English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Mankind has the technology to create lightbulbs that won't burn out, tires that will last longer. It is truly amazing what can be done, what can be created.

Unfortunately, most things are designed to break down / stop working after limited use, prompting repeat business, allowing the creators to make a ton of money; much more money than needed to maintain a simple, healthy life.

These people are getting rich while some people are dying because they cannot afford FOOD.

Will mankind stop trying to get 'rich' and start using the latest technology to produce the best of everything possible?

2006-09-11 14:12:25 · 9 answers · asked by IronRhino 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

haha. I can't believe someone can be so self absorbed that they can call be ignorant about economics because my question may not have been worded extreme enough, or lengthy enough to show I have some degree in economics, or whatever.

I'm asking a question, not to be evaluated on my 'level of education' or anything of the sort.

Quite often, though, people are so insecure that they resort to name calling or boasting, or whatnot because they want to stand out in a crowd. You tell my I'm ignorant, but I'm asking the question. I'd say that compares to running up to a bull and yelling at it, 'You're a bull! You're a bull!'

No Sh*t. Anyway, I am not looking for a lesson in micro or macro economics, economies to scale, or the like.

I'm wondering when people will stop doing everything because they need to 'fit'. If an asteroid hits the earth and a small group of people survive, who cares about economies to scale...?!

2006-09-11 14:27:32 · update #1

Wow, another person that seemed to take this personally.. I hope you're not referring to me about getting off my butt and doing something about it. Not that I expect you to be informed of the way I live my life, but I see garbage on the ground i pick it up. Chivalry is not dead, I say. I hold the door open to let people pass. Even the selfish, narrow minded that think they door is being held for 'them'.

You're right, I would think differently if my parents work at a lightbulb factory. I'd think, 'what the heck are they doing that for at their age?'

Interesting how a question can prompt people to lash out and complain about others, call others names, etc.

2006-09-11 14:40:00 · update #2

Again, I understand the 'making money' aspect. I also understand that people are insecure, and by having more money, they can drive a bigger Mercedes and have plastic surgery to improve their self image.

I'm wondering when we are going to get over all of that and make a light bulb that is meant to last. The LED did not replace the light bulb by the way.

But seriously, when are we going to stop producing junk?

Some of you might be familiar with Planned Obsolescence .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

2006-09-11 14:48:36 · update #3

I'm glad that some people approach this with an open mind and I thank them for their excellent responses.

It just drives me crazy to think that, while children are the future, plenty of schools do not even have computers, meanwhile some people have so much money, they spend more on a purse than some families will earn in 5 years.

2006-09-11 16:37:04 · update #4

9 answers

it will only work as long as we get people to first accept the high price tags of such items built to last, either that or reduce the amount of avalible raw resources to make such products. but hen you are assuming that recycling does not factor in ( it does ) in many products, much less the consumer drive the short lifecycles of a given product on both the enviromental level plus the econimic level. manufactuers simply have no incentive to build them to last. a modern constantly changing society sees it and prefers it that way. do we need all this modenr technology, not all of it, but we have delved in too deep for most of us to do without. there are those who live much simpler lives and have shunned modern convienances in favor of going built ot last route, and that's fine for them, but since the majority wants, the majority gets.

2006-09-11 16:43:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Eventually the market moves that way. Remember when you could only buy an American car up through the early 70s and the odometer only went up to 100k miles? Then a company named Datsun came along and started selling similar junk, then they focused on improving the quality in order to be more competitive. Eventually their quality was far better than American cars and that continues to this day (Datsun is now Honda). Its not uncommon for market competition to force these changes. Another good example: my computer is over 5 years old and aside from inexpensive, minor upgrades is still able to run any software I want (including games) just fine--this couldn't be said in 1995 for a computer built in 1990.

Market competition and market maturity are the key. It is erroneous to assume that corporations intentionally engineer their products to break down, instead what is the likely culprit is they compromise in quality in order to deliver a lower priced product to the consumer because there is a segment of the market that demands such products.

2006-09-11 15:39:03 · answer #2 · answered by midwestbruin 3 · 0 0

What about technology that replaced the light bulb [LED], or technology that replaced inflated tires [low profile tires, tire slime].

I'm sure that you would think differently about that question if your parents worked at a light bulb factory or a tire factory.

I say technology should always be ground breaking but there isn't anybody trying anymore.

So why don't you go out there and do something about it, instead of sitting on your **** complaining?

2006-09-11 14:19:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Building a product is a balancing act (all engineering problems are). While some your examples may be possible, they are not necessarily feasible. Business make products to make money. Some last longer than others.

Simple answer-- no.

2006-09-11 14:16:00 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1 0

Without the motive of profit, there's no reason for anyone to take a risk in time and effort to create products to just 'give them away'.

Example: Soviet Union

Oh yeah, what Soviet Union.

2006-09-11 14:19:27 · answer #5 · answered by Joe Rockhead 5 · 0 0

THERE IS A WAY! if all mankind united to get off of this planet and expand into the galaxy.I'm serious. If we geared ourselves towards that end all of our problems would be solved.

2006-09-11 14:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by olampyone 4 · 0 0

all i have to say is common sense is NOT common.


oh why did you choose an ear for your avatar that's the first time i have ever seen that used

2006-09-12 07:31:56 · answer #7 · answered by babybro35 6 · 1 0

You are ignorant about economics... supply and demand. Thats your problem, not mankind.

2006-09-11 14:17:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

They won't stop as long as they can make a profit on it.

2006-09-11 14:17:56 · answer #9 · answered by Leon 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers