With each book comes a new perspective on technology. It is clear that we are consuming society who always wants the most recent thing available that is also better than the one before it. We are obsessed with the new and improved and many of us believe that we are characterized through what we own. We want to keep our status in society and make it known. When new technologies emerge and are released to the public, our first instinct is to immediately seek it out and see what the buzz is.
I have mentioned many times before that society is attracted to whatever is easier, and I consider this to be another case. The introduction of this book discusses how everything is slowly beginning to become disposable. Disposability makes things easier. We began by throwing out razors and now it has led to throwing out computers. It was inevitable that we would adapt to society’s new inventions, but now we must take into consideration what this is costing us.
I was astonished at the numbers that Slade threw out at us in the introduction. We see these changes in technology taking place, but we never think about the aftermath or where the old stuff goes. Slade discusses the conversion from analog to digital and how it would add more waste to the landfills. Many of these old technologies are not worth fixing or recycling and as a result, they are just thrown out. So what does this show about the American culture? We are leaving behind a bunch of junk. Are we to blame though?
Giles Slade introduces the idea that companies purposely “manipulate the failure rate” of products (5). Society began to see the first deliberate acts for obsolescence when the automobile industry was at its boom. Car companies were searching for ways to make cars more efficient. Technological advances, such as the transformation from hand cranked cars to electric starters, were constantly giving newer cars greater edge than the previous ones. While inventions such as these had great potential to increase companies’ earnings and the demand for cars, companies were still looking for ways to expand and sell more.
The second chapter of the book, Slade introduces the competition between Ford and General Motors (33). Each company’s primary goal was to gain market control, though they attempted this in different ways. Henry Ford was an honest man who wanted to make a made a model that was cheap and reliable. He wanted to build a car and stick with it. He believed that one should not change something if there is nothing wrong with it. Alfred Sloan (GM), on the other hand, was conniving but practical. General Motors was continuously trying to get on the same level as Ford. Sloan understood how society held material goods in such high esteem and took advantage of these attitudes that they held. GM played to people’s (particularly, women’s) weakness and began to make cars look more appealing. But soon, novelty eventually wears off. Which is why they gained profit by changing the appearance of their cars every so often, forcing people to buy new ones.
Slade also elucidates the idea of “psychological obsolescence”, using the Academy Awards and Billboard as examples (54). I found this part to be very intriguing as I have never made this connection with popular culture before. Companies have the ability to tell us what is “in” and what is “out” for their benefit. Society is almost being tricked into playing this mind game of the newer, better, and more hip than yesterday.
This section of the reading ended with the discussion of “planned obsolescence” (79). Although at this point in the book the term has not yet been used, its definition has definitely been seen in our economy. Planned obsolescence encourages repeat consumption by limiting a product’s life span. General Electric was one of the first companies to manipulate this idea. By adulterating the span of the light bulb, GE was able to increase its demand and prevent over production. Now that they have control over how long the product will work or last, they have the ability to dominate a majority of the light bulb market.
For a society who is so infatuated with the new, we do not consider the repercussions of wasting. I find myself asking who is really at fault here. Although I think that society’s strive to be trend setters is its downfall, it is a combination which also includes a businesses’ greed. Companies will always have a need to gain profit. Many companies are run by a need to outsell their rivals. Does that make it fair to play on society’s distorted outlook of commercial goods?
Furthermore, I wanted to add that I found the timing of this reading to be very ironic. My laptop broke a few weeks ago (after only purchasing it two years ago) and I was forced to go out and buy a new one. This really made me wonder if technology is moving at such a rapid rate, that it is hard to stay informed and keep up with what is out there. In addition, to being very thought provoking, this reading made me slightly frustrated by technology, as I found myself being trapped in its one form of deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment