Post AQLzC8Br7P8733JI36 by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
 (DIR) More posts by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
 (DIR) Post #AQKKRBxr4t1zoorel6 by smallcircles@social.coop
       2022-12-06T10:02:37Z
       
       1 likes, 3 repeats
       
       It's the economy, stupid!#Hypercapitalism anyone?Or rather go #Postgrowth?
       
 (DIR) Post #AQKKyebxafRiDnZyDI by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
       2022-12-06T10:26:40.694003Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Imagine all the things produced. How many are just replacements for things we already have? How many of the things we build could be built better and basically last a lifetime?
       
 (DIR) Post #AQLLL7q5nRm2OorfMG by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
       2022-12-06T18:33:39Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @sj_zero @smallcircles Your talking of the struggle between design efficiency and market efficiency.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQLLL95j8nsGHbBfMm by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
       2022-12-06T22:05:26.905657Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I think it's more about design constraints. What is it you're trying to accomplish? If reliability and maintainability aren't on the radar, then your design will be fundamentally different than if they are. If you're trying to minimize the amount of material because that's technically "green" too then you end up with a completely different design. If you're trying to minimize the amount of waste material then you end up with a completely different design. If you're trying to minimize the amount of energy used in manufacture then you'll end up with a completely different design. Happens a lot in our hard goods like washers, dryers, refrigerators. Instead of designing something to run reasonably well for 50 years, we design something that'll run with slightly less electricity for 5 years then need to be replaced.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQLzC8Br7P8733JI36 by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
       2022-12-06T22:29:10Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @sj_zero @smallcircles It's called planned obsolescence. Yes they make it inexpensive so that you will throw it away and buy a new one. Energy efficient doesn't mean it must be shoddy. Design efficient products can be repaired hence reducing waste. The production of the appliance requires tremendous energy hence waste if you need to keep replacing the 'energy efficient' new thing.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQLzC8pCl6bb15iiNk by J12t@social.coop
       2022-12-07T05:31:03Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hackersquirrel @sj_zero @smallcircles I think there’s room in the market for a consumer goods brand — let’s call it “100 Years(R)” — that produces well-thought-out, multi-decade reliable consumer goods with only standard parts as replacements, full engineering drawings and independent repair instructions from the get go. Your mixer might cost 10x or more, but I think enough people would buy to make this a viable business.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQMeAaBs8hdlQmhLfM by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
       2022-12-07T12:13:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @J12t @sj_zero @smallcircles Another principle would be to require that manfacturers have a cradle to grave responsibilty for their products and have a real system of disposal. They could design the materials to be recycled for future products reducing demand for more raw materials. Long term cost effective instead of short term cheap(resource expensive).
       
 (DIR) Post #AQMeB6cvXeIO1xbPHM by hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social
       2022-12-07T12:08:21Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @J12t @sj_zero @smallcircles When I was  a kid I loved to open the back of radios because inside you could find the schematics. The manufacturer put them there to facilitate repair.