As some of you know, I’ve been working on a theory of obsolescence. I dont have it very well developed, but I’ve been talking about it, if only to spread around the fact that I am working on it now, lest I be credited as a copycat after someone else comes out with a fully developed theory.
In any case, this topic will probably take more space on this blog as I get around to filling the theory out and work on the details. In the mean time, you might want to listen to this podcast:
The Leonard Lopate Show interviews Giles Slade (mp3)
If human history reserves a privileged place for the Egyptians because of their rich conception of the afterlife, what place will it reserve for the people who, in their seeming worship of convienence and greed, left behind mountains of electronic debris?
Its a really interesting interview, and discusses the rise of planned obsolescence in consumer culture, the role of women and Sputnik in legitimizing the practice, and the future of technological waste. Slade just published a book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, which I just ordered and am looking forward to reading over the summer. It deals mainly with the consumer aspects of obsolescence, so I think my philosophical theory is safe.
For now.
For sure the economic principle of obsolescence is key to a consumer culture. The real issue is in how it is characterized. I do not want to buy a new DVD player every 2 years but it would be unfortunate were there not a better one out there by that time. This is technological progress; not to be confused with cultural progress nor to be cited as some root cause of the erosion of our society . . . if you buy into that whole “things were just better they were more decent” line. I do have to wonder though why the subtitle of Slades’s book is not Technology and Obsolescenece in America, Japan, etc (the First World). Still it’s just like Romulox king of the Tarpeople said: “sure man take it . . . it’s old.”
He’s a Canadian, but he discusses the unique position of America with respect to consumer culture and obsolescence in the interview. BTW, iPods, which are expensive as hell and shitty in just about all respects except style and design (which is why they are so expensive) are designed to break down after about a year. So are most cell phones. I’m not so sure this is progress, except in the sense that producers have trained us to accept planned obsolescence in order to keep spending money on the same old shit.
In any case, the problem with planned obsolescence is that it is wasteful and produces inferior, temporary products; it has almost nothing to do with nostalgia for better times past.
Course not. I guess the best product, that which is not the shitiest, should usually win. Is it not usually the most expensive since recurring sales/consumer will be the lowest? BTW the i-pod I got for my birthday is almost a year and a half old and like most Apple shit it has flukes but it still works pretty well. I think the problem is probably that the batteries are supposed to die out after about 18 months since they are rechargable. But my Sharp DVD player lasted for about 5 years before the laser started to glitch out on some stuff and I’ve been using the same laptop for almost 7 years. I wonder how much of this technological obsolescence is motivated by the consumer ,who wants (because when you need something that’s a responsibility) to upgrade his system, rather than a conditioned lust for consumption? The nostalgia is kind of apt since there is an element of: “they don’t make ’em like they used to” in the way people look at shit that falls apart. That’s why you get yourself some cast iron cookware as soon as you make it big. The last thing you need is the handle falling off a frying pan when a burgler is about.