The world is producing more goods than is really needed. The over production has lead to the wasteful use of energy and resources and damage to the environment. Through competition, more people are working harder to produce goods that are not really needed. We have too much clothes, electronic equipments and gadgets and too little time (due to long working hours) to enjoy them.
We work longer hours to keep our job, but in the process cause other people to lose their jobs, because they work in "less efficient" businesses or countries.
Is this called "prosperity and affluence" ?
Tan Kin Lian
REX comments as follows,
ReplyDeleteYup, too many goods are produced. In fact too many shopping centres too, selling the same boring stuffs (ION,312,Central, what's the difference? all struggling to compete)
The government's solution is to flood the place with 2 million more new comers to mop up the excess goods. If it works then there is no issue. If it doesn't than we have a double whammy - too many goods AND too many people. Dangerous gamble.
REX
The amount of resources our planet has is limited. Some of the resources can be re-generated but they may take extended periods of time for re-generation. I am concerned that we are consuming resources faster than what nature can replenish.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is for the future generations and I hope that in our small ways, we can all contribute by consuming less and in more responsible ways. If everyone does his/her part, in aggregate we can all make a difference in preserving resources for the future generations.
I've always thought the world lost touch with fundamentals a long time ago - not just now. But the problem - what can you do about it? Just go along and try and adapt and make a living. :(
ReplyDeletethe government would consider such views as that of a communist
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we are at the end of the "value" or "supply" chain.
ReplyDeleteWith prosperity and affluence, it also contribute to our wasteful attitudes.
For instance, we purchase the best quality pots made of the high quality thick stainless materials. It cost us a few hundreds $ per set.
When the plastic handle get burnt, many throw away the whole pot. Sometime you can't even get a karang guni to buy the stainless steel. I was told a karang guni man needs a license from ENV to operate.
Just because we cannot purchase a plastic handle to replace, we throw away the high quality stainless pot. Just because we cannot get a karang guni man to buy the stainless steel pot without a handle, we decide not to re-cycle the material.
In China and certain other developing countries, you can easily find a replacement plastic handle. It could be because they manufacture such parts. The same stainless steel pot could be used for another 10~15 years.
It is also easy to find a karang guni man. Their Govt. do not control them by issuing licenses. If really the pot is badly stained, it can be readily sold to a karang guni man.
We are really disadvantaged being at the end of the supply / value chain.
But are we also being "forced" to have a wasteful mindset just because of unnecessary policies?
More generally, for many consumer items, repairs cost more than its replacement, often better than its original. For example, our telecommunications providers are willing to give away handphones for free to keep customers for another one or two years. In such cases, why spend money to repair? Similar observations can be made for other electrical appliances and furniture, where it is more cost-effective to just replace. This causes a lot of waste.
ReplyDeleteManufacturers of course would like consumers to buy as much as they can. There have been reports that many manufacturers design their products to fail shortly after the warranty period is over, so as to boost demand for their new products. I suppose many people would have noticed that the things they buy don't seem to last as long as they used to be. While good for the companies, it means that a lot of waste is generated.
Rex comments as follows,
ReplyDeletere the last mail about purposely designing a product to fail, i do observ that in the last 3 to 4 years years i have changed pc keyboard at least 4 times! After using for half a year or so, some keys don't work (usually "M", i don;t know why). Exactly the same irritating problem! Last week i just bought another one (i pay from $20 to $70.. my most expensive one was the wireless one $70 which broke down after a year, now i just go for cheapo's since they are going to fail anyway).
Now i am trying genius.net keyboard.
REX
Everybody is at it. Financial Fraud, this fraud, that fraud. This is becoming a culture of fraud. There are no experts like the Y2K coming out to warn consumers about how manufacturers join in the bandwagon to defraud consumers. It is also difficult to classify it as fraud since designing a product to fail simply means installing a weak component that will fail the system in a certain timeframe, usually just after the warranty period. You see it in the way they designed the input cable of your laptop. Instead of a sturdy metal rim well fastened, it now sits on the multilayer motherboard without much support. Regular plugging and unplugging will cause a catastrophic failure which will result in having to fork out several hundred dollars to replace the entire motherboard. So one will rather pay a thousand dollars for a new laptop. The result is more waste and happier sellers and the feeling that we are in a golden period.
ReplyDeleteIt is a consumer's decade.
ReplyDeleteFrom clothes to cars.
The more we consume, more jobs can be created.
Already there is over 4 billion people on this earth, and all international institution's focus is to CREATE JOBS.
Not all humans can become white-collared workers and be investment bankers etc. Most, if not all can work in factories and produce things... even in the farms. The fastest way to get people busy with work is to manufacture things.
The Industrial Revolution has created the impetus and this will go on till the earth meets its doom and along with it, humans.
President Chavez said it well when he critisied the Copenhagen meeting for climate change: If climate was like the financial crisis, all nations will readily agree to put in the effort to resolve issues.
There is nothing any individual can do effectively. There is a view that each of us can contribute to saving the earth. This is Romantic at best, and morally acceptable.
But, our fate is sealed.
Enjoy the moment and live comfortably.Everything is affordable nowadays. Death will come ever slowly, you and I will not even realise it.