As I was mulling over my patching and the (as ever) wonderful commentary that continues to populate this page, I realized that there was an inherent conundrum in the nature of repairing things and modern society. A commenter - our good friend Greg - noted the following:
"As we transitioned into the age of "remove and replace' instead of repairing, it deeply offended me and still does, but do much of our technology is such that replacing it is much cheaper than repairing".
As I mulled over the comment, I counterpoised it with a post that Eaton Rapids Joe had some days ago about hurricane recovery and donations with commentary from someone on scene:
"People have been incredibly generous, but, at the same time, incredibly thoughtless.
It would probably mortify folks to know it, but we've sorted through donated clothes...well over 75% were inappropriate....shorts, t-shirts, prom dresses, dirty used underwear, 1960s clothing that was dry-rotting in someone's grandmother's closet, negligee', old worn out shoes, etc., and have the 'sold' a semi-load (30,000 lb) of used clothing for 25 cents/lb just to get it out of the way and generate some $$ to buy needed supplies to help get folks re-established in their next place of residence. Yes, there have been some nice new articles of clothing and bedding, but not a whole lot."
In my mind, these two comments juxtapose a critical disconnect in our modern consumer/environmentally conscious society: wanting the new, not repairing the old, and not disposing of the useless.
The Western World - the one I know the best and the one that I can write from - has a paradox: it has become incredible concerned about the environment and waste, yet it continues to demand consumer goods of the highest quality and "newness". After all, the economy does not function unless people are buying goods and services, thus the constant underlying thrum one hears is "Buy the newest model".
Think on it: whether it be phones or cars or refrigerators or clothes, the last thing industry suggests is "be satisfied". Or even, to be somewhat environmentally conscious, "let us help you repair that". To Greg's point, repairs are now almost or actually are more expensive that buying a new item. The government, too, is complicit in this, as without the steady stream of tax dollars from both sales tax and a tax on profits, there is less money in government coffers to spend. Waste and destruction are decried while the profits that slide in from it are carefully distributed just beyond the gaze of those doing the decrying. As a sop to the conscience, policies are promoted so companies can say they are concerned (hint: you will never destroy 100% of the resources you never use).
But then, there is a problem: we are stuck with that which we own but are no longer desirable and cannot - because of expense or difficulty - be repaired. To destroy it ourselves is, for most people, beyond their abilities: the burn pile and burn barrel are largely a thing of the past and the amount of "waste" they can dispose of is limited by the size of their trash disposal can. And trip to the dump costs the disposer of the materials additional funds to get rid of things they were already done with in a sense, paying for things twice.
This leaves really only two solutions: just dispose of it on the side of road (not desirable from an environmental point of view, of course: who wants to see chairs and couches slowly breaking down?) or wait for a donation chance to push everything out the door. The giver feels good as they have done something charitable (true) and eliminated items from their house (qualified true). In point of fact, if they have not donated goods of use - to Eaton Joe's contact's comment - they have only pushed the problem downstream, not resolved it.
(A third option exists: Freecycling or other local options where individuals exchange things locally. This is actually a fine alternative, but I suspect it works so well because the local government does not consider it a threat to its income. If it were, it would grind to a halt.)
But can it be resolved? We live in the age where consumption is discouraged yet necessary, where we are not encouraged to repair but to replace and yet our replacements have nowhere to go but in the trash, where we are encouraged to be charitable which (apparently) is as much of justification to "clean house" as it is to actual do something charitable.
In an ideal world - if such a thing were to exist - the used would be the new "new", the ability to repair important and cherished and perhaps more important than the ability to only produce the "new", a methodology to dispose of or destroy old items in such a way that residual value was found and the truly "useless" was destroyed without outcry, and the world (on the whole) perhaps a little better off with not as many resources being poured into new things and people happier with the old things they had and cared for.
Ah well - I can dream, can I not?
I think you touched on it but didn’t go far enough. Not only do we demand good new stuff but we demand it to be cheap. There lies the problem. I as an engineer can design something with the future in mind, I.e. it is made to be repaired or easy to recycle but it won’t be cheap to the consumers. Or I can make it cheap to consumers but at the cost of fixability and ease of recycling. The only way to change this behavior at this point is to force manufacturers to warranty their products for say a decade at the cost of a higher initial purchase price or perhaps make disposal of products expensive enough that we the people stop buying cheap manufactured crap. But doing the latter might increase the donation of questionable items to situations like hurricane relief although this should be easy to throttle with training of those responsible for accepting those donations.
ReplyDeleteEd - Fair and agreed. We (really, you - I am no engineer!) could design things to last a great deal longer and be repairable, but at greater cost.
DeleteThere is the economic system, Capitalism (best goods at the lowest price) and the political system - in our case, a republican form of government (or democracy for other parts of the world) which in our case has made the consumer the ultimate winner (lowest price goods; quality to be determined). I have a significant issue with the idea that the government should only promote the lowest price and the consumer as the highest good - to be fair, I have had this problem for over 30 years. A low price good may be in the consumer's best interest, but not in the interest of a country or population (national security, employment). Following the true model of capitalism, production flows to where costs are cheapest - the issue is that you end up with a population that in theory can be redeployed for higher value things - but we have redefined "higher value" as services.
There is an element that comes to mind as I write this as well, an element of the dignity of labor which figures into this equation (and which, of course, I have not addressed. I need to ponder more).
Our current consumerism based economy is certainly dysfunctional. Theoretically, I suppose it sounded doable to some powers that be, or else how would we have gotten here? And that begs the question, would another model be more successful? More to the point, would human nature cooperate?
ReplyDeleteLeigh, the interesting thing is that the powers that be think the can, thus the great push for "environmentally sound" (without thinking of the actual costs to the environment or people). Anything imposed that does not happen organically will never succeed.
DeleteI am not sure that a different model would succeed, on at least a large scale. But maybe that brings into question of a large nation-state or international group actually being successful, or just being able to appear to be. And human nature? I wonder. In some ways people adapt to whatever is available, but there will always be those that "want more" no matter how satisfactory life is.
As usual, I only have questions, no answers.
I think one bright side is that I’ve been able to find a lot more “craft” type manufacturers of certain things that build items to last but at a premium price. They seem to have sustainable models though as you suggest, they may never be able to grow them to the likes of say Walmart, the king of cheap goods.
DeleteEd, my experience is the same. And at least as far as I am able, I am working to make sure I purchase from such locations, or find a way to make do with other resources.
DeleteYour writings this morning reminds me of those 1980ish Sony Trinitron TVs which sat on the floor in fine wood cabinets. When the components expired, they were often kept and used as large end tables. One still serves as a platform for a larger flat screen TV at Mom's house.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - My paternal grandparents had the same sort of thing. And yes, they served as more than on purpose items. I cannot imagine finding that level of craftsmanship in mass produced items these days.
DeleteYou have strung together some really neat beads of thought. Quite an interesting synthesis.
ReplyDeleteThe piping in our refrigeration is just thick enough to be built and hold pressure, but not withstand repeated repair. So, it gets replaced. That's one of the areas of lower cost yielding a difficult to repair device that's easier to replace.
If the future is what I expect, this will come back to haunt us.
STxAR - Same for our dishwasher that we first had when we moved into our current home. We spoke with a repair guy - a really decent one - who told us after hearing the symptoms that it was a burned out board and once the board burned out, it could be replaced but it would burn out again more quickly. It was just easier to get a new unit.
DeleteAnd yes, this will completely come back to haunt us.
Used to be, every town had a "Fix It" shop that could repair just about anything. Nowadays, I can't find anyone to repair my refrigerator.
ReplyDeleteNot many want to learn the trade of repairing older things.
DeleteAnd look at what our wonderful government did to the used - repairable- older car market.
The government makes too much money in kickbacks from companies. They need to stay out of commerce for the most part.
Tewshooz - I remember even in my time such shops. Now, it is very much as you say. Repairs are very specialized or may be hard to come by (on the other hand, a great career field for young people with aptitude and a willingness to work hard).
DeleteLinda, the government certainly "helped" the market - and yet now, used cars are more in demand than ever due to the fact we cannot get chips for the new ones. I wonder how many in retrospect wished they had held on to their old cars.
DeleteThe cars the government destroyed were the type we always looked for. Less than $2000. Easy to fix. Now used cars cost a fortune.
DeleteAnd the cars the government destroyed "could" have been given to needy families or welfare families.
Such a disaster.
We watch a show called Port Protection. Takes place in Alaska. They do a lot of repairing and repurposing of old things.
We enjoy the show.
And now they have decided that 3G needs to die.
I do commiserate the throw-away society we have become.
Linda - Exactly. All the cars I had up to about 2004 were cars that in some way or shape I could work on. I can do virtually nothing with the cars today.
DeleteI should think in a place like Alaska repairs and repurposing would make a lot of sense, considering the cost of getting things there.
Honestly, I hardly use my cell phone for calls, only for pictures, InterWeb, and some apps. I could easily just make do with it a camera and small console.
Lots to work with here.
ReplyDeleteAutomobiles became more repairable when Powertrain Control Modules started communicating error codes. The module (computer) is smart enough to expect certain signals from various sensors so when those values fall outside of that range on a too-frequent basis then it implies that particular sensor needs to be replaced.
Similar things could be done for appliances. Electric motors have an interesting characteristic in that monitoring the voltage, current and phase-lag of the input will tell you much about the environment the motor is "seeing". That is, the motor can be used as a sensor.
Not enough load on the compressor of a refrigerator. You probably blew a line on the sealed unit or evaporator/condensor and the unit is toast. Not enough phase shift at start-up? Bad capacitor. Blows breakers at start-up? Shorted capacitor and so on.
One reason the automakers started "throwing codes" is that there was regulatory pressure because the vehicles were not compliant with emmissions standards with bad sensors. One could make a similar case for refrigerators. They are SUPPOSED to be decommissioned and the refrigerant recovered to "save the ozone". Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it does not.
Keeping a refrigerator or AC unit out of the landfill is a good thing for many reasons.
BTW, thanks for the mention in the post.
ERJ - Agreed that error codes were largely helpful. Like you, I suspect that now - with the benefits of even more technology - the same could be done with many other appliances (other than the currently famous "blink codes" to tell you what possibly might be wrong). And I know that recently you have had more than your fair share of experience with the inner workings of a refrigerator.
DeleteSuch things are of course likely to have to be generated by government because there is extra cost, which industry will not want to bear and many consumers will not want to pay for (to Ed's point). It would be better, of course, if this could simply be agreed to without government interference.
And you are more than welcome - again, the power of the Social Internet.
Ok... forgive me. This is such a serious and profound post, it seems inappropriate, but I just had to laugh out loud at: "And trip to the dump costs the disposer of the materials additional funds to get rid of things they were already done with in a sense, paying for things twice."
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness. This is hilariously sad. And depressing. It conjures up a satirical image that reveals we're as good as simply burying or burning our hard earned money for cheap entertainment. Paying to dispose of our stuff is the final (earthly) punishment for wasting our resources (both personal resources and the earth's).
I should print out this post, and think on this the next time I want to make an unnecessary purchase. The purchase where the purpose is simply to have something newer.
You've done it again, TB. This is why I keep coming back.
Becki, why should we not laugh? We consider ourselves to be the pinnacle of 4000 years of recorded history, yet we remain as foolish as ever.
DeleteTo be honest, it certainly has made think. I look for what I have in house before I buy outside. And for me, a useful question is coming to be "How long am I going to keep it and how will I get rid of it?" This puts a lot of things into the "do not need" pile (along, of course, with wanting to save money).
Thank you very much for continuing to come!
Indeed we do, and we are.
DeleteYour second paragraph reminds me of how many times I've felt the need to go shopping for an item of clothing to wear to a special event, only to get it home and not be sure of it. Not completely comfortable in it. And then I look through my closet (sometimes for the second time) and common sense takes hold. More times than not, I end up wearing something I already own. Usually because I decide being comfortable is more important than wearing something new. Getting older brings this kind of thinking more naturally, I suppose, because physical comfort becomes more important as we age. At least that is what I and my girlfriends are feeling these days.
Lydia over at Home Living had an interesting thought last week on her video blog about how she realized during The Plague that so much of here shopping was based it being a form of entertainment, not a need. Which is more true than I care to admit.
DeleteI have a list of clothing I would like to buy, mostly traditional Japanese style or 19th Century replicas. In point of fact I would wear them a lot less than I think I would, given the opportunity - yet I still want them.
And yes, from everything I understand or remember from my own parents, comfort becomes paramount.
Becki, I would be remiss if I did not point you to my friend Leigh's blog at Five Acres and a Dream (https://www.5acresandadream.com/). Leigh and her husband Dan are homesteading on a five acre parcel in the Appalachians and she always has interesting articles on their projects, including food preservation and gardening (and goats, and chickens, and any number of building projects). If you have not dropped by yet, I would strongly recommend it.
Delete