Comments on: Why, and How, to Think About the Future http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-8-11-173646-084.html Scooping up science news and dropping it on your desk Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:03:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jxliv7 http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-8-11-173646-084.html/comment-page-1#comment-3634 jxliv7 Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:57:54 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2100#comment-3634 .<br>...actually there are a few organic things in electronics -- like organic LCDs, biodegradable plastics, or computer bugs.<br><br>However, making a company responsible for its products has proven impossible for a hundred years or more -- and they have a friend in Chapter 11. Plus, making products that last goes against the basic concept of "consumables" -- planned obsolescence is a marketing strategy as well as putting out frequent upgrades.<br><br><a href="http://www.student.uib.no/~st01369/filarkiv/lyder/trumpattack.wav"> jon</a><br><br> .
…actually there are a few organic things in electronics — like organic LCDs, biodegradable plastics, or computer bugs.

However, making a company responsible for its products has proven impossible for a hundred years or more — and they have a friend in Chapter 11. Plus, making products that last goes against the basic concept of “consumables” — planned obsolescence is a marketing strategy as well as putting out frequent upgrades.

jon

]]> By: Drog http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-8-11-173646-084.html/comment-page-1#comment-3087 Drog Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:28:01 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2100#comment-3087 Regarding conservation as being key to preserving the environment, I heard an interesting interview with an environmental scientist on CBC radio a week or so ago. I cannot remember his name, but he had an interesting theory (and I think he had just written a book about it). Basically, he was of the opinion that trying to to convince people to be conservationists via guilt is doomed to failure, since we are, by nature, consumers. So, he argued that a better solution is to make products whose waste is beneficial to the environment. As an example of one such product already in existence, he spoke of an ice cream cone wrapper that biodegrades in hours AND (get this) contains rare seeds. So you can johnny-apple-seed your way across the country, tossing your garbage out your car window guilt-free. He spoke more technically about the solutions that are being worked on for electronics, where being biodegradable is not an option, but being completely reusable/recyclable in a cost-effective way is. I think he spoke of, for instance, the concept that whey you buy, say, an office chair, you are in effect merely leasing it, because the maker of that chair would be held responsible for it after you are done with it many years later. This would encourage them to make products that last and that can be recycled effectively. <p> If anyone knows who the interviewee was, please let me know. Regarding conservation as being key to preserving the environment, I heard an interesting interview with an environmental scientist on CBC radio a week or so ago. I cannot remember his name, but he had an interesting theory (and I think he had just written a book about it). Basically, he was of the opinion that trying to to convince people to be conservationists via guilt is doomed to failure, since we are, by nature, consumers. So, he argued that a better solution is to make products whose waste is beneficial to the environment. As an example of one such product already in existence, he spoke of an ice cream cone wrapper that biodegrades in hours AND (get this) contains rare seeds. So you can johnny-apple-seed your way across the country, tossing your garbage out your car window guilt-free. He spoke more technically about the solutions that are being worked on for electronics, where being biodegradable is not an option, but being completely reusable/recyclable in a cost-effective way is. I think he spoke of, for instance, the concept that whey you buy, say, an office chair, you are in effect merely leasing it, because the maker of that chair would be held responsible for it after you are done with it many years later. This would encourage them to make products that last and that can be recycled effectively.

If anyone knows who the interviewee was, please let me know.

]]> By: apsmith http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-8-11-173646-084.html/comment-page-1#comment-2333 apsmith Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:39:22 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2100#comment-2333 Well, the bias is generally to think of the environmental angle when you hear of a supertrend called "environmental degradation", even if it in principle also includes us using up Earth's resources. But the time scales for the two are not necessarily similar, and the attitudes for making corrections are quite different. In particular, resources allow for substitutions - and in many cases, that's the only real solution to the "using up" problem - at least for energy. Our sustainable solutions have to be quite different from our unsustainable ones. I.e. "innovation" is key. <p> But on environment, the solution has to be preservation. I.e. "conservation" is key. Unfortunately, the "conservation" attitude to the energy problem is too prevalent, I believe in part because of this lumping together of two quite distinct problems. Well, the bias is generally to think of the environmental angle when you hear of a supertrend called “environmental degradation”, even if it in principle also includes us using up Earth’s resources. But the time scales for the two are not necessarily similar, and the attitudes for making corrections are quite different. In particular, resources allow for substitutions – and in many cases, that’s the only real solution to the “using up” problem – at least for energy. Our sustainable solutions have to be quite different from our unsustainable ones. I.e. “innovation” is key.

But on environment, the solution has to be preservation. I.e. “conservation” is key. Unfortunately, the “conservation” attitude to the energy problem is too prevalent, I believe in part because of this lumping together of two quite distinct problems.

]]> By: Drog http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-8-11-173646-084.html/comment-page-1#comment-1301 Drog Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:28:03 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2100#comment-1301 I wonder, though, if you could elaborate a bit on why you disagree with the author lumping energy resources and the environment together in a degradation "supertrend" instead of treating them distinctly. I wonder, though, if you could elaborate a bit on why you disagree with the author lumping energy resources and the environment together in a degradation “supertrend” instead of treating them distinctly.

]]>