An entrenched need to regularly replace and renew the products upon which we rely is damaging our planet, and engineers must take some responsibility for this, writes our anonymous blogger.
As warnings become ever more alarming and predicted timescales to irreversible crashing of the planet ever shorter, I’m surprised by the widespread response to climate change. I’m not talking about politicians or big business, well not directly, but rather the man and woman in the street. There’s plenty of angst about the amount of packaging used by companies and even calls to give up meat due to its ecological impact. However, these always strike me as being window dressing at best and conscious self-delusion at worst. Never mind the amount of plastic cradling your new smartastic-phone-3000, why are you buying a new one in the first place? I’d bet that mostly its because “its the latest thing” rather than the old one being broken or compromised beyond usefulness.
This is no new phenomenon. A friend of Mrs Secret-Engineer’s has regularly renewed the contents of her wardrobe every couple of years since adolescence – whether the garments were worn out or just barely worn. She, and those who queue through the night for the latest big thing are the cornerstone of the conspicuous consumption that the first world, and increasingly the whole world, rely on to create power and wealth. The rather worrying downside is that its killing the planet. As ever, we need only turn to the motoring sector for clear examples of how this mindset is created and exploited.
More from The secret engineer: variety is the spice of an engineering life
Comment: Is sustainability sustainable?
The pre-war years saw cars as either luxury items or minimal requirement runabouts, the emerging comfortable family car being temporarily postponed by hostilities. As the 50s hit their stride though car companies had already established the idea of regular new models and updates to entice the newly affluent buyer into parting with their cash. The car had become fashion statement and status symbol, so long as you kept up with the Joneses. The double whammy came with the scruffy, cast-off cars being bought by those who couldn’t afford better, but crucially aspired to. Where to after this? The introduction of planned obsolescence. I clearly remember a consultant at one place proudly claiming he’d introduced a small recess under the crown of a certain manufacturer’s pistons. An additional machining operation on a car component is not something undertaken lightly, but this one virtually guaranteed failure after a known life. Chances are the car would subsequently be scrapped, meaning somewhere in the food chain a replacement would have to be bought new.
As a significant number of engineers rely directly on the perpetuation of the status quo for their livelihoods, any move to a reduction in consumerism is likely to critically affect us all
Look to the future and Tesla may well be leading the way, however not in the way its advocates would suggest. Increased complexity and integrated computing has been seen as the way forward for a while and Tesla has taken this to heart. All well and good but what happens when sub-systems go down or, as with your home PC, the software becomes unsupported? Whether intentional or not this is another way that a car can be forced into obsolescence, although it is too soon to see if this is a planned strategy. Regarding the present, I was surprised to see a fairly forthright environmental-change pundit on television suggesting, amongst other things, “if you buy a new car buy an electric one.” I remain highly sceptical regarding the potential ecological benefits, cradle to grave, of electric cars but this was not the main issue for me. It was that he missed the opportunity of questioning whether we should be buying new cars at all.
The chance of a sudden radical change in our buying habits and coping with the seismic socio-economic upheaval this would trigger seems as close to zero as makes no odds. However, against this there is the reportedly large probability of extinction. As a significant number of engineers rely directly on the perpetuation of the status quo for their livelihoods, any move to a reduction in consumerism is likely to critically affect us all. Equally though we cannot help but also be at the heart of enabling solutions. Whatever happens we are obliged to fulfil the requirements of our employers, but perhaps it is time some of us were a little less proud of our role in creating this mess?
Well said!! I’ve never understood the need to “keep up with the Joneses”. If it’s those older ones amongst us who have been guilty of just this attitude in the past, then it saddens me that the younger generation – many of whom claim to want to reverse climate change and protest loudly on those grounds – still seem to want the latest gadget or designer gear. Given that most of them can’t possibly afford all of this “stuff” without being heavily subsidised by parents, then somehow they need to refuse said funding, and instead start a movement to reduce excessive consumerism …. or perhaps the human race simply can’t – or won’t – give up the freedoms that past generations have fought and died for? Oh – and on a similar issue regarding climate change contributors – it seems that one big carrier in the US is offering “wine flights”! So they presumably fly around in circles for awhile while the cabin crew serve nice wines to the morons who think this is a good idea and don’t for one second think about the consequences of these unnecessary flights? It beggars belief – “booze cruises” are one thing, but “booze flights”? We might as well all give up hope now!
An interesting conundrum – burn more fossil fuel making cars which burn less fossil fuels. Thinking back to the 70s, cars had built-in obsolescence then – they rusted and fell apart and had to be rebuilt (or scrapped) after 10 years. My wife’s 2003 Focus is still (almost) rust free and with 150k miles, running (almost) as well as it did when we first had it 12 years ago. The makers are having to design in obsolescence cos they don’t fall apart any more. I had the pleasure of visiting Casablanca a couple of years ago. There’s a city that has ancient Mercs as taxis and trust me, you wouldn’t want a UK city to be like that now. The pollution was so bad you could taste it. As for having the latest smartphone-3000, you have to upgrade else your banking app won’t be supported. Infuriating, but they would argue necessary to keep us as protected as possible from cyber criminals. Getting out of this spiral to extinction is going to be a tad tricky, and we all know what the huge elephant in the room is – overpopulation. How would we support so many workers and how could economies thrive if we didn’t produce so many cars, clothes and smartphones? Answers on a postcard…
The answer to “the original David’s” conundrum is simple: the Chinese and Indian populations are thriving because they pay lip-service only to the climate extinction mantra. The American’s are reducing carbon only because they have such cheap gas that it is not economic to burn their coal, which they are now exporting to the countries that are increasing coal burn to produce the low cost power that economic growth needs.
The UK governments last proposal was to spend an extra £ 1 trillion on increasing our green credentials: a vanity project that is beyond comprehension to the poorest in our country who are paid pittances and see a deteriorating health service, roads and deteriorating prospects. Where are the ethical considerations when you need them?
Yes engineers have a role to play, and invariably the drive for obsolesence does not come from our direction. We usually do build in future provision for maintenance and repair but, it is invariably senior financial and marketing management underpinning and financing the work which drives it. As engineers we know where all the stuff to make things with comes from along with the associated costs and cnsequences, environmental and otherwise, but our advice is often sidelined in favour of short term economic (and sometimes political) savings or gain. The world cannot sustain continual growth and more consideration needs to be given long-term sustainability.
The main problem today is that you either can’t get the parts because they only cover for 5 years or less or it is too expensive to repair it. In most cases it is cheaper to buy a new one than have it repaired. This is surely the worst thing for wasting our resources. If I want to buy one drill bit, it is cheaper to buy a ten pack than that; this is waste forced on us to get new stuff when it is not needed. Most machines could easily be repaired if the design is made to cover it; but in most cases it is not. Even cars are badly designed for repair i.e. no room to move around the engine to work on it, lights now stuck behind panels that have to be removed to do what would have been an easy 5 minute replacement years ago. This is going backwards instead of sensible design which allows easy repair and should be standard practice in every thing we make today!
Yes – ‘the elephant in the room is currently overpopulation’, but birth rates across the world are now falling – possibly to unsustainable rates. Could it perhaps be that in 30 years time there won’t be enough young people to keep the global economies growing?
Imagine a world where no manufacturing industry exists to replace things because nothing wears out. No progress, no improvements, no income, no tax to pay for services. Yet population growth will continue unchecked because we have neither the will nor the bottle to stop it. When China introduced a 1 child policy there was uproar from the 1st world intelligencia. Yet plainly this was a logical first step to controlling waste. Instead of Save The Children, Stop The Children. Then perhaps obsolescence can be addressed, waste reduced. A new kind of ethics (the only way is..). Probably would need a world government to enforce though, so no chance of anything sensible being done any time soon.
A lot of commercial contracts insist suppliers hand over design information if they are unable to supply spares. If this was extended to domestic goods then an alternative supply chain would appear and we could keep our white goods going.
Valid point you raise Clive. I had a small front wheel loader with backhoe for use on my smallholding that I had to scrap. The rear axle differential failed beyond repair. The machine was old, but still got the job done. The manufacturers refused to engage in any kind of sensible conversation; It’s obsolete and was never imported officially to the UK and that’s that, end of conversation and dont bother us again. As an Engineer I found the whole process so frustrating. I tried hard to find a replacement (Globally) but eventualy gave up and scrapped an otherwise serviceable machine. A good step forward would be a legal requirement to make public, all design and manufacturing information when a product is deemed obsolete with few if any caveats.
Let me ask again The Engineer to show man and a woman shadow for the Secret Engineer, in the spirit of sex equality supported by you. In this case, the Secret Engineer is a she, so why is the picture still a he?
Great article, Mrs. Secret Engineer. The first attribute we should all be using in design for sustainability or DfE or design for a chance for continued life on Earth is necessariness. At least, that is what I use in my work of convincing engineers and business people to adopt the principles of a circular economy, where maintenance and minimum waste replace perpetual growth (the economists’, investors’ and politicians’ delusion), the obsession with newness and the impact of the nicely called “negative externalities”.
Blaming the youngsters for being irresponsible consumers or for being incompetent engineers is wrong, very wrong. It is my fault and your fault, older generations, for the following:
1. Obeying as engineers all the decision-makers who don’t know and/or care about anything but financial reporting, maximizing EBTDA and sharing as much as possible out of the latter.
2. Living and re-enforcing the consumerist “dream”.
3. Not challenging the economists, 90% of whom talk nonsense or fiction about how human civilization can survive and thrive within the biosphere and a finite planet.
4. Etc.
By the way, the youngsters just led the largest ever climate strike on September 20th, asking us adults to get our act together and save their future and the future of all life on Earth. We are responsible for the planetary mess, not they. We have to fix it. As engineers by designing, making and maintaining the necessary, best quality, longest lasting, sustainable products and processes possible.
In this case, as it happens, the reference to Mrs Secret-Engineer did not reveal the author’s gender; it was a reference to the author’s wife. We consider the ‘author image’ to be gender-neutral.
I see, I should have realized that it is Mr. Secret Engineer, as who else would use the eternal stereotype that it is women who drive mindless consumption and, of course, mostly consumption of clothes and fashion. Well, it was men who made us all consume with abandon, as brilliantly demonstrated in the BBC series “The Men Who Made Us Spend”. It includes excellent information about how planned obsolescence was invented and why.
In the end, it does not matter which gender got us here, we all have to change, urgently, the consumption-based economy to the maintenance-based one, maintenance of the human civilization in balance with the planet’s biosphere and the planet’s boundaries.
I am sorry to say that the image is a man. How about a fun poll on this subject: is the Secret Engineer’s image a man, a woman, gender neutral, other (?).
Of course, the Secret Engineer having a wife does not necessarily imply they they are male.
Mentioning Mrs Secret-Engineer’s friend was simply a case of referencing a real world example in the context of the point being made. I could have invented a male friend but the fact is the friend is female. As can be seen, similarly, the consultant who was so proud of introducing a weak point to a component was male, not because a woman would not do this but simply because he was a man. Equally, from a recent piece, it may be deduced that I am personally very glad to be living in a world where the existence of Mrs Secret-Engineer does not in itself define my own gender.
Agree Stuart and Secret Engineer, I apologize for not making my point clearer on why I use the stereotype about men against the stereotype about women, defined as men believing that women are the biggest consumers and mostly consumers of fashion and other useless stuff.
I am also happy to live in that world, Secret Engineer.