Circles

There are many paths that society can follow to provide the goods that people want. The modern industrial road can be seen as circular.  The cycle is based on planned obsolescence, which is the process of deliberately manufacturing products that are made to have short lifespans and thus need to be replaced. The beginning of the circle starts with the extraction of natural resources which are then manufactured into various products. The next step is to use the products for just a short period of time because they stop functioning or are obsolete. Then, all the used up stuff becomes garbage that slowly falls apart. During this process toxins are released into the environment, polluting soil, water, and air eventually damaging humans, plants and animals. The cycle is repeated over and over again. Joni Mitchell’s lyrics from the “The Circle Game” can be used as a metaphor for this process.

We’re captive on the carousel of time.
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came.
And go round and round and roundIn the circle game.

The oldest reference to planned obsolescence is discussed in Made to Break—Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade. In 1832, Charles Babbage, a Cambridge mathematics professor, described the concept of technological obsolescence as an inherent phenomenon created by the industrial revolution.

The first twentieth century reference to planned obsolescence was discussed in Understanding Planned Obsolescence—Unsustainability Through Production, Consumption and Waste Generation. The author, Kogan Page, an environmental lawyer, stated, “Justus George Frederick introduced the concept of product obsolescence in an article in Advertising and Selling magazine at the end of 1928. In it, he stated that it was necessary to induce people to buy an ever increasing variety of things, not in order to use them, but to activate commerce and discard them after a short period of time. According to the author, the principle of progressive obsolescence meant buying to be updated, to be modern, within the rules of efficiency and style, and not to use the product until it wore out.”

There are several other early advocates of planned obsolescence. According to an article in the Journal of Cleaner Production, “One of the oldest formal usage of the term ‘planned obsolescence’ was reported in a brochure entitled ‘Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence’ written in 1932 by Bernard London.  He declared that the ‘production-consumption-work cycle must be maintained at all costs to promote the economy.’” Eric Blood in Failure by Design—The Promise and Pitfalls of Planned Obsolescence added that in the pamphlet, “London suggested that products be given a fixed lifespan by law, compelling consumers to replace them and thereby stimulating the economy.”

Twenty-two years after Bernard London’s pamphlet, Brook Stevens also advocated for planned obsolescence. According to the article in the Journal of Cleaner Production, Stevens defined planned obsolescence as the notion of “instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than it is necessary.” Slade added that Stevens also stated, “Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence … We make good products, we induce people to buy them, and then next year we deliberately introduce something that will make those products old fashioned, out of date, obsolete. We do that for the soundest reason: to make money.”

Thus, one aspect of planned obsolescence is fashion or style obsolescence. The article in the Journal of Cleaner Production stated, “The concept of fashion is used in the design of products, so that consumers are convinced to replace their old product for a new one that has some design change. An example is the automotive industry that promotes superficial changes, such as new headlights to differentiate it from the ones produced in the previous year, but keeping the vehicle with the same basic technical specification.”
Advocates for planned obsolescence maintain that it is good for the current economic system because it promotes purchasing more and more replacement products. The article in the Journal of Cleaner Production stated, “Directly or indirectly most jobs depend on manufacturing, transforming through physical, chemical or mechanical process, components, materials or substances into new products. … There are authors who advocate planned obsolescence perceiving it as a tool to recover market share, achieve technological progress, driving innovation, seeing long-lasting products as inductors of slow innovation that can lead to economic stagnation.”

Another defense of planned obsolescence is found in The Waste Makers by Vance Packard which was published in 1960. He quoted marketing consultant Victor Lebow, from the Journal of Retailing, about the necessity of planned obsolescence. Lebow wrote “Our enormously productive economy … demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfactions, our ego satisfactions, in consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever increasing rate.”

Still another defense of planned obsolescence is that it leads to technological improvements. However, not all technological improvements are necessarily good for the environment. For example, Tim Cooper, university professor of sustainable design and consumption, stated, “the extra energy involved in replacing a car is likely to offset any benefit in terms of improved fuel efficiency in newer models according to Sweden’s vehicle testing authority.” Cooper also stated, “frost-free refrigerators have a higher energy consumption than conventional models, and the average new vacuum cleaner uses more energy than those being replaced.”

There are many examples of planned obsolescence. An article in the International Journal of Sustainable Engineering discussed an early example of planned obsolescence. The Phoebus cartel mandated the deliberate manufacturing of lightbulbs with shortened lifespans. Lightbulb technology had become so improved that “In 1924, filaments technology improvements made the lifetime reach 2500 h [hours.]  A strategy was put in place to impose a lifetime of 1000 h on all light bulbs produced. While technology made it possible to produce more durable bulbs, the decision of producers was to restrict the bulb lifetime by modifying the filament.” The cartel created testing rooms to make sure that the bulbs didn’t last too long, and they even fined producers of bulbs that lasted too long. For instance, in 1929, they penalized one company 304,000 Swiss francs.

The article contained more examples of planned obsolescence. For example, DuPont originally produced durable women’s nylon stockings. However, the company soon modified their nylon fibers to make them more fragile so they would not last as long and would thus have to be purchased more frequently.  Radios were another example, “Motorola created one of the first portable radios, which could not be repaired thus paving the path for the purchase of new versions.” The article added that “mobile phones are designed to last an average of two years.”
One way to carry out planned obsolescence is to produce products that are too complex to easily repair. Wirecutter is a digital product review website and publishing organization that is a subsidiary of The New York Times. Wirecutter reported that Daniel Conrad, a former product engineer at Whirlpool, stated that product features add complexity to machines and potential for problems. In other words, the more features that a product has, the more likely it is to break. The article also stated that “Stripped-down, fully analog, easy-to-repair appliances at the low end of the price spectrum are more durable because they are mostly mechanical, with few features—or really any extras at all—and far fewer parts that will break. These include some basic top-freezer fridges, freestanding ranges, and top-loading washing machines. … They also tend to have generic parts that can be replaced easily and affordably for long periods of time.”

Additionally, in order to repair older products, the proper replacement parts must be available. Tim Cooper stated, “The recommended periods for stocking parts are sometimes below the average life span of a product. For example, AMDEA (the Association of Manufacturers Domestic Electrical Appliances) recommends to its members that parts for refrigerators and freezers are stocked for eight years even though such appliances typically last for ten to twelve years.”

Complex products are much more difficult to repair. According to the article in the Journal of Cleaner Production, “Critical components that are subject to deterioration in service are so expensive to be replaced that it is cheaper to buy a new product. For example, breaking of bearings in some washing machines, which is one of the most common problems is so expensive and complex to repair that it is worth buying a new washing machine.”

There are other examples of deliberately making products that are too difficult to repair.  For example, Alex Lobos of the Rochester Institute of Technology stated that product designers “may use one large modular polymer or plastic component rather than 15 smaller pieces that must be screwed together, or use heavy-duty glue as a fastener instead of screws.” Another example of including a component that cannot be replaced is found in many electric shavers that contain built-in, non-removable lithium-ion batteries. When the batteries no longer work, the whole shaver has to be replaced.

Besides being more repairable, components should be produced from higher quality materials. According to the article in the Journal of Cleaner Production, “One method of limiting durability is the use of substandard materials as key components, such as plastic material that deteriorates easily, screws undersized that break down after a limited time, and others that weakens the use of a product.”

A major problem regarding planned obsolescence is that it increases the depletion of non-renewable natural resources. The authors of Cradle to Cradle, stated that  “According to some accounts more than 90% of materials extracted to make durable goods in the United States become waste almost immediately. … [the products themselves contain] on average only 5% of the raw materials involved in the process of making and delivering it. … The production of one ton of copper results in the production of hundreds of tons of waste. … The average television we analyzed was made of 4,360 chemicals.”

The process of extracting natural resources from the earth causes a lot of damage and pollution. The Gaia Foundation commissioned a report entitled Short Circuit: The Lifecycle of our Electronic Gadgets and the True Cost to Earth. The report stated that “a 20 kilogram [44 pounds] computer carries an ecological rucksack of 1,500 kilograms [approximately 3,306] pounds of environmental resources used in the manufacturing process. An ‘ecological rucksack’ is the total quantity (in kilograms) of materials removed from the Earth to produce a product, minus the actual weight of the product. … [there are quite a lot of toxic materials used in the production of electronics such as] brominated flame retardants. Some of these retardants “break off in the form of dust when computers are heating up even after only a few hours of use. PBDEs have been linked to immunity deficiencies and cancer, lead, cadmium, plastics, and mercury among others. A semiconductor fabrication plant (factories where microchips for electronics are made) can use from five hundred to a thousand different chemicals.” The report also stated that a study produced by Apple found that “the total greenhouse gas emissions for the iPad 2 was 130 kilograms [approximately 286 pounds] of CO2-e, split between production (66%), transport (9%), consumer use (23%).” An article published by The Restart Project, found that medium-sized laptops “represents about 263 kilograms [approximately 579 pounds] of embodied CO2e.” Therefore, frequently replacing these items places a strong burden on the planet.

At the end of the cycle, planned obsolescence plays a major role in producing large amounts of waste. A United Nations report stated that globally,  62 million tons of electronic waste were generated in 2022, including old cell phones and laptops. Many discarded electronics are sent to developing countries, and the metal components are recovered in unhealthy work environments that can lead to serious medical conditions.

Fortunately, there are options to planned obsolescence. An alternative policy is to manufacture products that last longer. University professor Robert Lund, Ph.D. studied product lifetimes and remanufacturing (an industrial process that restores used, worn, or non-functional products). Lund wrote that “From a technical point of view there is no question that longer-lived appliances could be made. This is freely agreed upon by manufacturers of these products.”
Thus, the world seems to be on an endless carousel of extracting precious non-renewable resources, manufacturing inferior products, contaminating the planet with their remains, and then repeating the whole process over and over again. However, keeping to the circular motif, lyrics from “The Circle of Life” song from The Lion King show a potential different circle that is more sustainable and better for the environment.

Some say, “Eat or be eaten”Some say, “live and let live”
But all are agreed as they join the stampede
You should never take more than you give.

In the new circle model, products would be made that last longer and when they no longer work well are refurbished. When they become unrepairable they would be dismantled and their usable parts would be used to  create new products. In other words, humanity would follow nature’s circular patterns of recycling the remains of older generations to provide for newer generations.

Lenore Hitchler