David Suzuki: In today’s economy, everything is disposable
A kerfuffle is raised every time a comedian, politician, or businessperson uses the F-word or the N-word. I understand that. But to me, the D-word is the most obscene. I’m referring to disposable. Let me explain.
When I was a boy, we were poor, and it was a big deal when my parents bought me a new coat. I would quickly outgrow it, and it would be passed on to my sister. My parents boasted that three of their children had worn the same coat. They weren’t concerned (nor were we kids) about gender differences or fashion; it was the coat’s ability to keep the wearer warm and its durability (now there’s a good D-word) that mattered.
We now have an economic system in which companies must not only show a profit each year, they must strive for constant growth. If a product is rugged and durable, it creates a problem for even the most successful business—a diminishing and eventually saturated market. Of course, any product will eventually wear to a point where it can no longer be patched, so the market will continue to exist to replace worn products.
But that’s not good enough in a competitive world driven by the demand for relentless growth in profits and profitability. So companies create an aura of obsolescence, where today’s product looks like a piece of junk when next year’s model comes out. We’ve lived with that for decades in the auto industry.
I’ve always said a car is simply a means of getting from point A to point B, but it’s become far more than that. Some cars convey a sense of power, and cars become safe havens when loaded with cup holders, sound systems, and even TVs and computers. Some people even name their cars, talk to them, and care for them like babies—until next year’s models come along.
It’s similar with clothing, even with outdoor attire beloved by environmentalists. We have a proliferation of choice based on colour, sexiness, and other properties that have nothing to do with function. I don’t understand torn blue jeans as a fashion statement, and I wish people would wear their pants till they spring their own leaks rather than deliberately incorporating tears. All of this is designed to get us to toss stuff away as quickly as possible so the economy can keep spinning.
Nowhere is this more obvious than with electronic gadgets. When my wife lost the cord to charge her cellphone, she went to seven stores. None had the necessary plug for her phone. Finally she went back to the retailer that sold her brand only to be told that the cords for the new models don’t fit the old ones and hers was so old, it wasn’t even on the market any more. It was a year-and-a-half old.
I remember when I was given the first laptop computer on the market. It had an LED display screen that let me see three lines at a time and a chip that stored about three pages of writing. But it was small and had word processing and a port to send my pieces by telephone. It revolutionized my life. I was writing a weekly column for the Globe and Mail and was able to send articles from Russia and even remote towns in the Amazon.
A couple of years later, a much better laptop hit the market. It had an LCD screen, a huge memory, and it displayed almost a full page. I got one. A year later, I got a new model, and then half a year after that, another. Each served me well, but every year, new ones would appear that were faster, smaller, and lighter, with longer-life batteries and more bells and whistles.
Try to get one fixed or upgraded, though. As with digital cameras, I was repeatedly told that it would cost more to fix an old laptop than to buy a new model. This is madness in a finite world with finite resources. At the very least, products should be created so components can be pulled apart and reused until they wear out.
You see why I think the D-word is so obscene.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
Comments
13 Comments
caramel macchiato
Nov 22, 2011 at 6:04pm
Very well said, Mr.Suzuki. In a finite world with finite resources, we need to replace unsustainable old economic model(capitalism) with new model or else human will consume ourselves to extinction. I recommend a book by Giles Slade "Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America" which explains planned obsolescence and the root of disposable economy.
fRANKLIN
Nov 22, 2011 at 6:24pm
Very true.
In our economic system, when all basic needs are meet, we move to conspicuous consumption to keep the ball rolling. Fashion and "coolness" are means of creating unnecessary demands for new products. This has been described in the book "The Rebel Sell".
The computer upgrade example though is a problematic one. There was a point when advances in technology were so quick that it really did require buying a new model. The internal changes were real improvements (not just changing the shape of a plug).
We are at the point though where the technology needed for most basic computer functions is mature. Thus, we have Apple, who sells cosmetic enhancements.
seth
Nov 22, 2011 at 6:28pm
I take it David is a regular visitor to thrift markets where lotsa old stuff gets reused/repaired/recycled. NOT!!!
Unfortunately today's fashion conscience consumer like Suzuki, would rather die than pickup a used toaster, sweater or jeans at a tiny fraction of the cost of new and in as good or better condition.
Such is the power of main stream media.
seth
MG Stevens
Nov 22, 2011 at 6:57pm
Good piece that clearly identifies just one of a myriad reasons to Occupy something.
Very sad that we (led by the shift to the primacy of the shareholder) had to become a consuming machine versus a society that balanced making things, servicing things and yes, buying things as really needed. All the shareholder seems to care about is the immediate return. The CEO's get a new focus and make management deals that feed the shareholder exclusively at the expense of everybody else in the ecosystem. That leads to offshoring, cuts to quality and benefits, and eventually, a collapse to the whole system. Gotta wonder how close we are to that now...
Benoit Bertrand
Nov 22, 2011 at 9:31pm
Its called engineered to fail.
One example of simple product that are pure junk yet somewhat expensive.
I own a can opener (manual not electric) that I inherited from my mother, it must be 20 years old at least. It is just as good and works like new and can probably last another 20 years.
When I moved last year I misplaced it and needed a can opener, no where could I find a good one that came near the quality of the one I misplaced. I reluctantly bough one that was stamped made in China like everything else nowadays and paid $15 for it.
After half a dozen opened cans it was fucked, and I had to buy another one.
Again I looked for a good one, after I exhausted my options I bought another one knowing it was going to fail, just by looking at it, it was obvious it was a piece of junk but I had no options. Paid $15 for it again.....PAF after another half dozens use it fell apart.
Go figure I was pissed. I was really mad so I started looking for my old one really hard.
After some searching I finally found it, now it is in my kitchen in plain sight.
Every time I see it now I know the old faithful will last until I croak. And I cant help thinking about all the junk we have no other option to buy cuz, we don't manufacture our goods here no more. The greedy have no interests to have anything made to last coming out of the factories cuz my old can opener is still going strong and they dream I loose it again so I have to perpetually have to buy their hunk of crap.
blueheron
Nov 22, 2011 at 9:39pm
This issue has to do with individual mindset and values. Nobody is forced to consume more than is required for survival, so it comes down to acquisitiveness, desire for status and/or comfort, wish-fulfillment, convenience (for eg. disposable diapers), job requirements (high tech products and other tools) and just plain wants. The latest style may matter, if one is a conformist. If you're creative and have skills, you can make your own or change your habits and buy 'second hand.' Ever since I noticed that more and more stores were stocking their shelves with goods made in places that don't have Canadian manufacturing standards, I've been seeking out alternatives. I'm now hooked on the quest for value rather than just for 'more stuff.' This is nothing new; my parents 'made do' and lived quite frugally. Less really IS more.
Birdy
Nov 23, 2011 at 1:03am
Have you worn out your fancy-ass overpriced Dorothy Grant "pieces" yet David? Like that LEATHER jacket of hers we've seen you in? What was that, $2000? $3000? This article is over the top hypocritical buffoonery.
"David Suzuki wears his Dorothy Grants to important functions, as do many Hollywood and Vancouver celebrities."
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=77612488-2496-41ab-a78...
Tuula Helin
Nov 23, 2011 at 7:44am
Birdy:
Isn't wearing an expensive, well made LONG LASTING jacket better than buying a new one shipped every year form China?
Birdy
Nov 23, 2011 at 10:53am
re: Tuula Helin
Why would that be "better", do you hate China for some reason? China makes plenty of decent durable products, to suggest otherwise is to play into stereotypes. I have shoes from China that have lasted 12+ years. ($80)
Most people can't afford a $3000 jacket.
Telling other people that fashion is an eco-crime, while wearing a $3000 designer jacket is bullshit. Telling people fur is murder while wearing DEAD COW leather is also bullshit. If you can't see this, you've bought into his cult of personality.
The entire premise of this article is invalid. Engineered to fail/planned obsolescence conspiracy theories are silly. Indestructible forever-upgradable laptops would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. So yeah, Suzuki could afford one, but most of us couldn't. The Laptop manufacturer obviously wants to sell as many laptops as possible, so they use cheaper parts that will inevitably break in order to reduce the cost. That's why we have $200 netbooks instead of $40,000 netbooks.
Feel free to engineer and sell your own laptops if you're unhappy with the selection.
Birdypoop
Nov 23, 2011 at 12:14pm
The flat-Earthers and Earth haters are pathetic. This is the best argument they can come up with? Someone wears durable, high-quality, locally made clothing (which was probably a gift), and supports local arts, and therefore none of their arguments are valid? Laughable and stupid. I guess people could join the Birdys and Turdys and try to keep humanity on track to polluting itself to death - or you could join those who are contributing to making the world a better place.