Critical notes (14)
Recently, Greenpeace, along with iFixit (a collaborative web of electronic product repair manuals), published the results of a study which noted that Apple, Samsung and Microsoft are the champions of planned obsolescence.
Companies design products that are difficult or impossible to repair, with short lifetimes, or dependent on software that is never updated, among many other things. This way, they guarantee the continuity of the production & sales chain: durable products are not good for business. It is necessary that the wheel keeps moving, that people continue buying and throwing away stuff, so that there is employment, so that there is growth, so that there is development...
Old and well-known words...
...to which we may add "so that there is waste in every corner of the planet, so that there is unmanageable pollution, so that there are slaves working in half the world, so that humanity consumes increasingly scarce resources to make a small percentage of human beings feel 'happy'". Important reasons that are usually left out commercial ads (because it is necessary that the wheel keeps moving, that people keep buying and throwing away stuff, and all the rest).
Do we consider planned obsolescence in our libraries? Do we buy materials that we will soon have to discard, or do we focus on more sustainable, repairable, reusable elements? Do we opt for creative solutions, or we just go for the packages sold by advertising? Are we one more link in the chain of consumption & discard, or are we trying to slow down or break this chain, thinking about our future and the future of our planet?
Are we really committed to our "sustainability" discourse and statements? Or are those just... words?
Note belonging to the series Critical notes.
About the post
Text: Edgardo Civallero.
Picture: Licdn (link).