Planned obsolescence: technological product with an expiry date

From Industrial Revolution, technology has not ceased its evolution. And as the time goes by, this process is getting faster and faster that manufacturer companies are in the need of launching newer and improved versions of their products in short span. Sometimes, it responds to real needs or just caprices of consumers.

Unfortunately, in most of the cases, we have to change our appliances due to their technical failure and the high cost of their repair. In a way, it forces us to buy new ones.

Before watching the documentary The Light bulb Conspiracy - Planned obsolescence , I naively  beloved the fact that the life time of computers, cell phones, and electronic devices in general depended on how well we manipulated them, but it was a great fallacy; it does not mind if you are careful or not since it is a matter of design. In fact, in the video, it is explained that companies like Phillips asked their engineers to design their products so that they fail in a specific amount of time with the aim of keeping economy working well.

Now all makes sense; it was obvious: if they launched high-quality goods, people would stop buying, and industries would lose many millions of dollars yearly as a consequence of that.

On the other hand, those blamed for this legal rob defend themselves arguing that they do it with an altruistic purpose: to avoid a worldwide economic depression. However, for me, it is just a communication discourse that businessmen use to keep people in silence and be able to continue with their profit.

What do you think regarding this issue? is it an economic strategy or a fraud?

If you want to learn more about this controversial topic, click here.

The perceived technological obsolescence and its social cost

For this year, it was expected that the Blackberry London, Samsung Galaxy Note III, and i-Phone 5 were launched the market; what caused high degrees of anxiety in consumers addicted to Smartphones since their numerous new applications promised to  exceed their previous versions. But what is the aim of those people at buying another telephone if their old ones are supposed to be in perfect conditions?

This phenomenon of people buying goods and services they do not really need is a consequence of an economic system that has based its success in an active consume habit, which means that companies are forced to sell their products at any cost. For that reason, they spend million of dollars in violent advertisements that pretend to convince the audience of purchasing their new creation by exaggerating the advantages of it and highlighting the downsides of those already existent up to the moment.

The power of those campaigns are so strongly persuasive that most of the time they make us believe that getting the device is almost a must. 

As a consequence of this, every year more and more technological  wastes are being piled up in sumps located in undeveloped African countries where our rubbish is carried.

Nevertheless, in this respect, there is an aspect that is even more worrying, and it has to do with the fact that we decide to get rid of our gadgets not only because they are not working but also because they are old-fashioned, which is a stupidity! 

To finish, I would like you could reflect about this issue since we are all involved in the same problem: we are all unconscious consumers of technology that do not want to see how manufacturer companies and astute economists are manipulating our behaviour, so the call is to be more sceptical and less individualist; this world belongs to everybody, not just to the richest nations.

 After having reading this article, could you think in a more suitable way of making our economy sustainable without destroying our environment?

To know more about this interesting topic, watch this video

How Industrial Parks Have Affected People’s Lives

Both science and technology have allowed society’s growth in many aspects: education, health, and economy, among others. They have also led to the enlargement of industrial areas in many cities, and this expansion sounds good because of the big leap it means for the economy, but have you thought about the cost?

Living conditions in industrial parks are far worse than in other areas of the city. People who live near refineries, thermoelectric plants, and other types of factories are exposed to several chemicals that endanger their lives in many different and critical ways. It is common to read a piece of news saying that X amount of people were intoxicated because X problem occurred in a factory, and most of the times, this information refers to people who do not even work in those plants. Another type of news that is not uncommon to read relates to people who have been hospitalized because of lethal diseases that these factories produce.

Moreover, the government pays little attention to these issues. For instance, in 2008, the USA TODAY conducted a research regarding the identification of schools near toxic spots. Do you think the U.S. government was interested about this? No; in fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never undertook such investigation.  

It is good for a country’s growth to have factories and plants of any type; however, previous analysis and studies should be mandatory before their construction. If the government does not pay attention to this, who is going to do it?

If you are interested in the USA TODAY's article, check this website.