Livermore-Pleasanton's firehouse has
the worlds oldest continuously operating incandescent light bulb. Two thoughts crossed my mind. The first was that when the new curly fluorescent light bulbs were being promoted, one selling point (to justify their higher price) was that they lasted much longer than incandescent bulbs. But clearly that's not because incandescents inevitably fail sooner, but rather because that was a design choice manufacturers made. Of course they might respond that to make bulbs that lasted 100 years would be so expensive that no one would buy them. But clearly they once did, and the total cost of ownership for the Livermore bulb must be lower than had it been replaced annually with cheaper less well made bulbs.
A broader point is that we have come to accept built-in obsolescence. Indeed it was a phrase I heard my parents use fairly frequently as they lamented a general decline in product quality, but it's one you hear less and less often. We simply take it for granted. The DVD burner I bought in 2008 stopped working properly last year, resolutely refusing to give back the disk unless it was poked with a sharp object, and while frustrating, I didn't think it at all unusual.
I wonder what the world would look like if we only bought things that lasted? (I still wear the Grensons I bought for $130 in 1986 and I expect them to outlast me). How much economic growth is attributable to product replacement? Would China's economic resurgence have been possible without our appetite for ever cheaper 'disposable' (often supposedly 'durable') goods?
