from 30 years ago stll runs without any problems because the basic hardware is still the same as it was back then. You don't ever need a new PC as long as you can find replacement parts because even the newest PC works just like your old one, although it might use less energy--but with the broken parts of your PC getting replaced by and by, your machine isn't that much worse. A new PC might cost $4,000--but a 25 year old one is just as usable, and it costs only $100.
It would be a world where everyday technology in the lives of most people would be more or less static, without much change at all, at least when it comes to hardware--and software would always try to push the limits of what the hardware can do, using it as efficiently as possible, like back in the days of 8-bit and 16-bit home computers.
@LordCaramac@bwana@gerrymcgovern
Although I certainly agree with you on the big lines/ideas, I think the adaptations/implications necessary are much bigger than you think.
If you think long-term (a PC lasting a century) for example:
Use of plastic has to be limited, because especially plastic in daylight degrades too quickly.
Mechanical parts in PC's are often easily replaceable, (fans, plugs, hard drives etc), but surface mount devices are costly to repair and they do break down or get bad contacts through thermal cycling, drying out or other factors.
Software development has to take a totally different route as well. Now you're obliged to have more or less up to date hardware because software keeps on growing and using more resources. Often totally unnecessary.
The 80-20 rule often applies:
80% of the applications/users only use 20% of the available features of hardware or software
I've been wondering about plastics a lot. especially since making things with a 3D printer.
It is very clear that not all plastics are the same. Really each plastic needs to be considered separately.
There's conflicting narratives of "plastic breaks down and isnt durable" that we hear from people using plastic, and the "plastic lasts forever in the environment" narrative that we hear from people monitoring plastics in the environment.
We need to start talking about plastics in much more granular detail. Specifying which plastics, how they break down and what they break down into.
I've had people say to me that humans did fine in the past without plastics, but that was with a much lower population, and if you look at what was used instead, it's things we are also trying to reduce (bone, hair, shell, and of course metal and wood)
There's a tension between plastic reduction and veganism too as many vegan substitutes for non-food animal products are plastics.
Can a 100year plastic be made that can then be recycled or disposed of safely/fully after the 100years? I suspect it probably can - but isn't.
@xenogon@crash_course@bwana@gerrymcgovern I think we should not make anything out of plastics that can be made from other materials, like metal or wood or mycelium.
@LordCaramac@crash_course@bwana@gerrymcgovern That's very broad. I'm generally sympathetic, but my whole point is that different plastics are different from each other, and that many of the substitutes also have high environmental costs, so i think decisions need to be made on a very specific level. Do you have specific reasons? In many cases metal will have much higher env impact. Wood is a great material, but can't be used everywhere we use plastics.
@xenogon@crash_course@bwana@gerrymcgovern I think that in the long run, our technology will become simpler, technological progress will come to a grinding halt and then go into reverse, as the complex industrial infrastructure needed to make and transport all those complex artifacts becomes impossible to sustain on a more and more chaotic planet with fewer and fewer resources. We need to get ready for the collapse of everything. In 150-300 years, the world will probably be as technologically complex as it was in the 1600s. The Amish will know how to adapt to that world.
@gerrymcgovern
Quite amazing how the tobacco industry had one chance to change this. It started well with lots of innovative rechargeable /reusable formats and it all came back to disposable/single use and littering @jerzone
What are the economics that make using a rechargeable lithium cell cheaper than an alkaline? Maybe it’s just weight and assembly: alkalines have metal casings, not as easy to just solder in place.
@jfparis Seems, at the very least, manufacturers should be required to pay a materials surcharge. This gets passed on to consumers as a deposit, like $5, incentivizing them to turn the old one back in when they buy another. Make it a financial incentive for the manufacturers to seek alternate power solutions.
Add comment