Re: green and "Story of Stuff"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Drzyzgula [bob () drzyzgula org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:40 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] green and "Story of Stuff"

OK, so I actually sat through this whole thing; it is
actually a fairly fascinating exercise in political
rhetoric. I'm thinking of having my daughter sit through it
just to see how many fallacious arguments she can identify.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the video makes some
valid points. It's too bad it has to be wrapped up in so
much nonsense.

One simple case in point: Her argument that personal
computers are an example of planned obsolescence because
there is only a single part (presumably the CPU) that needs
to change from generation to generation. But, she claims,
the manufacturers keep changing the way in which these
parts fit into the device so that you have to buy a whole
new system. This argument, of course, completely ignores
the fact that part of the reason that the new devices
are faster is *because* the new devices have a different
interface, e.g. with more I/O pins. It also ignores all
the other parts that typically change from generation to
generation, such as the core logic, memory, and display
technology.

In my place of work, one thing I have done is to get my
employer to allow us to build PCs from commodity parts
instead of buying whole systems from e.g. Dell. By doing
this we are able to maximize the reuse of computer parts
(e.g. sheet metal and fiber optic network interface cards)
while still staying in sync with the performance curve;
old parts are then sold to recyclers.  This seems to me
to be a rational response to the technological realities.

The video instead just screams "planned obsolescence!" and
lumps the computer industry into a grand conspiracy. I
guess I just think that there are far better, more
egregious examples of planned obsolescence out there.
She does mention the tragedy of coltan mining, but again
the complexities of this issue are lost in this telling.

Her point about perceived obsolescence was a good one, but I
think that the argument should at least recognize that the
role of style has been part of the human cultural landscape
throughout recorded history, and thus should perhaps not
be lumped in with the more modern invention of planned
obsolescence. The brevity of the product cycles, the cynical
application of marketing, and perhaps the proportion of the
population that finds themselves caught up in the cycle,
may well have changed in modern times. But I suppose that
20 minutes is not sufficient to convey such complexity.

As another example, her point that 1% of the resources that
go into consumer goods are still in use 6 months after
purchase just made me speculate that much of other 99%
were things like food and packaging, as well as e.g.  slag
that is separated from iron ore. It made me wonder what
proportion of the *finished* goods -- net of the packaging
and excluding intended consumables such as food -- that
we purchase is still in use six months after purchase.
But the video offers no help here.

Whatever.

--Bob Drzyzgula



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com