Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger 'piece of the economic pie', aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for governments to limit consumption. This idea is severely flawed because it reduces product safety and building products to last would harm the poor.
Firstly, the suggestion that governments should discourage consumers from purchasing 'up to date products' would eliminate the opportunity to improve their safety. This is because as technology improves, new discoveries can be used to increase their utility.
Take for example the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all been derived from a constant flow of improvements. Therefore if the authorities were permitted to limit purchases, car companies would be reluctant to invest in new features, and safety would never improve.
Secondly, it is true we are consuming more, through ever increasing populations, nevertheless, the argument that 'products should be made to last' is redundant. If products were built stronger they would be more expensive. This would harm the less wealthy consumer, furthermore with modern technology these products can often be recycled at a later date anyway.
Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are now collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Therefore durable products are unnecessary and would harm lower income demographics.
To conclude it is clear that if the public sector were allowed to discourage consumption it would harm product improvements and ultimately consumer safety. Meddling with product durability would most likely harm the poor. Therefore I am strongly opposed to both of these notions.
Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger 'piece of the economic pie', aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for
governments
to limit consumption. This
idea
is
severely
flawed
because
it
reduces
product
safety
and building
products
to last would
harm
the poor.
Firstly
, the suggestion that
governments
should discourage consumers from purchasing 'up to date products' would eliminate the opportunity to
improve
their
safety
. This is
because
as technology
improves
, new discoveries can be
used
to increase their utility.
Take
for example
the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all
been derived
from a constant flow of improvements.
Therefore
if the authorities
were permitted
to limit
purchases
, car
companies
would be reluctant to invest in new features, and
safety
would never
improve
.
Secondly
, it is true we are consuming more, through
ever increasing
populations,
nevertheless
, the argument that 'products should
be made
to last' is redundant.
If
products
were built
stronger they would be more expensive. This would
harm
the less wealthy consumer,
furthermore
with modern technology these
products
can
often
be recycled
at a later date anyway.
Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are
now
collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled.
Therefore
durable
products
are unnecessary and would
harm
lower income demographics.
To conclude
it is
clear
that if the public sector were
allowed
to discourage consumption it would
harm
product
improvements and
ultimately
consumer
safety
. Meddling with
product
durability would most likely
harm
the poor.
Therefore
I am
strongly
opposed to both of these notions.