It is undeniable that we live in an industrious world where natural resources are intensively consumed. There is a growing notion that government should encourage people to limit purchasing new products. I strongly disagree with this idea because it compromises not only product safety but also its affordability. This assay will discuss these two reasons, highlighting two products as examples. Firstly, if people were dissuaded from buying more up-to-date items, companies wouldn't invest in optimizing their products' safety. Take for example the car industry, technologies such as ABS brakes, seat belts and air-bags were developed as a consequence of a constant demand for improving car safety coupled witha huge desire from customers to buy the latest car models. Therefore, the private sector should be always encouraged to improve the safety of its products by the growth of its sales rates. Secondly, for companies to develop long-lasting products, more expensive raw materials should be used. This will undoubtedly increase products' prices which will in turn make them impossible for poorer consumers to afford. For instance, the widespread use of cellphones can be related to the affordability of buying them despite the fact that more than 90% of cellphones should be replaced within three to five years after the first use. Increasing the cost of having a cellphone, justified by improving its lifetime, will deprive a great section of the world population from using such indispensable technology.
In conclusion, it is conclusively clear that if the private sector was allowed to discourage consumption, it would harm product improvements and ultimately its safety. Meddling with product durability will most likely harm the poor. As a result, I unquestionably oppose this idea.
It is undeniable that we
live
in an industrious world where natural resources are
intensively
consumed. There is a growing notion that
government
should encourage
people
to limit purchasing new
products
. I
strongly
disagree with this
idea
because
it compromises not
only
product
safety
but
also
its affordability. This assay will discuss these two reasons, highlighting two
products
as examples.
Firstly
, if
people
were dissuaded
from buying more up-to-date items,
companies
wouldn't invest in optimizing their products'
safety
. Take
for example
the car industry, technologies such as ABS brakes, seat belts and air-bags
were developed
as a consequence of a constant demand for improving car
safety
coupled
witha
huge desire from customers to
buy
the latest car models.
Therefore
, the private sector should be always encouraged to
improve
the
safety
of its
products
by the growth of its sales rates.
Secondly
, for
companies
to develop long-lasting
products
, more expensive raw materials should be
used
. This will
undoubtedly
increase products' prices which will in turn
make
them impossible for poorer consumers to afford.
For instance
, the widespread
use
of cellphones can
be related
to the affordability of buying them despite the fact that more than 90% of cellphones should
be replaced
within three to five years after the
first
use
. Increasing the cost of having a cellphone, justified by improving its lifetime, will deprive a great section of the world population from using such indispensable technology.
In conclusion
, it is
conclusively
clear
that if the private sector was
allowed
to discourage consumption, it would harm
product
improvements and
ultimately
its
safety
. Meddling with
product
durability will most likely harm the poor.
As a result
, I
unquestionably
oppose this
idea
.