On Nov 20, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > You guys are really hung up on that example of computers.
Okay - I will bite with a nice long reply, which isn't so common for me anymore. I am not really hung up on it just for the fun of it. When I see a presentation giving facts and figures about chemicals, factories, production practices, etc - I really don't have the time or resources to fully research everything she is presenting. I do, however, have the ability to detect to misleading slant of her comments about computers. To me - this makes me crank up my bullshit detector a few notches and makes me skeptical of everything else she says. I have to assume all of the other factpinions are equally skewed. > What do you think of Planned Obsolescence itself? Sure - it exists. But again, it's a slanted oversimplification of a complex problem. While she is talking about planned obsolescence there are images of paper cups and other disposable items going across the screen. Those aren't planned obsolescence, those are straight up disposable. There is no sneaky corporate conspiracy trying to fool you into thinking that the paper cup you got at Starbucks is really supposed to last 3 years. If you don't want the disposable paper cup, bring a coffee mug, bring a cloth bag to the grocery store. Planned Obsolescence? Sure that's real. In the 70's and 80's US auto manufacturers made some shitty cars. They fell apart, and some of that was intentional. Did that suck? Yes! Was it wastefull? Yes! But what happened as a result? Toyota, Honda, and a number of other companies beat the shit out of them. Yes, corporations those devils - that evil capitalism, it corrected the situation US automakers were forced to make a better product or go out of business. Quality and product life won, and Planned Obsolescence lost, and it was a corporation that beat it. Compare that to a socialist country who made a crappy car at that same time. Say USSR for example. What mechanism was in place to fix crappy quality there? None. There was no competition, so hardly anyone could even afford a car. If you could, there was nothing in place to correct the situation. So what about Perceived Obsolescence? What is that? Apple coming out with a new iPod every 4 months? Making you want a new one and get rid of your old one? Listening to her there is landfill after landfill full of these gadgets. Of course everyone just tosses out their old iPod right into the incinerator when they are done with it right? When a newer model car comes out you just drive the old one off a cliff and call it a day right? EBay? Craigslist? What's that? They don't exist according to her. Again, she presents a totally slanted and black and white point of view. iPods, cars, and other things that are "last year's model" have multiple lifetimes and really only get to the landfill after they have outlived their useful life. Even clothing that is out of style often gets resold, or at least donated to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I do get her core point. We aren't living sustainable lives. I can agree with that. But her demonetization of corporations and owning "things" is misplaced and taints her core arguments with a stink that makes me skeptical of everything she's saying. -Cameron .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308226 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
