[akira2501]

> the most effective way of recycling is to limit your purchases altogether.

This has always been true. There's just been a lot of "feel good" marketing around this point to beguile the market out of this rather common sense in the past few decades.

> Then turn to the recycling industry and maybe it will find a way back.

Putting my curmudgeon hat on for a second, I remember a time when we used to make products with high enough quality and durability that they would either last nearly a lifetime or get repaired when they didn't.

[woodruffw]

> Putting my curmudgeon hat on for a second, I remember a time when we used to make products with high enough quality and durability that they would either last nearly a lifetime or get repaired when they didn't.

I don't intend this as a slight, but as an honest question: do you feel like you correctly compensate for survivorship bias when looking back at how products were made?

I ask because, in my experience doing repairs as a hobby, it's just the nicer things that have survived. People don't remember the cheap record players they got as kids, the cheap tools, &c.; they remember the things that are still with them, which are the higher-quality ones.

Edit: In particular, it's pretty hard to repair a lot of consumer goods from the 1930s-1970s: they tend to use plastics that crack very easily and that aren't mendable, or are outright hazardous to repair (like bakelite, which sometimes has asbestos mixed into it).

[blagie]

My experience is that goods from before mass manufacturing are objectively higher-quality and more repairable. That's before cheap consumer goods of 1970, though.

There are at least two issues at play:

1) If I build something, I can do it again. I won't use ultra-thin metal which is likely to be damaged being welded, injection molding, or similar sorts of processes which require a factory.

2) I'll do a bit of overengineering. Modern consumer goods use the absolute minimum in materials possible. If you take things apart, it's pretty magical.

I'll also take care of it (and know how). If something costs me a week's salary, I'll buy fewer things, and I won't want them to break. If a gizmo costs a few minutes' salary, I'm better off replacing it. Maintenance is a nice hobby for some of us, but far from economically rational.

[clnq]

How would one snap out of being seduced by feel-good marketing?

For the last six months or so, I've been aware that I want to buy an iPhone even though I have a smartphone that fulfills all my needs. The cost for the value proposition of the iPhone is inferior to many smartphones, and for me, it has zero marginal value. I don't care about the iPhone's prestige or "lifestyle" angle. There is no justification for buying it. Still, it appeals to me, and I don't know why. This could be a problem if I did not have the rational faculties of an adult. And now and then, I read about a kid saving up for an iPhone and being very disappointed/regretting the purchase.

It's seriously hazardous that we no longer have a way to opt out of this influence of advertising. I wish we did (on reasonable terms, without completely withdrawing from society). For a while in the 2010s, minimalism and anti-consumerism became more popular. But looking back, they seem to have been more of a fad. Now if a kid doesn't have an iPhone in school, it's "cringe".

[SoftTalker]

There will always be a must-have thing in high school, there always has been. In my day it was a car, and somewhat less importantly, the type of car.

Prior to driving age, it was other things. But there's always something.

[nicbou]

Ad blocking helps a lot. I have almost zero exposure to marketing. I do not follow anyone either, so I'm not exposed to their consumption habits.

It helps.

The other part is to ground your identity in a different set of values. There are many circles in which frivolous purchases are a sin. There are many people who find virtue in economy and restraint.

[lancesells]

> Still, it appeals to me, and I don't know why

I wouldn't blame yourself. Humans are curious and seek out new things. Humans like things of "beauty" and Apple does an unbelievable job of marketing & product design.

[angry_cactus]

Everything else aside, iPhones are more protected on an OPSEC level.

[lotsofpulp]

>it has zero marginal value.

Sounds like it has some marginal value, otherwise, by definition, you would not want it.

[clnq]

I don't think humans are that logical. Feel-good marketing aims to associate buying, owning, or doing something with a pleasant emotion. Whether any pleasant feelings, added value or utility are achieved by actually buying, owning or doing something is beyond the scope of this marketing. And it often is just a false promise.

[animal_spirits]

Maybe it has a social value

[dendrite9]

I'd bet many of the older things were also disposable but the ones that lasted stick in the mind more. But absolutely we also moved towards less and less repairability in how things are assembled. Adhesives or plastic welding vs rivets and screws. I'm afraid I am not good at thinking about the question well, but is it better to have lighter cars that need less metal but in exchange they are less repairable? I get tied up in defining the bounds of the question so I never have a satisfactory answer.

A lot of the money in tech seems to be tied to the same marketing, convincing people to consume. The greenwashing is a problem as well, although I wish I weren't so cynical when I see a company trying to do better so often it seems to read as "We're making our X more green and efficient, so buy more of them"

I was swimming in a lake this summer with a friend involved in marketing when he made a comment about what happens when they run out of people's attention seconds. Do we make more, fight harder to retain attention, die?, or is there another solution.

[phpisthebest]

It is more than just marketing, the economy depends on people spending more than they make. The entire fiat currency system requires it is be fueled by debt spending and consumerism

[taeric]

Putting my curmudgeon hat on for a minute, no you don't. You imagine a time when things lasted, largely because you were able to ignore all of the byproducts and externalities that went along with them.

My favorite in this vein is furniture. Yes, if you use hardwood that is not legal for very valid reasons, it can possibly last longer. Or if you get a worker to use toxic paints and other hazardous repair techniques, it is amazing what you can restore.

Meanwhile, the true irony is that a household going through several modern appliances probably still uses less electricity and other raw materials than the older ones that supposedly lasted longer. All while not poisoning the users.

Don't get me wrong, early adopters still typically get bad products. But one need only look at modern lighting to see an example of how the old way was borderline garbage. Yes, the first led bulbs were bad. Same with early low flow toilets and high efficiency washers. Modern ones, though, are so much better than the older ones that it is hard to believe.

If you want to focus on the infrastructure, the amplifiers needed for old communication were ridiculously expensive and actually somewhat justified long distance fees. The repeaters of modern tech are far superior.

[agotterer]

It’s small in the grand scheme of things. But when I want something from Amazon that I don’t need immediately I leave it in my cart. I’ll build up my cart for a few days/weeks so that more of the items shop together.