The Infinite Economy – Obsolescence

(Note: See part one for a description of this series: The Infinite Economy)

(11/24/2008) – In part one of The Infinite Economy, I looked at the mechanics of banking and how our method of money creation creates an institutional imperative for a constantly growing economy.  In this article, I’m going to examine the phenomenon of obsolescence and how it has come to play an important role in building an economic system that specializes in turning raw, often irreplaceable resources into trash and pollution.

In once sense, the word obsolescence is tied at the hip to the ideas of innovation and improvement.  True innovation, a change to the established order or the way of doing things, by definition makes something else obsolete.  Over several centuries, the innovation of guns and firearms made swords, plate mail, and towering stone castles obsolete.  Cavalry became obsolete when we learned to put guns and armor on cars.  Its not that swords lost their ability to slice through skin, nor did horses become unable to carry soldiers across the landscape.  We just found more effective ways of killing people.

The printing press, electric light bulbs, metal ships, computers... all of these innovations have promoted economic growth, increased the standard of living, and I think have benefited society all-around.  The point is that there are many occasions when making a thing obsolescent is beneficial, because something better has taken its place.  Virtually no true innovations are planned, and most take decades to reach fruition, as the new invention or way of thinking is refined. 

The modern economy, driven by the need to make an increasing profit, has turned these natural processes of development into something plotted and planned.  In the decade and a half following the end of the Second World War, business and political leaders worked tirelessly to promote consumption as a means to maintain economic growth.  In The Story of Stuff, Anne Leonard describes what happened:

“Shortly after the World War 2, these guys were figuring out how to ramp up the [U.S.] economy.  Retailing analyst Victor Lebow articulated the solution that has become the norm for the whole system.  He said: ‘Our enormously productive economy... demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption... we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.’  And President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors Chairman said that ‘The American economy’s ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods.’ ”  Though some planned obsolescence occurred in the earlier part of the century, it hit the big time in the post-WW2 boom.

Planned obsolescence was born from the desire for people to consume, replace, and discard at an ever-accelerating rate.  The word “obsolescence” is no longer necessarily linked to “innovation.” 

Here are some different types of planned obsolescence, though some overlap with others:

1) Disposables – This wide category includes floss, razor blades, paper plates, diapers... basically anything designed to be thrown away after use.  The primary advantage disposables offer is convenience for the user.  You never have to sharpen your razor or wash the dishes if you can just throw it away and replace it with another.  The downside is that disposables are designed for the dumpster.  Seperating the metal blades and the plastic that surrounds them in razor blades is difficult.  Paper plates are often coated with laminate or wax, making them difficult to recycle.  Polystrene (styrofoam) cups can be reused in other products, but cannot be recycled in a closed-loop fashion.

2) System Obsolescence –  System obsolescence occurs when a manufacturer refuses to provide spare parts or compatability between editions, which forces the consumer to upgrade the entire system.  For example, every few years Gillette comes out with a new razor.  Shortly there after, they stop making blades for older razors.  Once the user dulls all of their disposable blades for the first razor, they have to purchase an entirely new system if they want to keep shaving because new blades are not designed t

The computer industry is notorious for system obsolescence.  Every couple years, when a new type of CPU or memory is released, it is shaped to be incompatible with older motherboards.  If a consumer wants to upgrade their CPU, they have to buy a whole new motherboard.  Computer cases used by big-name makers such as Dell and Gateway are very hard to open, which limits the ability to upgrade specific parts. 

The same sort of thing happens with software.  New versions of Windows or the Mac OS are made to be incompatible with older pieces of software, and visa versa.  Thus, the user must upgrade everything to replace one portion of the system. 

3) Planned Malfunctioning/Breaking – Many products are engineered to break after X number of uses, putting pressure the user has to go out and buy a new one.  Cars, mops, electronics, watches, appliances, and other relatively large products (compared to your standard “disposables”) are often designed with this in mind.  Engineers strike a balance between making the product fragile enough that you will need to purchase another, but durable enough that you don’t switch brands in disgust (though if each brand practices designs with planned obsolescence in mind, it might end up not mattering as much). 

Many products that are designed to fail are also designed to be unrepairable. For example, I go through a pair of tennis shoes about once a year.  After wearing a pair for a year, I usually have worn the sole flat with holes beginning to form.  The rest of the shoe, however, is usually in pretty good shape.  If I could repair the sole, I wouldn't have to get a new pair every year.  However, shoe companies don't want you to replace the sole - they want you to buy a new pair of shoes.  Often, planned malfunctioning/breaking begins to resemble an installment plan.  Instead of paying $300 for a pair of tennis shoes that lasts for years with occasional repairs, you pay $85 for a pair every year, year after year. 

4) Perceived Obsolescence – Perceived obsolescence is more subjective than the other categories.  When a razor dulls and can no longer cut hair, a new one is needed if hair is to be cut.  When a camera stops working, you can’t take any more pictures.  But when is something no longer fashionable enough to wear?  When does it become "necessary" to trade in your tube television for a flat widescreen screen high definition LCD T.V.? 

Humans have used possessions as symbols of status since the beginning of recorded history.  Ornate jewelry, cloths made with exotic fabrics, larger homes, and enormous tombs can be found in human societies across the globe.  These things are symbols of power, and help advertise social standing.  I think it is unrealistic to expect this to change.  On the other hand, if we change our business and personal ethics, we can drastically slow the rate of turnover.  And, perhaps, change the standards of status in a way that places sustainability on a high pedestal.

Although planned obsolescence makes a lot of sense from businesses and an economic system with an unending natural resources, it makes little long-term sense in the terms of a world with finite resources. 

How do we change?  I do not think it is necessary to put a halt to innovation.  Things sometimes break despite the best intentions of the engineer, and replacements are needed.  But if we are going to keep all of our resources out of the dump, things need to change.  Today’s engineers should recognize these realities and design accordingly.  Products should be designed from the get-go to be easily recyclable, more durable, and upgradeable.  Federal and state governments have given out tax breaks for energy efficient appliances.  If these subsidies are to continue, they should begin to take into account product life-span and how easy these products are to recycle at the end of life.  After all, a large percentage of the total energy used by a product is consumed before the purchaser even unpacks the box.

Some companies have already started to make progress.  Apple now offers to recycle any of their products and is making efforts to use less materials in their products.  Not only will this conserve virgin resources, but it will most likely save Apple money, especially if commodity prices continue to rise.  This sort of change – change that is likely to maintain or even improve the company’s bottom line – is the lowest hanging fruit, and we should pick it first. 

Eventually we’re going to have to change even more, and probably promote practices that cut into corporate earnings.  If they really want to make all the difference they can, Apple will make all of their software forward-compatible, and as much as possible backward-compatible.

Share your ideas of how to get from here to there in the comments.