The industrial obsolescence, history of deception

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Christophe » 03/10/17, 14:33

Christophe wrote:For every euro earned, a steel, oil or car manufacturer employee will emit much more CO2 than an employee of a wind turbine manufacturer, solar panels, insulation or ecological houses. .

Because the manufactured products will, during their lifetime, either emit even more CO2 (than the gray CO2) or absorb the gray CO2 ... in part or in totality


There are even trades that can be "CO2 negative", for example all wood trades that store carbon in wood construction (carpenter, joinery ...) we can also mention ... shellfish and mussel farmers .. .

Yes, shellfish absorb a lot of CO2 during their growth ...

In short, eat mussels !! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Did67 » 05/10/17, 11:30

About the Fairphone, this "test" by the newspaper Le Monde:

http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/20 ... 08996.html

The conclusion :

In summary: should you invest?

The Fairphone 2 does not really compare with an ordinary mobile. It is assembled in a factory where no child works, a small part of its materials are fair trade. It is disassembled in one minute, it changes its components extremely easily, without breaking the bank.

Unfortunately, we still have a slight doubt about the availability of spare parts in the short and long term. And the 2 Fairphone has many other flaws. It is thick, his drawing is not very beautiful, his photos are passable, his battery is anemic, his heart is aging. Overall, its qualities are those of a low-end smartphone. But its price is perched at 530 euros.

This rate is justified otherwise: we pay an intelligent and responsible approach. Buying a FairPhone is a militant, social and ecological act. It is hoped, however, that FairPhone will market, in one or two years, a third version of its smartphone, armed to attract a wider range of consumers. The ideas brought by this brand deserve to flourish.

The FairPhone 2 is available exclusively from the Orange operator, at least until the end of 2018. Note, on the Internet, the Fairphone 2 seems to be marketed on the official website of the manufacturer, even if the model is currently out of stock.

In recent years, smartphones are progressing more slowly. We could perfectly keep the same mobile four to five years ... if some ideas of the Fairphone were taken by its competitors.

The Dutch manufacturer opens a promising avenue. The idea of ​​blocks of spare parts incorporating three or four components, sold at a price of friend, would gain to generalize. These components are encapsulated in a plastic shell, which takes up space, and weighs down the mobile. But many consumers would probably accommodate themselves if their smartphone became as durable.

Learn more about http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/20 ... 44wV2S7.99
0 x
User avatar
Adrien (ex-nico239)
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9845
Registration: 31/05/17, 15:43
Location: 04
x 2150

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Adrien (ex-nico239) » 05/10/17, 12:18

Interesting....

What about the comparative (open question) between these two approaches

Buy a used X phone 150 €
Buy a new fairfone at 500 and a few euros
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Did67 » 05/10/17, 14:33

From our portfolio point of view, the answer is simple. This is what makes the success of "disposable or short-lived, inexpensive objects", at the cost of wasting resources and pressurizing human beings ...

The difference is simply ethical, from my point of view.

It is certainly in a certain ecological way to give a second life to a device which a geek gets rid of to buy "the last X" ... The fact remains that its initial manufacture was made under questionable conditions and that we are encouraging the geek to buy back one that was manufactured in questionable conditions ...

Afterwards, I think we have to qualify. If X is easily "reliftable" in one of these usual weak points, the battery, as is the case in the models you have indicated, in my opinion, the difference becomes slim.

The question of opportunity is in fact ambiguous by nature: there are no opportunities without a main market. So by buying an opportunity at a good price, we remain a little bit accountant of the sector as a whole. Without it, there would be no opportunity ...

Afterwards, it is also a fact that due to a certain "bobology", certain "fair trade" products have prices inflated beyond the reasonable, due to greenwashing. No doubt a difference is justified because of the choice of components, of very limited series (at least at the beginning) ... But is that all? It is well known that the "organic" section of supermarkets is the one that generates the most profit and the only one to grow. No need to look any further for the tendency of these rays to grow! It is not the brand's "greenswashing" which is the cause, even if this contributes to it (in addition!).

It is for example an argument of certain "alternatives", which, in my opinion, gives itself "good conscience" without great intellectual rigor. Ah, but my computer is a "salvage" ... The old car that pollutes was bought for "cheap" ... For me, it's ambiguous.
0 x
User avatar
Adrien (ex-nico239)
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9845
Registration: 31/05/17, 15:43
Location: 04
x 2150

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Adrien (ex-nico239) » 05/10/17, 14:45

I admit that I do not have too many opinions either ....

As a rule I am a follower of the occasion or the recycle or donation (our 3 leather sofas style vintage / English are gifts BC)
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Did67 » 05/10/17, 14:59

Your post makes me think that obviously, it is more complicated in the general case! I was on smartphones.

In the general case (old sofa, lawn mower that is no longer used, abandoned aquarium once the children left, etc.), we can legitimately consider that the object is at the end of life. So the debt to the environment has been and must be borne by the one who bought it / used it. It is better not to buy a new one (with its collateral damage to the manufacture / transport) ...

If, because we are not shocked at the idea of ​​wallowing in an antediluvian smashed sofa, or if we are gifted to give it a second life, the answer becomes simple: of course it is this object that You have to choose. And that can be done without scruple. The initial choice of the buyer was not at all influenced by a possibility of resale of opportunity. Unlike possibly smartphones or cars. I think that purchases would not be made if the owner had to get rid of them at zero value! Here, we position ourselves as an element in a sector. And we must assume some of the responsibility.
0 x
User avatar
Adrien (ex-nico239)
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9845
Registration: 31/05/17, 15:43
Location: 04
x 2150

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Adrien (ex-nico239) » 05/10/17, 15:09

Did67 wrote:Your post makes me think that obviously, it is more complicated in the general case! I was on smartphones.


yes it's different and it's true that even at the end of the chain we are part of the chain ...

For donations I advise you to type give and check the box "search in the title only" and you will have surprises .... in the middle of tons of earth, dung, or animals of all kinds : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Did67 » 05/10/17, 16:49

Christophe wrote:
unless we are called Elon Musk ... and again ... and more we consume terrestrial resources ...


You mean who wants to develop tourism in space ????? I do not know the balance of the trip, between the gray energy upstream and the fuel then ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Christophe » 06/10/17, 00:52

No I mean whoever did the Tesla ...

Since the overall balance of the car on the CO2 of the electric car is similar to that of a thermal ... except if the car is exclusively powered by renewable sources!

Space tourism is an ecological heresy ... but it makes dream the rich (who have to be so angry that they need it ...).

The gray energy balance of a space trip can be estimated on the basis of the selling price and according to the global analysis of the gray energy that we developed here ... 10 years ago: energies-fossil-nuclear / method-of-calculation-from-energy-gray-generic-t4897.html
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The industrial obsolescence, history of deception




by Ahmed » 20/10/17, 22:23

I reread the previous posts and especially those of Did. This inspires me the following thoughts ...

Our society is complex and its analysis rather confusing since apparently contradictory aspects can coexist ...
Two of these opposing tendencies are observed and yet are coherent from a systemic point of view (sorry if it's too conceptual, but how do concepts go?).
On the one hand, repair by the users themselves (through, sometimes, collaborative workshops) and self-production of food or tools adapted to self-use, on the other, colossal efforts to introduce and even impose (via state aid => subsidies and regulations) new products intended to make entire sections of existing equipment obsolete. This last aspect is part of what is sold under the name "energy transition".
This reflects two consequences of the same phenomenon: the saturation of the market no longer allows the widening of the base of the accumulation of value, the obsolescence decided of old equipment (but often rather, the addition of new equipment to the old) in the historic centers of capitalism is an ultimate attempt to expand the market, the only possibility of recovering profit opportunities in the long term (at least that is what many believe, especially Keynesians). The move towards greater individual autonomy (even when practiced collectively) results, in part, from the awareness of a gradual break with mechanical reciprocity linking employment and means of subsistence, not only because it is become more random, but also because it does not fulfill the expectations it had raised.
The common denominator of these two phenomena is the progressive eviction of human labor: the tricks of the big industrialists are no longer sufficient to seduce the buyers to the level of what would be necessary, new biases through the public authorities are requisitioned. The declining purchasing power of a middle class threatened in its very existence is the cause, just as this observation arouses the interest for a personal investment in the direct satisfaction of its needs.
This contradiction will be much more difficult and probably impossible to overcome, unlike what may have happened previously (where we have seen each crisis be overcome by a new phase of expansion), because we are in a historically unprecedented configuration. Indeed, formerly, with each contraction of the economy, a concomitant expansion of the market and of the quantity of human labor employed was observed. Currently and because of the third industrial revolution (that of the microcomputer), the functional basis of capitalism is disappearing in the ignorance of analysts, too busy to boast of "the crisis", while the simple operation "on the day the day "can no longer be achieved except through increasingly improbable financial devices.

In very old posts, I sketched the outline of the current evolution, in particular its tropism towards authoritarianism, which we unfortunately see today and which is only the consequence of austerity. The "democratic" consensus is only possible when the false abundance is credible for all (and this period can only be a simple phase corresponding to nothing of what the invention of the concept of "progress" translates) .
Warning! What I write is an analysis, not a value judgment; I limit myself to notice and I do not endorse in any way this evolution ...

PS: I refer you to Roddier for the thermodynamic reading grid, at least in terms of the principal aspect, since I am more than dubious on many points of its precise interpretation of the present period.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 116 guests