On Monday 23 July 2007 03:44, Jules Richardson wrote:
William Donzelli wrote:
I guess
you should hang on to all the old gear you can get, because
everything built today will be land-fill in 10 years.
Recycle!
Anyone know how much that buys you in the grand scheme of things? It uses
resources to move dead devices around, strip them to component parts, then
move things like PCBs elsewhere for final materials reclaimation -
particularly if the scheme involves something really dumb like shipping
them by boat halfway around the world. I suspect the recycling step can
actually be more harmful than burying the old thing locally and building a
replacement from (local) raw materials.
I can't help thinking it'd be much nicer to simply build stuff that lasts
longer in the first place, and work at educating people about buying
products based on what they actually *need* it to do rather than buying
something just because it's new and therefore assumed to be better. Maybe
make "repairability" a marketing feature too, along with publicising product
lifespan (see other post).
</soapbox>
The question that comes up in my mind is, why isn't this happening now?
Market forces would seem to be pushing things in the opposite direction...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin