Designed Obsolescence: Profits of Unsustainability

Parked in a meeting the other day at work, I was introduced, once again, to a concept that really pains my mind. We were informed that, yet again, parts for such-and-such instrument are no longer manufactured, and hence, when any part on said instrument fails, the whole thing is useless. I'm sure the phrase "designed obsolescence" is familiar to most people, but I believe it is a practice that is becoming overly prevalent in our society.

It's bad enough when the part that most often goes to the big parts-store in the sky is renamed the 'illuminescence module' in order to quell the angst you experience when spending an exorbitant price for a 'light bulb' (and I'm not kidding). "Of course, we'll pay more for the 'illuminescence module'. Send us ten of them!" But when the simplest parts become the difference between a functioning machine and a $5000 counter decoration, I believe we are wasting precious resources for the sake of continued profits.

This is nothing new, of course. It is also no surprise that the first interchangeable parts were invented for military usage. If anything needs to be efficient, it's killing. Regardless, before the late 1700s, almost any part that broke made that particular instrument obsolete unless you could find someone to manufacture an exact replica. So the old adage, "they don't make things like they used to" is very true. There is a lot of cheap crap out there, but many things that we use today are actually sturdier than their predecessors,.. cars, farm implements, etc.

The problem with making things that last is that our system needs people to buy. According to the television, you need a new cell-phone every six months. And yes, please be nice and recycle the toxic waste from the "old" one. Fashion has always been a good industry for such practice. Is it really about expressing your unique style, or is it about selling more stuff? Automobiles are an especially wasteful industry, but when the economy slows and vehicles sit in the lots because people realize that their current car is just fine, the industry is hit with layoffs, and sometimes permanent plant closures.

Well, people need jobs. And people need jobs in the manufacturing of goods. Although, more and more, our jobs in the US have more to do with the selling of goods that are manufactured elsewhere. That is, of course, a whole other issue. But the point is that some people's livelihoods are dependent on the rest of us buying things. It has been that way for centuries. But we cannot continue to draw from this planet, ultimately sifting all of our resources from the raw material stage into the landfill stage, increasingly killing each other as we go.

Even indigenous tribes exploit resources, so I'm not requesting that we all live in tents in the woods in order that our wastefulness disappear. My main gripe is that we are better than our actions. We have the knowledge and ability to create a non-exploitative, non-profit-driven economy. And we must, or we'll turn this planet into a desert dotted with dumpsters and graves.

Traveling across Oregon a few years back, I stopped at a restaurant bathroom in Prineville. A gentlemen in there, bothered by the absence of a paper-towel dispenser, and forced to use the hot-air dryer, says to me, "God gave us resources for a man to make a living, and they won't even let ya do that anymore."

Now, it was the "designed obsolescence" of instrumentation that costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars that prompted me to write this. But the idea of turning the lifetime of a tree into the lifetime of a paper-towel truly embodies the term for me.