Sunday, 2 November 2025

Stuff

Something i always hear from the older generation is that: 'Things aren't built to last these days' and as they came from a period when they would patch things up to make them last a bit longer until they literally fell apart, they are more right then even they probably know.
There is a famous quote made by economist Victor Lebow who in 1955 said to fuel economic growth: 'We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate' which pretty much admits that  indeed things aren't built to last these days on purpose, so basically we are forced to buy that thing again, something called  planned obsolescence.
For occasions where stuff cannot break fast enough, there is also something called psychological obsolescence  in which products are designed to become obsolete in the mind of the consumer, even sooner than the components used to make them will fail so that would be things like most electrical items such as TV's radios, computers and phones which are constantly tweaked and improved, since 2007 there have 26 iPhone generations, each one worked or looked slightly better than the last with at least one new model released each year and we have all been guilty of buying a new phone despite having a perfectly good working phone in our possession.
Obviously the ever-accelerating rate of buying things and then disposing of them sooner creates immense pressure on natural resources and the trashing of the planet to extract them and at the other end of the line we have excessive waste hence the overflowing landfills and plastic polluted oceans and at some point we are going to run out of natural resources and/or run out of space to store all our discarded items.
Something called Overshoot days spells out that Humanity is using nature 1.7 times faster than our planet’s bio-capacity can regenerate and on 24th July 2025 was the date that humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth's capacity to regenerate it, meaning that by the end of this year we would have used 1.7 Earths worth of resources and this is expected to rise to 2 Earths by 2030.
We are running out of resources, basically using too much stuff and undermining the planet’s very ability for people to live on it and that is before we even consider the implications of how much we are polluting the air, land, water and drastically changing the climate.
I read something that said that the average British person is exposed to over 3,000 advertisements a day which seems a lot but Google states it is between 4,000 and 10,000 so the 3,000 could be an underestimate but regardless, the raison d'ĂȘtre of adverts is to try and persuade you that you need something you haven't got or need a new thing and it must work because in 2024, the total UK advertising spend was approximately £42.6 billion and that would be a lot of wasted money if it wasn't working.
Something will have to give at some point as we can't continue down this path as it is just not sustainable but it probably won't be in our lifetime, or even our children's.
The harsh truth, and i am just as guilty of this, is that we all want stuff and are easily manipulated by advertisers messages for stuff but as the planet's resources grow more depleted and our atmosphere gets more polluted and areas on the Planet become unlivable and the climate grows ever more angry and throws worse extreme weather at us, we will have to start cutting back and stop consuming, burning up, replacing and discarding our stuff because we won't have a choice, we will have to.

1 comment:

Not really a blog said...

Planned obsolescence is a con. It is a phrase coined by anti-industry advocates (like Lebow). It implies that products and services are designed to fail, which is bullshit.

One defensible view of “planned obsolescence” is, "Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary." Of course, this approach only works on the weak-minded. Assess yourself...

A better understanding of obsolescence evolves around cost and value. Providers seek to find a balance between the cost of producing and delivering a product/service and the price a consumer segment will pay based on how the segment sees the value of the product/service. Hence, in the US we have “The Dollar Store” that sells what the average consumer would call low-quality* products. Regardless of one’s view of “quality”, the products sold in The Dollar Store are considered worth the price by many consumers which has enabled the enterprise to grow across the nation. Ditto Walmart.

* the only useful definition of quality is based on one trait of any product/service. That trait is “conformance to specification”. In other words, does the product/service conform to what is expected of it? if expectations are low, price will match… if price is low, expectations will match…

lebow can be labeled an economist if you want, but his bio describes him as an executive at two semi-large American corporations, which is better than an academic economist, but hardly makes him an economic thought leader. and he is not identified as treasurer or chief investment officer, which are the two corporate titles typically associated with knowing economics... (as strategist for my employer I also had to know more about economics than the typical executive).

further, since he authored a book titled “Free Enterprise, the Opium of the American People”, one can deduce he had a negative view of “free enterprise” - aka leftist/marxist which aligns with anti-industry thinking and the use of disparaging thoughts like “planned obsolescence”.

then you write this, “…at some point we are going to run out of natural resources…”. well, innovation in human history has thus far enabled us to replace limited resources with something more abundant, and if we will think we will “run out” of something in 150 or 200 years, I’m not willing to sacrifice today, for a distant future that is unknown and unknowable. You opting to sacrifice is fine by me, but don’t you force me to sacrifice… how dare you limit my existence to protect people yet to be born for 100 years…

you also write this, “…and/or run out of space to store all our discarded items.” Gosh. Such a small view of the world.
consider the truth:
> using the density of New York City, everybody in the world could live in Texas and the rest of the world would be devoid of humans.
> using the density of Paris, everybody in the world could live in 1/2 of Texas.

That leaves a lot of space for refuse (not counting oceans).

i'm hoping the "overshoot" idiots have a model as good as the al gore model that said the earth would be unlivable by 2012... if so i have little to worry about.

and once again you show a lack of corporate and executive understanding. most marketing has marginal impact. the bulk of value comes when you first make the public aware of your presence. after that it is iffy... but it is hard for a ceo to cut advertising budget if competitors are increasing their spend...

you might be easily manipulated, but i am not...

you never own your failures. quit blaming sneaky advertisers with psychologists that outwit you.