Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
Post Reply
User avatar
Ego
Posts: 5380
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:58 am
An ecosystem has four components, which form a cycle: Abiotic (resources), producers, consumers, and decomposers. Modern economics only considers two of these relevant: producers and consumers. It ignores the finite abiotic resources and presumes that their only limit is the producers' ability to turn them into commodities. Similarly, consumers and producers ignore decomposition. Once our waste and detritus is dumped into landfills, lakes, rivers, and the atmosphere, and is out of sight, it is, for all intents and purposes, out of mind. Meanwhile, the finite planet is running out of its finite resources (duh!) and pollution keeps increasing and is starting to bite back.
jacob wrote:
Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:58 am
Without closing the loops, all this value gets wasted. Close the loops! :)
Questions to begin:
  • Would it be possible to incentivize decomposers to capture items destined for a landfill and redirect them back to consumers at a rate that is higher than the current system incentivizes producers?
  • Would it be possible to encourage consumers to desire these redirected items more than new versions?
  • Would it be possible to expand this beyond niche markets?
Patagonia provides a good model with their ReCrafted Collections.

https://wornwear.patagonia.com/recrafted

There is a small subset of consumers willing to pay more for an item adorning a Patagonia Worn Wear ReCrafted patch, indicating the company has recreated the item from used garments diverted from the landfill, than they would for a brand new item. Patagonia has dubbed this better than new.

In their 2021 Resale Report, luxury consignment reseller The RealReal revealed that Chanel, the most popular brand on the site, was follow by an unusual #2, unbranded items. A recent article in Vogue about this strange change said,
This is a site where designer names are often the entire point. “Brands typically drive everything for us, and this is that one area where that is no longer the case,” Sasha Skoda, The RealReal’s director of women’s fashion and fine jewelry, explains. “Every single year, our Resale Report has been about logomania, and this is literally the opposite of that.”
A shift is occurring. Consumers who once sought status through branded items are now seeking status with vintage and unbranded items. Again, according to Vogue,
“To tell someone ‘It’s vintage’ when they ask about your dress—that’s kind of a badge of honor,” she says. “We’re seeing this broader shift into more vintage and one-of-a-kind, and less of a need for logos and current-season pieces.”

The shift from brand to unbranded to puɐɹq

Would it be possible to flip the idea of branding on its head?

High end, specialty machinist companies have been remanufacturing parts and devices for years. The Remanufacturing Industries Council defines this as:
Remanufacturing is a comprehensive and rigorous industrial process by which a previously sold, worn, or non-functional product or component is returned to a "like-new" or "better-than-new" condition and warranted in performance level and quality.
Our resident remanufacturer @Sclass has created parts and solutions for his vintage Mercedes cars and appliances that are better-than-new. If a person were looking to purchase a vintage Mercedes or a second-hand Vita-Mix blender they would be well served if they knew it had been remanufactured by @Sclass.
4 U.S. Code § 8 - Respect for flag
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
As part of the remanufacturing process @Sclass could remove the Vita-Mix branding logo from the front of the blender, flip it upside down and reinstall it as a way to signify that it has been remanufactured. Consider it an acknowledgement of the dire distress. The Worn Wear buyers will instantly connect with this idea and may pay the same as new or even a bit more for it. That alone may be enough for them to choose it over a new one. Unbranded jewelry buyers may need a greater incentive.

How Crypto Changes Things (cryptoskeptics, please bear with me)

For centuries artist have been exploited by dealers and resellers. They create their work of art, sell it through dealers, then the subsequent buyers and resellers reap the lion share of the appreciation of their work. There are a few interesting crypto projects working to fix this. OpenArtSource, for instance, registers physical and digital works with NFTs on the bitcoin blockchain. There they maintain a transparent history of sales and - most interesting - smart contracts are written so that the artist receives a 5% commission on all future sales. Resellers and buyers are incentivized to resell using the platform to maintain the valuable provenance of the work, similar to how people resell cars or homes through the official DMV/deed systems to ensure future salability.

This same idea could be extended to remanufactured items. Let's say @Sclass's knows exactly which part were originally made to fail in Vita-Mix blenders. He can create sturdier versions of those parts and repair the Vita-Mixers himself or sell the parts to other remanufacturers for a % of the resale value of the repaired Vita Mix. This would all be tracked by the ebay-like sales platform which operates commission-free like a digital utility. As the original person who saved the blender from the landfill @Sclass would be rewarded with a percentage of all future resales.

As momentum builds and people begin to value remanufactured items greater than new items - think vintage vinyl LP records being more valuable than reissues - the incentives align. @Sclass is incentivized to manufacture more of the parts that were originally designed to fail in the original item. Others are incentivized to go digging though landfills for items to repair.

Would you be willing to pay more for a hand tool remanufactured by Jimmy DiResta, a trailer remanufactured by Laura Kampf or a custom tailored pair of pants remanufactured from scraps (with tags sewn on the outside, upside-down) by our own @horsewoman? What if there were literally millions of cottage workers each specializing in repairing items that interest them - doing what they love - all rated by previous purchasers on a free Amazon-like blockchain based exchange, which not only tracked sales but also all future value-added and resales.

Much of the infrastructure needed to make this happen already exists. OpenBaazar the peer-to-peer, open source, fee free version of ebay failed two year ago after crypto transaction fees skyrocketed and no one could afford to transact in Bitcoin. They were two years too early. Today the Lightning Network exists and is working well in El Salvador for payments. There are plenty of smart contract programs minting NFTs at near zero cost.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:11 am
[]Individually Actionable
[]Honest Society (meaning it would still work if everyone did it)
[]Can get from Here to There w/out a Revolution
[]Graceful Failure is Possible
I believe it meets the criteria.

Thoughts? Problems? I love problems!

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Well, since I have been an operator on the discard market (more or less) for around 20 years, and I was supposed (reassigned at last minute) to start teaching 8th graders about Producers, Consumers, and Decomposers in science class next week, I am generally very much in favor of this concept. Obviously, permaculture also addresses this in the realm of food where closing the loops is pretty important since 1/3 of food in the U.S. is wasted and results in further pollution through production of methane when consolidated in landfills.

One of my favorite books (I own extremely rare copy) is "Discards: Your Way to Wealth" by Mike Lebda (the discard king of Chicago in the 70s) and Dan Quinn (believed to be Daniel Quinn who wrote "Ishmael".) Chapter 7 is entitled "Where the Discards Come From."

Condition 1: Affluence
Condition 2: High Wages
Condition 3: Industrialization
Condition 4: Skills of the People (lack of)
Condition 5: Neighborhood Deterioration and Renewal
Condition 6: Technological Advances
Condition 7: Mobility
Condition 8: Consumerism
Condition 9: Planned Obsolescence
Condition 10: Technological Growth and Competition
Condition 11: Fashions and Fads
Condition 12: Trends and Movements
Condition 13: Governmental Legislation and Inefficiency
Condition 14: Big Business Management Attitudes and Inefficiency

Another couple conditions I would add to this list would be:

Condition 15: Death, Divorce, or Decrepitude (mental or physical)
Condition 16: Specialization

So, the discard market will look different in different places. For instance, when an apartment complex a couple miles up the road from my current project was recently condemned, the metal scrappers were almost immediately swarming it.( I was wondering whether there was an app for metal scrappers out there yet, so I searched and the answer is "yes", but they're not very good. )But as far as I could ascertain, none of the many humans who scrap metal in my current locale were in attendance at the library book sale at the local Farmer's Market where I scored some great finds along with a few other dealers. My point being that specialization exists even within discard market according to knowledge and access/preference of outlet markets. For instance, a flea market book dealer will buy very different books than an internet book dealer at a library discard sale.

One of my weirdo omni-scavenger nerd generalist fantasies is that I could possess the knowledge/skill necessary to empty any random dumpster of the entirety of its contents through one of the mechanisms of either permaculture or discard market model.
The condition of a product determines whether the discard operator salvages it, rescues it, or promotes it.
The production marketplace is a marketplace of supplying raw materials, manufacturing, distributing, and retailing.
The discard marketplace is a marketplace of salvaging, rescuing, and promoting.
In the production marketplace, businessmen tend to specialize in supplying raw materials, manufacturing, distributing, or retailing.
In the discard marketplace, businessmen tend to specialize in salvaging, rescuing, or promoting.

Salvaging is, of course, the finding of usable material among material considered unusable by its owner. This may also involve repair or reconditioning.
Rescuing is the liberation of material undervalued by its owner. Instead of being a damsel in distress, this a product in distress- a product going to waste, unappreciated. The discard operator rescues it, in effect, by finding a new home for it where it will be used and appreciated.
Promoting is the taking of material valued normally by its owner and finding a new owner who will value it even more. The discard operator promotes it form one level of the value scale to a higher level. In other words, promotion here is used in the literal sense, not in the public relations sense of getting publicity for.
So, there's obviously a good deal of overlap, but salvaging is mostly moving stuff from trash to any market, ]rescuing is mostly moving stuff from too small market to larger market, and promotingis mostly moving stuff from downscale market to upscale market. So, for instance, I generally rescue rare books by moving them from small market of community library sale to large market of global internet sales, and even on this huge market, some books are so niche specialized, blips of demand may be 2 years intermittent, so storage costs are an important aspect of this business.

Anyways, I am making this more convoluted than necessary, but first problem would be the usual suspect of "What is everybody did it?' or, more specifically "What if everybody became a perfect uber generalist operator on the discard market?"

The second general problem speaks to the reason why it is highly unlikely that everybody will become perfect uber generalist operator on the discard market. It has to do with the relationship between energy, materials, and information. Materials in their most elemental form don't leave the Earth system (much.) They just become less and less accessible and/or useful as they are broken down, mixed up, transformed, or rendered toxic. It takes Information or Knowledge combined with Energy to reverse this process. In theory, an extremely knowledgeable human like SClass could transform trash back into treasure powered only by the energy contained in the lentil soup/pb&j he ate for lunch, but this negates all the energy that was necessary to load his brain/skill-system with all that knowledge/information. For simple instance, there was probably a light bulb burning while he read his college textbooks. Another example would be that the 8th graders I have been teaching waste a lot of school supplies, so another teacher and I were admonishing them "Save a tree!" and "Trees are the lungs of the Earth!", and I jokingly asked her "How many trees worth of supplies do you think it is going to take us to teach these kids that trees are the lungs of the Earth? " IOW, infinite recycling/reuse of material is possible, but only with infinite energy/information.*

OTOH, the problem we are facing is not necessarily infinite. Maybe it maxes out at 10 billion humans each craving $40,000 worth of value per year with current global median income only being about 1/10th of this. We'll see what happens, what rematerializes, as the slum kids in developing region mega-cities get access to high functioning metal scrapper apps on their smart phones.

*Another way to see this is to consider a lifestyle model which allows/requires you to do nothing but lounge about all day, only allows for $10,000 of spending in open market, but also provides you with your choice of another human who is required to do your bidding 40-60 hours/week. Will you choose SClass** or one of the 8th graders I currently strive to educate or throw a dart in crowd? Which choice is likely to more immediately provide you with something roughly equivalent to a $40,000 lifestyle purchased directly on the open market?

** Or part-time access to 3 different grouchy old engineers, as I attempted through my misguided rogue XNTP schemes (which still at least serve to keep me somewhat amused in The Meanwhile :lol: )

Toska2
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Toska2 »

I distinctly remember an article about third world countries complaining on how used clothes were newer yet of lower quality.

A forum member(s) metioned computer boards making washing machines, stoves and cars irreplaceable.

IOW, current businesses and government are fighting right to repair. This concept works best if self contained, the builder is the repairer. One would be inclined to build things to be repaired. An example of why this is a nonstarter, cars are never advertised as having common & simple parts.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 5380
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:11 am
- first problem would be the usual suspect of "What is everybody did it?' or, more specifically "What if everybody became a perfect uber generalist operator on the discard market?"
Well, two things come to mind. There is so much non-consumable stuff already in existence that is perfectly functional. Couches that are out of style. Clothing that has stains. Tarnished cutlery. Dog toys. If everyone did it then we wouldn't need new versions of this stuff that already exists. Of course, people would have to want this old stuff more than new stuff. That shift is beginning to occur. Take a look at grailed.com. People are paying a premium for anything old. From any period except the most recent.

So, if everyone did it then the limits would be the other points of friction in the system. Transporting the newly recovered couch to the new owner. Tailoring the military uniform pants to a women's size 6. Repairing the 5 cent sensor in a washing machine that is otherwise perfect. Rather than trading something imported from a land far far away, the product would be the value added by an actual human being who receives the entire benefit. Not X-corp or Y-country. You would pay @Sclass's crypto wallet directly. No fees. Rent seeking minimized or eliminated.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:11 am
The second general... It has to do with the relationship between energy, materials, and information.
First, I don't believe that everyone needs to be an uber generalist. Specialists are necessary.

Energy: It seems to me that the person repairing or repurposing somethin is using a lot less energy than the creation of something new.
Materials: Same as above.
Information:
Toska2 wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:13 pm
IOW, current businesses and government are fighting right to repair. This concept works best if self contained, the builder is the repairer.
https://youtu.be/K1A9y4S60kg The more we do it the better we get.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by jacob »

viewtopic.php?t=12011 ?

But what you're really looking for is upgrading commercial massproduced stuff while finding a way (blockchain) to protect IP?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego wrote:Energy: It seems to me that the person repairing or repurposing somethin is using a lot less energy than the creation of something new.
Yes, generally less energy, but more skilled (information pre-loaded) labor. In the short course I took on the flows through society of water, energy, and food, it was often labor that became the sticking point in real life studies or experiments. For instance, my current rule-of-thumb, given my other priorities for life-energy usage, my experience with turnover, postage and storage costs/hassles, and the mechanisms of the markets in which I am currently operating, is that I will not even pick up a book out of a free box if I can't resell it for at least $15. An example from the course I took would be that it is profitable to repurpose sugar cane refuse towards ethanol in low wage, high sunshine realms, but it is not profitable to repurpose corn leavings into ethanol in high wage, low sunshine realms.

OTOH, if I was rolling a bit more free and easy, I might even consider and enjoy engaging in activities as minimally lucrative as accumulating a box full of all the singleton socks I fairly frequently (why? I do not know) find on the side of the road while Scavenger Walking, and eventually crafting them all into storybook puppets I could market on Etsy. I hired my own kids to work for my book business when they were teenagers, and on the rare occasion my DD would complain about wanting more money for something or another, I would make suggestions like "Well, I would be happy to give you a ride to to a few rummage sales where you could search for ugly old wool sweaters and then unknit them into balls of yarn for resale." The possibilities are infinite, but the "paying yourself a living wage" possibilities- not so much.

It is also the case that discards to be repurposed are much more efficiently accessed in large consolidated clumps, just like the rule of thumb that applies to mining a brand new discovered near-to-the-surface giant lump of gold ore vs vacuuming up road dust off the side of the highway and then using chemistry to sift for tiny bits of gold. So, for instance, it is much more lucrative for me to drive 3 hours to attend a large library book sale then to spend 8 hours at random garage sales where I might find some books. Further evidence that the possibilities for profit in such a field are limited would be the fact that I have been doing this for almost 20 years, and the overlap of other dealers that I might encounter at any given sale in 3 hour radius over the last 20 years is pretty huge. There are very few dealers who do not have some other means of support, spouse with more lucrative profession, brick and mortar shop which also makes money selling expensive (obviously non-repurposed) coffee etc., or variety of lucrative resale outlets/items (for instance, young couple I knew who also specialized in scalping event tickets.)

Right now, for whatever combination of reasons, we are experiencing a period of labor shortage in our economy. So, even though I think dealing in rare books is also a good thing to do and more fun than teaching math and science to terrible tweens, I feel like there is more waste in exactly the realm referenced in the old UNCF commercials with the tagline "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" than on the rare book market, and there is currently an extreme labor shortage available to help, probably because most people who know enough math to pass the teaching exams can make much more money doing tech work for Mercari, Amazon, EBay, etc....anywhere that small amounts of electricity processed through channels of information can leverage larger efficiencies.

Toska2
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Toska2 »

I will counter with:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V2c1nPcQpqI

Odd thought. Decomposers need to be part producers because there might be no adequate substitute for common failure points.

Decomposers > better than new also also implies new fails before 50% used up or a total remodel into something new. Both are a strech as why wouldnt the original manufacturer do that?

tsch
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:47 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by tsch »

Ego wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:30 pm
Would it be possible to flip the idea of branding on its head?
Yes...I would add to some of the other early signals you mention: SDR Traveller (Jan Chipchase), who seemed to grasp this with unbranded bags which were highly coveted. Part of the cachet was that carrying one was supposed to make you look nondescript...yes, a $700 duffle bag to make you seem less of interesting theft target. And there's William Gibson's anti-brand heroine Cayce Pollard, though she paradoxically set off consumer demand for a branded jacket that didn't exist.
Ego wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:30 pm
This same idea could be extended to remanufactured items. Let's say @Sclass's knows exactly which part were originally made to fail in Vita-Mix blenders. He can create sturdier versions of those parts and repair the Vita-Mixers himself or sell the parts to other remanufacturers for a % of the resale value of the repaired Vita Mix. This would all be tracked by the ebay-like sales platform which operates commission-free like a digital utility. As the original person who saved the blender from the landfill @Sclass would be rewarded with a percentage of all future resales.
I love this idea so much.
Ego wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:30 pm
Would you be willing to pay more for a hand tool remanufactured by Jimmy DiResta, a trailer remanufactured by Laura Kampf or a custom tailored pair of pants remanufactured from scraps (with tags sewn on the outside, upside-down) by our own @horsewoman?
Yes. (Plus all the things that can be upgraded by selective replacement of a part here or there.)

I recently bought the "same" Revere Ware cooking pot my family owned as a child because I've never been able to find one with the same (perfect) size and weight in a similar BIFL form. It would have been a pleasure for me if the person who recognized it, rescued it, and polished it up, would continue to get something when it eventually moves on to other hands. Though I don't understand how it gets attached to the object (engravings? etc.), or what happens when people in the object's life pass away. Do the tinkerer's descendents continue to get value over the centuries.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 5380
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:17 am
But what you're really looking for is upgrading commercial massproduced stuff while finding a way (blockchain) to protect IP?
Yes, actually the idea is to engage the natural desire people have to create a legacy. Their feedback is something they can point to in the future when others ask, "....and what did you do about it?" Their family can benefit for as long as the stuff exists. Like tsch says here...
tsch wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:25 am
Do the tinkerer's descendents continue to get value over the centuries.
tsch wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:25 am
Though I don't understand how it gets attached to the object (engravings? etc.)
Yeah, I am not sure about this one. The art world is working on solutions. Once they get it figured out it will trickle down to other things.

For a few hundred years there have been regional systems in place that tracks high-end art sales and restorations, similar to real-estate property deeds. But it was hard to maintain and distribute that kind of data over geography and generations. And they were unique, one-of-a-kind items. Toasters are not.

Blockchains make data maintenance practically automatic and distribution all pervasive. Today everyone everywhere can know everything about the history of the most trivial item and the system doing the work is virtually free. The technology now exists. The ability to permanently mark an item in a uncounterfeitable means will have to follow.

Blackjack
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:36 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Blackjack »

So how does it scale fairly with multiple fixes? Say I buy one a xᴉɯɐʇᴉʌ from Sclass, and I use it for many years, but then i accidentally knock it off the counter onto a concrete slab floor. Sclass repaired the initial break, but now I need to go another local artisan, to repair the broken display (its originally a new fancy vitamix, apparently) and it is re-rebranded as an xᴉɯɐʇᴉʌ-un.

Have transaction fees doubled now? Or is Sclass now entitled to only half the transaction fees per sale as we should keep the transaction fee as a constant % compared to the value of the good? Obviously the first bit can't work, as we would be disincentivized to buy and sell more-repaired goods because of the higher transaction costs. But OTOH Sclass made a brilliant fix in this case, it was the case of the user that caused the machine to need a second fix.

Lets also take the second case into account, where the gear fix from Sclass fails (as he didn't have the proprietary gearing form quite correct and so the piece eventually failed). If we have it repaired again by the second artisan, should we remove Sclass from the stake, and move the transaction cost fully to the second artisan?

Or should it maybe also just be the latest fixer on the project that receives the transaction costs going forwards (seems easy to game/manipulate but this is a thought experiment so lets just pretend people are honest for now).

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by jacob »

Companies could essentially do this themselves by slapping on upgraded (or greenwashed) parts on refurbished products. Currently the only benefit buying refurbished is that it's cheaper and that one is unlikely to buy a lemon.

The downside of building legacy into repair is that consumer grade products are built of components chosen to fail at roughly the same time. Hence, one something starts breaking, it's a neverending slide. This is not the case for professional grade products that often come with exploded parts diagrams and a way to order them. (My scroll saw is a fairly old design that has remained unchanged during IIRC three different buy-outs ... so it's sold under a new name but still the same machine.)

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 5380
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Ego »

Blackjack wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:43 am
So how does it scale fairly with multiple fixes?

Have transaction fees doubled now? Or is Sclass now entitled to only half the transaction fees per sale
I am not sure. What do you think? The longer Jacob's scroll saw exists the rarer it is and (in theory) the more valuable it becomes so Sclass is getting a smaller percentage of a larger pie. He also gets the reputational benefits which we have been trained to crave. Some of that reputation can in theory be carried over to his heirs as well.
Blackjack wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:43 am
Lets also take the second case into account, where the gear fix from Sclass fails (as he didn't have the proprietary gearing form quite correct and so the piece eventually failed). If we have it repaired again by the second artisan, should we remove Sclass from the stake, and move the transaction cost fully to the second artisan?
Yes, it makes sense that Sclass is removed if his fix failed.
Blackjack wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:43 am
...seems easy to game/manipulate
It is. Again, this is where the reputational element comes in. If a particular (blockchain tracked but pseudonymous) owner breaks many things that end up being fixed by @HandymanAlber1244 who claims the reward then..... I don't know.... there would be some sort of limit or consequences.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 5380
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:20 pm
Companies could essentially do this themselves by slapping on upgraded (or greenwashed) parts on refurbished products. Currently the only benefit buying refurbished is that it's cheaper and that one is unlikely to buy a lemon.
They could. And perhaps they should be rewarded for doing so rather than rewarding the opposite. Making a thing is more resource intensive than fixing a thing, which is more labor and ingenuity intensive. Harari said that in the future technology will free us to the point that many of us will be bored to tears and we will resort to immersive video games. The labor and ingenuity applied to resurrecting dead items may be better use of that time and attention.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Resources > Producers > Consumers > Decomposers > Better Than New

Post by jacob »

Ego wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:19 pm
The labor and ingenuity applied to resurrecting dead items may be better use of that time and attention.
One thing I direct my time and attention towards is building my own things with cyclability in mind, that is, I make things with an eye for the fact that some day they'll either need repair or taken apart again to become resources for other things.

Currently, there's a "right to repair"-movement tries to legislate and regulate towards this.

I've mainly worked with wood and extremely simple electromechanics. This is also where I try to cap my domestic "tech-level" under a philosophy that it's possible to see how e.g. an analog thermostat works whereas a digital thermostat requires special equipment.

A lot of what I've done (WL8) falls under the "appropriate technology" header. That's not exactly what you're looking for. Maybe AT is a 1970s idea, whereas what you're proposing is more of a 2010/20 idea.

Post Reply