/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15357632
Progress requires out with the old, in with the new.

Both of those pieces of shit should be thrown into the fire.

>>15357632
Dude no, we all need NEW cars to fix the planet.

>>15357632
Fun fact: in the Netherlands they wanted to replace the briefcase that's been been used ceremoniously for almost 60 years by the minister of finance with a more sustainable one.

>>15357632
>Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
I'm sure you can find someone who does and more over there's lot of other people already talking about it, it seems like you are using it as a distraction and don't really much care about it.
>probably contributes to climate change more than people driving their cars to work?
And you have numbers to back that up right?
>Imagine a world where you can buy a product, and you can know every piece of it is made to last as long as possible and be as good as possible.
Things that last forever or even very long time are by no means optimal for climate change or even the consumers at large

>>15358113
>Things that last forever or even very long time are by no means optimal for climate change or even the consumers at large
Please explain how buying one expensive music instrument for multiple decades is less optimal than buying and discarding cheap music instruments every few years. Same question for cookware.

Climate change policies are just grift by the left + ways to expand regulatory policies to grift through taxes and get kick backs.

If they cared they would just do Manhattan project style research into batteries, capacitors and nuke power systems.

>>15357632
There are main factors:
>hype
Popular activists depend on generating hype for their movement. They are glorified influencers/marketers. "Make ovens last again!" or "Right to repair, now!" aren't as "sexy" slogans as what is demanded from them by their agents and sponsors.
>Interests
Localism, planned obsolesce and autarky are't popular because implementing them may actually hurt bottom line of the sponsors.

>>15358149
The easiest route is that if the carbon footprint of the "expensive" variant is larger than the combined footprint of several "disposable" units then it's obviously worse for climate change. This is often true because the cheaper materials take less effort to produce and the items themselves have to be less robust. If you bought one of those briefcase mobile phones and then went and plated it with stainless steel to ensure it stands the test of time then you likely burned more carbon than just buying the latest model every few years without doing that. That's without considering the fact that overdesigning a thing to last forever like the briefcase phone wouldn't have helped it to stay relevant technologically so you would have doubled your wasted effort, not only would a more disposable phone emitted less CO2 but you still had to replace your phone anyways when new technology made the product obsolete long before the lifetime of either product was even complete. This applies to lot of products in multitude of ways. Longer life doesn't automatically make thing better and you have to evaluate these things on case by case basis and making sweeping claims just makes you flaunt your low IQ
Also you managed to flip your argument, no one is forcing you to buy products with short life expectancy some of them obviously are better and you can also hear climate solutions include these things so you don't exactly have even that shred of a point left.

>>15358174
>you have to evaluate these things on case by case basis and making sweeping claims just makes you flaunt your low IQ
I agree. That was my point. The next point is that the evaluation depends on how emissions and impact of emissions are calculated. These calculations are a battle ground for politics but even assuming good faith, markets are dynamic so the calculations can only capture temporary specific market conditions. Furthermore, there are paradoxes, like low sulphur fuel reported to be worse for the environment than scrubbing high sulphur fuel. The non-expert environmentalists seem to have no regard for such nuance. They don't know what they're voting for. It's a road to hell paved with good intentions.

>>15358256
>That was my point.
That wasn't your point though, you just asked me to prove some example as a gotcha even though your original point which was
>Imagine a world where you can buy a product, and you can know every piece of it is made to last as long as possible and be as good as possible.
Is absolutely false

>The next point is that the evaluation depends on how emissions and impact of emissions are calculated.
No it doesn't, it depends on the emissions.

>These calculations are a battle ground for politics
You are wrong board for that
>>>/pol/
>Furthermore, there are paradoxes, like low sulphur fuel reported to be worse for the environment than scrubbing high sulphur fuel.
Reported by who?
>The non-expert environmentalists seem to have no regard for such nuance.
What nuance? And why do you care about what some non expert thinks?
>voting
>>>/pol/

>>15357632
climate change and hatred for fossil fuels, is political.
there was an oil crisis in 1973. it highlighted how dependent the west is on arabs and russia, two groups the west would rather not see holding their balls.
this started the green revolution. this is why the focus is on fossil fuels only.

when you look into it, you see co2 scrubbing is ignored, other sources of change are ignored, the actual extent of any changes, and any criticism, ..anything really, ignored, because it's not that big of an issue overall. but political dependence on foreign countries is.

ukraine war highlighted how slow the economic dependence transition from "unfriendly countries" has actually been going.

greta movement (there was a reason it was called "extinction rebellion", but that whole thing would require its own thread) was great at reducing the price of oil, but now the war highlighted independence actually needs to happen if you don't want chinese be the second language in schools.

science is shaky, opposing views are being suppressed. but independence needs to happen. now that russia isn't just a beat-up old prostitute, and is actually biting, well, it's probably a good idea to get those balls back out.
but why a bullshit religion, and not just cut ties?

a lot of countries don't care. they're too small. whichever politician openly states they want to become independent from russian and arab oil would have to deal with
1.) claims of racism from opposition (and other foreign agents) - loss of some votes regardless of which party.
2.) accusations of destroying the economy - after sanctions/embargos hit from exporters (they'll lose the revenue anyway, might as well make it painful) and economy drops a few points as a result. if economy does better somehow, noone says shit. if economy goes down, which it likely will for a while, doesn't matter what the reason is, nor the long-term benefits, you get fucked for making the change.
3.) general opposition to change
(1/2)

>>15358340
(2/2)
this shit isn't that big of a problem in usa, as north america does produce enough, but europe, well,... germany was 100% renewable before the war
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-about-100-german-power-use-first-time-ever

before the war in ukraine started, germany dared say some strong words about russia and warned them about ukraine activities.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-warns-russia-over-ukraine-provocation/a-60121208

yet, not long after the war started, and russian oil stopped coming in, germany was back on coal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron-law-of-electricity-strikes-again-germany-re-opens-five-lignite-fired-power-plants/

and they were very reluctant to provide military support. they sent money, but only 30 tanks in total nearly a year into the war.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-war-how-much-does-germany-spend-on-help/a-64160984

global warming will keep on happening, one of the main reasons is concrete, however, as soon as russia and arabs play ball, greta will be forgotten.

>>15358340
>>15358347
to add a few notes about planned obsolescence,
it started in the 1920s, but it was envisioned a bit differently
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/789436174/the-phoebus-cartel

i don't think it's that big of a deal as an idea. it's used by the left as an example of "evil capitalism", but that's due to lack of understanding.
the whole nature works on principle of planned obsolescence. one of the reasons we die, is because it is coded so in our genetics.

the downside is obviously that your items last less than they should, but building items that last for a long time can also have its downsides.
a great example of this is alaskan boat makers that went practically extinct in a few generations. their boats live on, so noone is buying their boats, so noone is making the boats anymore.

you have to keep in mind that while single-use items do produce waste, they are different products to long-lasting items. single-use items can be made with less energy-intensive methods and with materials that biodegrade. think about it, does an avengers toy need to last generations, or will it be forgotten after a few plays? therefore, how much energy needs to be put into that toy?

taking the idea to the extreme, something like biodegradable scissors that dissolve after one use might not be that bad of an idea if they'd literally grow on trees.

don't get me wrong, designing items to intentionally break is shit, but serves its uses, even if that does mean that as a consumer, you have to shop around a bit and maybe avoid hp and android if you want quality.

>>15357632
If no way to scrap it sure, but if the company takes the broken shit to recycle it, it evens out to rent or leasing on products. Profitable business decision and might encourages detractors to learn so they can make their own that don't.

>>15358716
The physical equivalent of you don't own but are leasing the software.

>>15358723
>>15358716
>proprietary hardware
Inb4 spiritual successor to Stallman

>>15357632
Because they are either morons or pieces of shit.
/thread

>>15358113
>>15358174
You must have been too lazy to even look up what planned obscelescance is, or even interpret what it might mean. It's not to do with making things last, it's about not making things intentionally break. No recourses are wasted at all by telling microsoft not to intentionally make their computers go slow after a period of time.

Are you a shill? The amount of effort you put into your paragraph defending corporations definitely makes it seem likely.

>>15358340
Russia is losing their retarded war though, now that the world knows that the west will arm Ukraine any other country Russia tries to fuck with will expect the same and fight back instead of accepting it like Georgia.

>>15358716
>If no way to scrap it sure, but if the company takes the broken shit to recycle it
You can't recycle things forever. A lot of materials degrade considerably after the first or second recycling. There's also the cost of recycling to achieve the same level of quality of virgin materials and that creates a massive barrier after a certain point and requires a lot of human suffering (think African mines, Indonesian sweatshops, Chinese factories with suicide nets) to realize the economics behind your favorite products.
>Okay so don't buy those products
You don't have much of a choice. If the choice is between having a social life or being a hermit, having a job or starving, then that's just the illusion of choice for rationalization after the fact. No one voted for planned obsolescence and 99% of consumers aren't even aware of it on the level that they should be.

>>15359199
Nice reading comprehension you got there, the making things last part was for the other argument. "Imagine a world where you can buy a product, and you can know every piece of it is made to last as long as possible and be as good as possible."

Planned obsolescence was already blown out by this and wasn't worth addressing further.
>>Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
>I'm sure you can find someone who does and more over there's lot of other people already talking about it, it seems like you are using it as a distraction and don't really much care about it.
It's simply a strawman that environmentalist don't supposedly care about planned obsolescence as it's pretty ridiculous stance to take as it's obviously not true.

>The amount of effort you put into your paragraph defending corporations definitely makes it seem likely.
OP is the one defending corporations. Also countering this level of shilling doesn't even take effort, don't even need to research or fact check to point out the obvious faults in the argument.

>>15359397
>don't even need to research or fact check
kek! so true bestie!

>>15359397
The last line is irrelevant. If they really care about it would you be able to link a video of Greta Thunberg the person most famous for climate change activism talking about it?

Why are there no anti planned obscelescance marches? Why are they not demanding the government restrict it like with driving cars?

>OP is the one defending corporations.
How?

>>15359400
Hey, I'm sorry if following a basic conversation is difficult for you but so far you have made 3 basic claims all of which I have trivially proven false
>Environmentalist don't care about planned obsolescence (hence why we should destroy the earth)
Which is trivially false, they obviously do care about it but if you find sources supporting your claim I'm willing to go into further detail
>Phones cause more climate change than commuting
Which again is trivially false, a modern phone clocks in at something like 100kg co2, which is about 50 littres of gas which even for a short commute is only few weeks tops of fuel, switching your commute to an alternative would buy you a new phone every week or two, in some cases pretty much daily, consider phones life cycle of maybe 4-5 years that's laughably bad even if we were to assume I was wrong by order of magnitude (i'm not).
>If everything was built to last it would be better for the environment
The only part wort addressing since it's not actually a straight up lie or a strawman, which I also blew out.

>>15359438
>Why are there no anti planned obscelescance marches? Why are they not demanding the government restrict it like with driving cars?
Ironically there are these protests, but they're slandered as nazi/anti-whatever because it's rural right-wingers demanding their right to repair.

>>15359400
He's so right he doesn't even need to supply evidence

>>15359439
Humanity can, I hope, walk and chew gum at the same time... Unless it's all about something other than progress?

If it starts snowing tomorrow it's because we solved the Great mystery of 'Where'.

>>15359439
>Which is trivially false, they obviously do care about it but if you find sources supporting your claim I'm willing to go into further detail
Post a famous activist talking about it

>>Phones cause more climate change than commuting
Strawman/retard misunderstanding the argument
Producing billions of those things every year and shipping them has to be doing something
>>If everything was built to last it would be better for the environment
Strawman again

>>15359438
>If they really care about it would you be able to link a video of Greta Thunberg the person most famous for climate change activism talking about it?
Why do you assume everyone has to talk about things you want them to talk about? Can you link a video where shes pro planned obsolescence? Can you link a video where she denounces dissolving babies in acid? I guess shes pro acid then.

>Why are there no anti planned obscelescance marches?
Why aren't you marching for them? There also have been marches against it.
>Why are they not demanding the government restrict it like with driving cars?
Plenty of organizations are doing exactly that, maybe reach out to one of those and contribute.

>>15359444
OP made this thread with the explicit purpose of being a red herring, he believes that he can stop climate change activism by going "what about this other unrelated problem"

>>15359443
OP has not supported a single one of his claims and they are obvious fabrications. Provide evidence and I can go into more detail.

>>15359449
Post a famous activist being against it, or being against babies in acid.

>Producing billions of those things every year and shipping them has to be doing something
Well I again invite you to actually quantify that "something". I already said that the impact is negligible compared to your own benchmark (commuting). Obviously everything you do does something but it's about scale and scope which is why argument like this is just a bad faith red herring.

>>15359456
>Why do you assume everyone has to talk about things you want them to talk about?
Because it's a big problem for the climate anon. Millions of wasted products every year. It actually comes off as very suspicious that they're not calling out this tactic used by corporations.

>Why aren't you marching for them? There also have been marches against it.
Ad hom
>Plenty of organizations are doing exactly that, maybe reach out to one of those and contribute.
An example?

>Post a famous activist being against it
Stop deflecting please. Why isn't wasting so many materials every year a problem for the climate?

>Well I again invite you to actually quantify that "something".
That something is a bad effect on the environment
>I already said that the impact is negligible compared to your own benchmark (commuting).
This is both ad hom and ridiculous. How can one individuals actions be comparable to all of these factories producing these products?
>red herring.
Deflection

>>15359475
>Because it's a big problem for the climate anon.
Repetition isn't an argument. How big of a problem is it?

>It actually comes off as very suspicious that they're not calling out this tactic used by corporations.
I have called you out and am calling you out though.

>Ad hom
No it's not and you don't seem to know what that even means
>An example?
Google your location + planned obsolescence in your language, should give you a nearby result you can support.

>Stop deflecting please.
It's not a deflection. You came up with the idea that climate activists were pro planned obsolescence, prove it.

>Why isn't wasting so many materials every year a problem for the climate?
How many materials?

>That something is a bad effect on the environment
And your proof?

>This is both ad hom and ridiculous.
It's not and it's true

>Deflection
It's truth

>>15359492
>Repetition isn't an argument. How big of a problem is it?
How huge of a problem do you think the production of billions of unnecessary computers every year is? Probably very big.
>I have called you out and am calling you out though.
Why is attacking a business tactic defending corporations?
>No it's not and you don't seem to know what that even means
You're attacking the motives of your opponent rather than responding to arguments

>Google your location + planned obsolescence in your language, should give you a nearby result you can support.
Do you have an example?

>You came up with the idea that climate activists were pro planned obsolescence, prove it.
So you're conceding here that climate change activists are corporate owned and will avoid addressing business tactics that are useful to their masters even if they are harmful to their alleged cause

>How many materials?
The exact number is impossible to know and isn't necessary to the argument

>And your proof?
The factories producing them are using fossil fuels
>It's not and it's true
How can one individuals actions be comparable to all of these factories producing these products? How is this not attacking your opponent's character rather than addressing the arguments?

>It's truth
You're avoiding addressing it

>>15359512
>How huge of a problem do you think the production of billions of unnecessary computers every year is?
That is literally what I'm asking you to demonstrate. You sure love to claim that it's a big problem but seem unable to actually provide numbers. Meanwhile my numbers suggest that it's at best trivial problem compared to commuting.

>Why is attacking a business tactic defending corporations?
Planned obsolescence nets corporations much less money than evading environmental regulations does. And mind you you aren't attacking it, you are merely suggesting it might be a problem but refuse to elaborate or provide possible solutions, the weakest form of attack possible.
>You're attacking the motives of your opponent rather than responding to arguments
You asked why aren't there marches, I asked you why aren't you marching? That's a direct and humiliating answer to your question, furthermore I also suplex you by concluding that there in fact have been marches against it. More to the point even if I didn't do any of that, what I also didn't say that you were wrong because you are retarded, though you are retarded and wrong they are not linked (well I mean you know of course they are but you know). You simply don't know what an ad hominem argument is, that's a fact that we can independently observe here.

>So you're conceding here that climate change activists are corporate owned and will avoid addressing business tactics that are useful to their masters even if they are harmful to their alleged cause
No that's just another lie you made up. Again prove your point and link the video, it's that easy.

>The exact number is impossible to know and isn't necessary to the argument
It doesn't have to be exact number, an estimate with reasonable margin or error is just fine, and of course it matters when you claim that it's a big problem.

>The factories producing them are using fossil fuels
And how much of those are they using?

>>15359512
>>15359531
>How is this not attacking your opponent's character
Because it's adressing the argument, what I say is not true because you are dumb, you are just dumb and what I say is true.

>You're avoiding addressing it
I'm explicitly addressing it and requesting additional information several times. You are the one avoiding it.

>>15359216
yes.
but reaching that point took time.
the west completely abandoned ukraine when russia rolled in in terms of military support.
germany refused active support and pretended to be switzerland for a while until nordstream blew up.

this war is literally usa vs russia all over again, and ukrainians are paying the price.

>>15359531
>but seem unable to actually provide numbers.
But the numbers are impossible. The fact is is that thousands of factories producing billions of computers every year will have a strong effect on carbon emissions. Do you deny this?

>Planned obsolescence nets corporations much less money than evading environmental regulations does.
What is the meaning of this sentence?

> refuse to elaborate or provide possible solutions
Pass a laws to regulate how quickly products are designed to break, or ban it entirely but that may be more difficult
>You asked why aren't there marches, I asked you why aren't you marching?
Ad hom

>No that's just another lie you made up. Again prove your point and link the video, it's that easy.
You used a strawman by accusing them of being pro planned obsolescence rather than ignoring it. What video?

>It doesn't have to be exact number, an estimate with reasonable margin or error is just fine, and of course it matters when you claim that it's a big problem.
>Build – The manufacture of a laptop is between 75% – 85% of the overall carbon footprint, where the majority of emissions come from the production and materials used for the motherboard, SSD and display.
>The average estimated carbon footprint of a laptop is around 422.5 kgs,
https://circularcomputing.com/news/carbon-footprint-laptop/
It's hard to find a clear answer but hopefully this is enough for you to accept that manufacturing computers is harmful to the environment
422.5 * 75% = 316.875 kgs
>More than 272 million new laptops are manufactured every year
272 000 000 * 316.875 - 86 190 000 000.0kgs
Every year that is 86.19 billion killograms of carbon for laptop production and that's not even including the shipping

>>15359512
>How huge of a problem do you think the production of billions of unnecessary computers every year is? Probably very big

this is only really becoming a noticeable problem now.
the "unnecessary" production so far has been due to technological progress. in such an environment, building computers to last is wasteful. ironically, first computers were built to last.
the software intentionally breaking your shit is wasteful, and will be punished by consumers and/or legislators, but it isn't as big of a problem as you think.
a comp that gets messed up by software rarely ends on landfill, but instead gets referbed.

if planned obsolescence was as big of an issue as you think, there'd be a greater push to tax products based on waste they'd produce. keep in mind co2 emissions are already being taxed through energy bills.

>>15359598
>But the numbers are impossible
If they are impossible how are you able to claim it's a problem?

>The fact is is that thousands of factories producing billions of computers every year will have a strong effect on carbon emissions
Thousands of factories? Billions of computers? All of that is planned obsolescence? Any proofs?

>What is the meaning of this sentence?
It's in plain English.

>Ad hom
It's not ad hominem, it's answer to your question, the same reason why you aren't marching is also why others aren't. And people are marching anyhow. Again you are wrong and retarded, not wrong because you are retarded.

>You used a strawman by accusing them of being pro planned obsolescence rather than ignoring it.
I'm asking you for evidence of them ignoring it. Please provide some.

>It's hard to find a clear answer but hopefully this is enough for you to accept that manufacturing computers is harmful to the environment
So according to your own figures you could buy a new laptop every few days to weeks if you used a low co2 commute option. Mind you this is what you said
"that probably contributes to climate change more than people driving their cars to work"
Hopefully you can understand why being wrong by 3 orders of magnitude makes you seem ridiculous. Also you have not proved any of that has to do with planned obsolescence either, which as I recall seems to be your point, not encouraging hermit no consumption lifestyle.

>>15359598
we all care about environment, but carbon footprint is a bit bullshit.
they're ad-hoc estimates using subjective calculations and shouldn't be taken as fact, especially when you can end up with carbon-neutral oil companies and airliners

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-energy-companies-new-pitch-carbon-neutral-oil-and-gas-11634032800
https://news.delta.com/new-campaign-shines-light-deltas-carbon-neutrality

intentionally slowing down computers is harming consumers, agreed, but you have to understand that the numbers you cite are not due to them being replaced..
see internet usage growth, for instance:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273018/number-of-internet-users-worldwide/

releasing software that harms user's computer will only end up harming the company that does it.
not gonna lie, a lot of companies on my shitlist, but the items i buy now seem to last just fine.

>>15359629
>If they are impossible how are you able to claim it's a problem?
If these numbers are so easy to get why don't you post them and prove this all wrong?
>Thousands of factories? Billions of computers?
Proof of the factories is demonstrated in the amount of them produced, which a source is given for laptops being 272 million. You can combine that with televisions, smartphones, desktops or demand proof of the exact numbers because you're wrong and that's how you try to get out of this.
>All of that is planned obsolescence? Any proofs?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/04/24/yes-your-laptop-may-be-designed-to-die/?sh=7d1f33e71946
The first answer is that laptops, and personal computers, in general, are built with a fixed obsolescence. This means that the manufacturers are making them to break down within a certain period, requiring either a costly repair, or a just simply forcing the user into buying a new unit.

>It's in plain English.
Rephrase it please

>the same reason why you aren't marching is also why others aren't.
What is the reason then? Why are people who march for green power not marching for this?

>I'm asking you for evidence of them ignoring it. Please provide some.
You can't prove a negative, this is the limit of your demands. By some standards it is proven as you can't seem to find any examples of mainstream climate activists discussing it.

>So according to your own figures you could buy a new laptop every few days to weeks if you used a low co2 commute option.
You're being silly now, the point is the building of these laptops is unnecessary and significant to the environment

>Hopefully you can understand why being wrong by 3 orders of magnitude makes you seem ridiculous.
This is hilarious, you've failed to answer the original question of why Greta Thunberg doesn't talk about it and rely on demanding sources for every single little fact and ad hom to appear correct.

>>15359660
>but you have to understand that the numbers you cite are not due to them being replaced..
Why?

>releasing software that harms user's computer will only end up harming the company that does it.
Look up brand loyalty

>>15359661
>If these numbers are so easy to get why don't you post them and prove this all wrong?
I don't have to do that, it's your claim, I'm proving you wrong by simply asking you to provide the numbers and you failing to produce them.

>or demand proof
Yes, I think instead of schizoing out I will simply ask for proof. What part of that is planned obsolescence, surely you aren't stupid enough to imply that all production is allocated to that?

>The first answer is that laptops, and personal computers, in general, are built with a fixed obsolescence
That doesn't answer anything, even if a product is planned to break that's not a quantitative measure. If a product that would last for 10 years is reduced to 5 years and I buy a new one every 3 years then planned obsollessence had exactly 0 impact, in fact it might have had positive impact by removing excess materials.

>Rephrase it please
It's in English, ask your English teacher at school tomorrow.

>What is the reason then?
That's what I asked you, why aren't you marching?

>You can't prove a negative
It's not a negative, you can in fact look over the videos and point out that it's never been mentioned. Also insinuating that just because I'm not going to go trough thousands of hours of videos to find a specific mention of a thing you demand they MUST BE ignoring it is retarded. Again I challenge you to provide greta denouncing dipping babies in acid because if you can't find it that clearly means shes IGNORING THE ISSUE. Furthermore you aren't actually entitted to attention from an arbitrary person in the first place. As your own numbers suggest, the issue is at least thousand but probably million times smaller than climate change at large, not worth much air time. Furthermore after performing a google search it seems it's mentioned in her book anyways so I guess that proves you wrong anyways.

>>15359667

a lot of people are getting a computer for the first time.
with that, they can reduce travel they might have to make.

and brand loyalty is based on historic performance and lack of competition. it persists due to users hating the alternative.
example, not a lot of chrome fanboys around these days, despite high market share.

>>15359661
>>15359708
>You're being silly now
It's your own numbers, what's silly about them?

>the point is the building of these laptops is unnecessary
Proof?

>and significant to the environment
Proof?

>you've failed to answer the original question of why Greta Thunberg doesn't talk about it
I think I answered it just fine, your own numbers suggest that it's at least 3 orders of magnitude less significant than commuting and you used the extreme form of allocating all production to planned obsolescence which is certainly false. So if we are being generous the issue might be one millionth of commuting in terms of co2 output which is why people don't waste their time with it.

>and rely on demanding sources for every single little fact
Lies aren't facts and demanding a source is perfectly reasonable way of destroying them. If you think it's unfair that I demand a source for the claims then I will simply counter that Greta in fact does often times talk about it making you wrong. Yes this was revealed to me in a dream and no I won't provide a source.

>>15357632
Why don't climate activists ever talk about obesity? Agriculture produces more CO2 than transportation, and a lot of that transportation is just being used to transport food. You could eliminate more emissions by people just not being fat fucks than with electric vehicles. But no we can't tell people to eat less that's fat shaming and we have to promote body positivty and cut down rainforests so lardasses can get their burgers.

>>15357632
>Do they really care about the climate?
No.
Climate Change = scam for:
1. The rich left-wing elites and politicians to consolidate yet more wealth. (Wealth begats wealth)
2. For government to consolidate more power and control over the populace. (Government's sole purpose to exist is to make the Government larger and more powerful.)
3. To create a larger and poorer proletariat class that is easier to rule over by destroying the middle class.

>>15359708
>I'm proving you wrong by simply asking you to provide the numbers and you failing to produce them.
The numbers on the laptops are sufficient. You cannot prove your own argument that the numbers are possible to get since you refuse to post them.

>What part of that is planned obsolescence,
https://www.hggear.com/blog/average-laptop-lifespan
The average lifespan is 3 to five years, if you reduce the number by half you get 43.095 billion which remains a significant number

>It's in English, ask your English teacher at school tomorrow.
So what you said can be dismissed as meaningless and not an argument

>That's what I asked you, why aren't you marching?
Not everyone is a person willing to spend their time dragging attention to themselves blocking roads. Why are the people who do that not doing it for planned obscelescance?

>you can in fact look over the videos and point out that it's never been mentioned.
Do you want a review of every single video of Greta Thunberg to prove she hasn't ever mentioned it, rather than you providing evidence she has? That is demanding proof of a negative, it's ridiculous.
>t's mentioned in her book anyways so I guess that proves you wrong anyways.
Can you post a source? Why is it hidden in a book no one reads not a pivotal part of her activism?
>Furthermore you aren't actually entitted to attention from an arbitrary person in the first place.
Then concede

>It's your own numbers, what's silly about them?
What you're saying is retarded and doesn't really have any relevance. You ignore discussing the numbers by writing something silly about how you can even out your carbon footprint by not driving but buying new laptops. You refuse to comment on the subject.

>Proof?
43.095 billion killograms of carbon

>I think I answered it just fine, your own numbers suggest that it's at least 3 orders of magnitude less significant than commuting
What is an "order of magnitude"? Can you please rephrase your sentence clearly without buzzwords or concede its meaninglessness.

>demanding a source is perfectly reasonable
You've demanded sources on things that can be logically inferred as a disingenuous attempt to slow your opponent, as well as demand proof of a negative

>>15359792
>Why don't climate activists talk about planned obscelescance?
Some do, some don't

Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act but assisted contracts for drilling lots of oil and cutting down trees, which incidentally helps the poor by reducing prices and creating jobs, but there's a balancing act to be made for ecological health.

>>15359783
>You cannot prove your own argument that the numbers are possible to get
If you think the numbers are impossible to acquire then I can simply conclude that it's impossible to say that a problem exists so why are you claiming it does? A problem so small it's impossible to measure isn't a problem.

>The average lifespan is 3 to five years, if you reduce the number by half you get 43.095 billion which remains a significant number
And you have not proven any of that is allocated to planned obsolescence or that planned obsolescence causes climate change.

>So what you said can be dismissed as meaningless and not an argument
You can't just dismiss things you don't understand as meaningless, 0 points for that one.

>Not everyone is a person willing to spend their time dragging attention to themselves blocking roads
There you go then.

>Why are the people who do that not doing it for planned obscelescance?
They are though.

>Do you want a review of every single video of Greta Thunberg to prove she hasn't ever mentioned it, rather than you providing evidence she has?
If you are going to claim that shes ignoring the issue then yes. That's what proving it means. You could just provide a single case of her being pro planned obsolescence too. And that's not proving a negative, that's just providing statistics of the topics she discusses, a simple monkey job.

>Can you post a source?
Why? You aren't posting yours. Look it up.

>Why is it hidden in a book no one reads not a pivotal part of her activism?
Why did you change the goal post. If she writes about it in her book then shes not ignoring it.

>What you're saying is retarded and doesn't really have any relevance.
In your own words the issue is not worth addressing, I think that explains why it's not addressed often?

>You ignore discussing the numbers
It's not ignoring the discussion, it's directly addressing it and blowing it out.

>>15359792
>43.095 billion killograms of carbon
You have not proven that any of that is addressable to planned obsollessence, in fact it's reducing carbon output by 43 billion kilograms.

>What is an "order of magnitude"?
Do you seriously not know what order of magnitude means? I think you ought to come back in a few years.

>Can you please rephrase your sentence clearly without buzzwords or concede its meaninglessness.
I'm sorry that you have hard time with English but that's frankly not my problem.

>You've demanded sources on things that can be logically inferred as a disingenuous attempt to slow your opponent
I demanded source on your core point, and statistical analysis is not proving a negative, simply list the topics and frequencies of said topics. The data is all out there. Do you not know what proving a negative is as well?

>>15359820
>If you think the numbers are impossible to acquire then I can simply conclude that it's impossible to say that a problem exists so why are you claiming it does?
Why haven't you answered the question? If they're so easy to get, why don't you post them and end this argument?

>And you have not proven any of that is allocated to planned obsolescence or that planned obsolescence causes climate change.
Planned obsolescence cannot be proven by any means but it can be logically inferred, one example being that apple is constantly being sued for old technology not working.

>You can't just dismiss things you don't understand as meaningless, 0 points for that one.
You refuse to explain what it meant so why would anyone give you the benefit of the doubt that it meant something?

>There you go then.
Nope. Explain why the people blocking roads aren't talking about this.

>They are though.
Proof?

>You could just provide a single case of her being pro planned obsolescence too.
Strawman
It goes both ways. You demand proof of planned obsolescence, you supply proof of your own claim. Did you lie that it says it in her book?

>And that's not proving a negative
You're demanding evidence of the non-existence of it, that is exactly what prove a negative means. You make the claim, you provide evidence.

>Why did you change the goal post. If she writes about it in her book then shes not ignoring it.
She's not discussing it public ally, she's not talking about it on social media to all her followers. No one reads that retard's ghostwritten books, especially not her fans.

>In your own words the issue is not worth addressing
No? Where did you get this from?

>in fact it's reducing carbon output by 43 billion kilograms.
How?

>I'm sorry that you have hard time with English but that's frankly not my problem.
Concession accepted

> Do you not know what proving a negative is as well?
Proving the non existence of something. Like proving that Greta Thunberg hasn't said something, opposed to you posting the evidence you claim to have.

>>15359890
>If they're so easy to get, why don't you post them and end this argument?
But they are your numbers, I don't care if they are easy or not, that's your problem. You make the claim, I presume you can back it up, otherwise you automatically concede. Simple as that.

>Planned obsolescence cannot be proven by any means but it can be logically inferred
I inferred above that it actually reduces CO2 output. So I take it you give up on the claim then?

>You refuse to explain what it meant
It's in English, tell me your native language and I can translate, I also suggested asking tomorrow in school.

>Explain why the people blocking roads aren't talking about this.
They aren't willing to spend their time dragging attention to themselves blocking roads

>Proof?
? The marches? Hello?

>You demand proof of planned obsolescence
Still waiting

>Did you lie that it says it in her book?
No it's in there

>You're demanding evidence of the non-existence of it
No, you claim that she hasn't talked about it, and you can verify that by just listing out the topics. You make the claim, you provide evidence.

>She's not discussing it public ally,
She is.

> she's not talking about it on social media to all her followers.
She is

>No one reads that retard's ghostwritten books
People do

>No? Where did you get this from?
Your post

>>15359896
>How?
I explained it above

>Concession accepted
Concession accepted

>Proving the non existence of something.
You can certainly prove the topics she has talked about, just look at them and list them all out.

>>15359731
Climate activists don't really talk about obesity, but the people promoting the idea of "fat shaming" typically aren't climate activists. In America transportation creates more CO2 than agriculture, but fat people watching their weight would be very environmentally advantageous, healthy, and would net the economy billions.

>>15359937
Even if you could magically make obesity go away it wouldn't meaningfully reduce co2 output from food, in fact it might increase it considering the way people get obese is usually trough low co2 intense things like sugar and vegetable fats and how small amount of extra food is required for obesity. Everyone switching to more healthy diet might increase emissions as a result. Not that it wouldn't be good or healthy otherwise but it's another largely irrelevant red herring.

>>15359920
What number do you want
>otherwise you automatically concede. Simple as that.
And I'm glad you've automatically conceded by refusing to post these easy numbers

>I inferred
What's the logic behind this?

>It's in English, tell me your native language and I can translate, I also suggested asking tomorrow in school.
You are arguing in bad faith

>They aren't willing to spend their time dragging attention to themselves blocking roads
Why would they do it for one thing but not another? You are arguing in bad faith

>? The marches? Hello?
That is not proof, no mainstream activists are spreading awareness of it or even discussing it

>Still waiting
It's impossible, this is already explained. You must supply proof of your own claim. Did you lie that it says it in her book? Why do you avoid posting it?

>and you can verify that by just listing out the topics. You
Listing out the topics of what? What does that mean?
>You make the claim, you provide evidence.
Yep, you claimed she said it but refuse to post it. You're arguing in bad faith

>She is.
>She is.
Please can you post it...? Do you want to do this all day anon?

>I explained it above
Where? You're intentionally using vague language, ae you saying planned obsolescence reduces it?

>Concession accepted
No concession, just waiting for you to explain what it meant. You refuse to, so you concede.

>You can certainly prove the topics she has talked about, just look at them and list them all out.
This is a rewriting of "prove she hasn't said it", which is asking for a negative to be proven.

>>15359999
>What number do you want
You have described planned obsolescence as a big climate problem, so please provide the source for these claims.

>And I'm glad you've automatically conceded by refusing to post these easy numbers
It's not my job to post your numbers for you, but I accept your concession.

>What's the logic behind this?
Explained above

>You are arguing in bad faith
It's not my faith that causes your low reading comprehension.

>Why would they do it for one thing but not another?
According to your numbers one is at least million times more significant. So I presume the same reason as you would do something for million bucks but not for a buck.

>That is not proof,
>Marchers are not proof or marches

>no mainstream activists are spreading awareness of it or even discussing it
They are

>It's impossible, this is already explained.
I accept your concession then.

>You must supply proof of your own claim. Did you lie that it says it in her book?
It's in the book, just read it.

>Listing out the topics of what? What does that mean?
You take the topics she has discussed and tally them all up.

>Please can you post it...? Do you want to do this all day anon?
It's in the book

>Where?
Click on those meme arrows with numbers after them till you arrive at the post. If you can't find the post out of the 20 or so posts that aren't yours then what can I say, you wouldn't understand it anyways.

>are you saying planned obsolescence reduces it?
Yes it definitely does, but it would be impossible to prove it to you.

>This is a rewriting of "prove she hasn't said it", which is asking for a negative to be proven.
Which I'm expecting you to do since what she has said is on public record in twitter or youtube as you seem to accept those as sources. Just do a list of the topics she talks about.

>>15360053
Planned obsolescence is impossible to prove but you can logically infer it based on how tech corporations have been sued for making their products break, and that can be deduced to be causing many new ones to be manufactured.

>It's not my job to post your numbers for you, but I accept your concession.
No concession, but you accept that the numbers cannot be proven

>Explained above
Doesn't seem so. Please explain the logic behind why you think planned obsolescence is good for reducing co2

>It's not my faith that causes your low reading comprehension.
All you have to to is rewrite it, but you refuse. You refuse to discuss honestly and politely and are being rude and unhelpful. You have an agenda that comes before honest debate.

>According to your numbers one is at least million times more significant.
What is a million times more significant?

>>Marchers are not proof or marches
No marchers are not proof of activism against planned obsolescence, again bad faith

>They are
Proof?

>I accept your concession then.
No concession, it is logically inferred, explained above.

>It's in the book, just read it.
What book?? Does it cost money? Can you link a source citing the page where it said this? Why are you using bad faith?

>You take the topics she has discussed and tally them all up.
That's ridiculous and asking for proof of a negative. You're arguing in bad faith

>Click on those meme arrows with numbers after them till you arrive at the post.
Link it directly please. This is highly unclear and silly.

>Yes it definitely does, but it would be impossible to prove it to you.
Can you post and intelligent rationalization?

>Just do a list of the topics she talks about.
You are silly, your faith is a precomposed principle you refuse to concede

>>15360120
>Planned obsolescence is impossible to prove
>but you accept that the numbers cannot be proven
Agreed, hence why it reduces co2 output.
And I do accept your concession on that point

>Doesn't seem so.
Poor literacy again
> Please explain the logic behind why you think planned obsolescence is good for reducing co2
Already did

>All you have to to is rewrite it, but you refuse
Yes I refuse to write things multiple times. You got blown out by the first time, simply refer to them if you wish to see how.

>You refuse to discuss honestly and politely
I have asked for your sources several times quite politely, you refuse to engage in discussion. I can only conclude that you are a shill, poorly paid one based on the literacy level as well.

>What is a million times more significant?
Commuting

>No marchers are not proof of activism against planned obsolescence,
>Where are the marchers
>Here they are
>T-t-t-hose don't count and marches aren't activism anyways
nice goalpost

>Proof?
Already provided

>No concession, it is logically inferred, explained above.
Which is why I accepted your concession

>What book?? Does it cost money?
Yes books cost money

>Why are you using bad faith?
It's not bad faith to directly prove you wrong.

>That's ridiculous and asking for proof of a negative.
If you think it's ridiculous to prove evidence for your claims then don't make claims.

>Link it directly please.
The meme arrows with numbers are direct links

>Can you post and intelligent rationalization?
Already did

>You are silly, your faith is a precomposed principle you refuse to concede
I simply accept your concession, don't need to do more than that when it's this easy.

>>15357632
Purely because that would affect actual change and forward progress but almost all climate activist groups are actually shills funded by big oil companies to push energy sources that are realistically useless

>>15358113
>I'm sure you can find someone who does and more over there's lot of other people already talking about it, it seems like you are using it as a distraction and don't really much care about it.
No you are the one who doesn't care or you would have actually posted some climate activists talking about it to back up your point instead of implying implications that are implied.

>>15357632
Your inquiry deserves the complex answer to the complex issue it raises. However I have learned that posting anything on /sci/, especially anything longer than the attention span of a goldfish, is a waste of time. So I will sum it up briefly for you:

Cunts.

That's basically it. People are cunts. Now if you wish to remember this I can further offer you this useful rhyme. "No matter where you go, no matter what you do, there's always cunts, waiting to fuck things up for you"

>>15358113
Ah yes, the inevitable contrarian retard who talks out of his dripping arse has arrived.

>>15357632
>Why don't climate activists talk about planned obsolescence
They do though. Even managed to influence jurisdiction here in the EU, at least. Back in 2020 or so the EU passed a "right to repair" bill. For smartphone batteries for example they either have to make them in such a way as to be removable, and if they don't, they have to offer a repair/exchange service or else they can't sell their product in the EU.
There's also a "right to support" bill in the making. Basically says that any tech product must receive software support/updates for a minimum of X years.
Now you might be thinking "Why isn't this normal everywhere around the world?" Same reason why we're still running our cars on fossilised plants and shit: the companies raking in the big bucks are just too powerful compared to environmentalist groups. Like Apple is just one single company among thousands, and they make more money every year than all environmentalist NGOs get in donations combined.
Being an environmentalist means fighting an uphill battle against a legion of big oil/aviation/car/tech lobbyists.

>>15361593
>jurisdiction
Meant legislature.

Global warming virtue signaling is no different than any other type, thats why even though it has been going on now for more than a third of a century, nothing worthwhile has come of it.

>>15360171
>Agreed, hence why it reduces co2 output.
I haven't conceded anon, please explain the reasoning why this decreases Co2 or concede yourself from lack of argument.

>Poor literacy again
Point it out clearly or concede
>Already did
Where anon?

>You got blown out by the first time
Where? Just concede if you have no argument.

>I have asked for your sources several times quite politely, you refuse to engage in discussion.
Mmm no, I've given you plenty of sources. However you've refused to give sources for your own claims and refused to even post a rational hypothesis.

>Commuting
Source? Are you claiming this is a million times larger than the laptop industry or computer industry as a whole? You're intentionally being vague

>>T-t-t-hose don't count and marches aren't activism anyways
Who are you quoting? It' not a goalpost move for my point which I've maintained is they are not marching against planned obsolesce. You know this.

>Already provided
Where?

>Which is why I accepted your concession
I'm not conceding anon, please post a rational explanation for why I am wrong or stop this pointless debate as you clearly dislike honest discussion

>Yes books cost money
This is pathetically blatant, what is the book?

>If you think it's ridiculous to prove evidence for your claims then don't make claims.
I've used logical reasoning and evidence to infer this case, you have failed to explain why it is logically wrong, rather claiming that there is no proof that makes it wrong by that account.

>The meme arrows with numbers are direct links
Link it in this post or concede

>Already did
Where?

>I simply accept your concession, don't need to do more than that when it's this easy.
I don't concede but you are by refusing to debate so thus concede, all you have to do is repost directly these answers you claim exist but you refuse for they do not exist. You can drag this out as long as you want and I will keep asking you to post Thunberg's book with the page labelled in a valid source, the numbers of commuting, and for your other nonsense.

I know this is a bait thread but I still have a serious question. Is there economic research on why planned obsolescence happens? Is it something inevitable in a free market or is some regulation causing this as an unintended side effect?

>>15364902
>I know this is a bait thread but I still have a serious question.
It is not, kys

>>15358340
Fossile fuals are the largest climate change contributor to be fair. CO2 scraping is kind of a meme.
But good point - lowering dependence on oil lowers dependence on the middle east

>>15358066
This. OP is just one of these poltard luddites who wants to restrict any form of scientific or technological progress.

>>15357632
It's what people want. People would rather buy the newest phone after a few years so companies need to lower prices by reducing the lifespan as people won't keep it that long anyway

>>15364902
Planned obsolescence was created after the crash of 29. Basically what happened was that for a period people ran out of needing new stuff. So for instance before 29 a vacuum might last for 30 years or something, but if everybody on the planet has this vacuum, then theres nobody new to sell more vacuums to and the company's stock tanks. Planned obsolescence was devised as a way to prevent this crash from happening, since after you've sold the vacuum to the last person, theres a new person with a broken one who needs a new one.

I would consider it systemic to capitalism, the natural evolution of capitalism even.

>>15364902
>>15366203
Also this was a direct consequence of mechanized production. So before mechanization most everything was done artisanally. So you would have basically guildsmen living in places who would make all your shoes, furniture, silverware, etc. and repair those items for you. Problem is that artisans make shit really slowly, they might be able to pump out one piece of furniture every week or so. Mechanization meant that factories could produce 1000 pieces of furniture in a day, production on levels never seen in human history, and more cheaply than artisans could do. Basically after the great depression everybody kind of just agreed to make repairing stuff artificially more expensive than buying new stuff because all the artisans had gone out of business, or just make everything impractical or extremely difficult to repair, or just not worth it, like with sneakers made from plastic.

>>15357632
> Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
they don't talk about is because it doesn't fit the narrative that their consumerist lifestyles and virtue signalling demand

global warming is such a stupid scam

>>15359937
>creates more CO2 than agriculture
agriculture does not create CO2, it sequesters it

>>15357632
That's the activist connundrum, anon. Should climate activist stop flying by plane even though they are against it due to its massive emissions? Is the effort they are putting to teach people worth the emissions he contributes with his travels around the world explaining it?

It's a constant balance for people atound that area because polution in this case is really convenient, so you have to use it to reach enough to then be able to scale back the use of said technology.

Also planned obscolescance is a industry plague way beyond just waste. It should be a crime against the consumer on principal, fuck companies that due that on purpose.

>>15357670
This, >>15357778 also this namefag needs to stop. I see him everywhere

>>15357632
Many of them do.

>>15360120
>Planned obsolescence is impossible to prove
Not when companies like apple are on record admitting they throttle old devices to artificially accelerate the rate of obsolescence.

>>15366549

>>15357632
They are not made to break. It's either cheaping out on anything that isn't needed to last for more than two years, or deliberately wrong designs because some Jew owns a patent on the correct solution. (like the sun and planet gears in ancient steam engines)

>>15366549
The electricity got so expensive in some places that pic is already nearly cheaper, and it very well soon may be now that Germany shut down nuclear.

>>15359446
Bruh, what are you doing with me bot icon?

>>15359573
>ukrainians are paying the price.
Have they admitted that attempting to ethnically cleanse the eastern part of their country was a mistake yet?

>>15357632
Why don't they talk about ocean thermal energy conversion is far too mach concerning me.

They do, you just pretend they don't because you don't want to have anything in common with them

>>15383693
Zelensky is trying to abolish Christianity now instead.

>>15357632
they don't talk about free trade, commercial plane travel, industry moving from western countries with high energy prices to those with cheap fossil fuel, the increased co2 footprint of immigrants, private jets or container ships either.
they just want you to go fuck yourself, not to solve a problem.

>>15357632
is there ever a more artful shot made without any direction str8 out of reality?
i swear this could come directly from The Office

>>15383693
>ethnically cleanse
What does this mean? It's known he undemocratically declared Russian no longer an official language despite millions speaking it, what else has he done?

>>15385810
Azov Battalion was formed out of the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi movement for the purposes of slaughtering ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country. From the Maidan coup until the Russian invasion, Azov had been shelling villages to rubble and mass executing alleged Russians like some kind of Sonderkommando brigade.

>>15385823
Not doubting you can you post proof of all this

>>15385845
You can find out about it easily with a single google search, if they haven't cleaned it up yet. Before the narrative shifted there were hundreds of articles from Western media about how Azov were Nazis committing war crimes, showing pictures of them flying the swastika and Banderite flags.

>>15357632
>Do they really care about the climate?
in the symbolic conventionality sense of the word.
but substantially they are not, they won't even sacrifice their own social status for this, which one of them throws away his phone and goes to live in the woods?
their protests are motivated and subsidized by the same corporations that pollute more than anyone on this planet.
a collection of fanatic catatonic whiners guided by empty words all this can come down to their identity crisis and the pitiful desire to belong to a group.
corporate hippies, fucking disgusting

>>15358113
>And you have numbers to back that up right?

>Notice a thing
>Irritable contrarian: DO YOU HAVE HARD DATA BEHIND THAT?!

I've been very pro-environment for my entire life. Planned obsolescence and all the real climate concerns are mostly ignored. Because people like Greta aren't in it for the planet, they're in it for fame.

CO2 isn't the bogeyman it's made out to be. There are a lot of polluting industries that get ignored and keep pumping the oceans and our food supply full of nasty toxins, while we worry about a gas that may have more positives than negatives.

>>15385967
I'll know they care about the environment if they ever start talking about pesticides like Atrazine. Until then we can safely ignore their hysterics as the delusions of unwashed cultists.

>>15385991
>Until then we can safely ignore their hysterics as the delusions of unwashed cultists.

They're just useful idiots, and some of the most pitiable.

Their heart really was in the right place. Wanting a healthy planet and environment is a worthy cause. They just had nothing to protect them from psychopaths high on psychoanalytics turning their useful desire for purpose into a weapon.

>>15386422
>Their heart really was in the right place. Wanting a healthy planet and environment is a worthy cause.
I draw the line at the point where they actively try to make everyone else's lives worse. Those people are very dangerous. Shutting down Germany's energy industry has measurably caused deaths.

>>15386481
>I draw the line at the point where they actively try to make everyone else's lives worse.

But you still are fighting zombies, and not the people controlling those zombies.

The zombies think what they are doing is for the benefit of us all. In this case especially, you cannot blame them for not understanding how that desire has been misdirected.

Hating the fools who truly desired to do good is not helpful.

>>15358174
NTA
There is no reason why cookware or musical instruments wouldn't stay relevant.
>no one is forcing you to buy products with short life expectancy
There is no way to tell.

>>15358340
>co2 scrubbing is ignored
Impossible.
>>15358423
Lightbulb lifespans were shortened to save energy. That is a special case where this works because of how lightbulbs are. It won't work anywhere else.
>their boats live on, so noone is buying their boats, so noone is making the boats anymore.
That isn't a downside. Other tjings can be done because the people don't need to make boats over and over.
>think about it, does an avengers toy need to last generations, or will it be forgotten after a few plays?
Maybe we should make things so that the former is likely.

>>15386785
>or musical instruments
>stay relevant
nobody plays musical instruments since the 20th century grandpa

>>15385823
>>15385853
Why don't you just post it if it's so real?

>muh neonazis muh eebil swastika flag
Imagine telling a /pol/ak before Russia invaded that /pol/ would become like this

>>15388393
What are you talking about? There was a short period sonetime around the 90s-00s where syths were very popular, but more or less everyone is back to real instruments now.

>>15357632
>2030
>company find out that their semi autonomous cars last too long and they're not making any new sales
>make them get into accidents with each other
>claim it was old hardware
>get away with it

>>15358174
>production of one quality product is more resource intensive and causes higher pollution rate than 20+ shit products
there's no way that's true, just in terms of raw material it shows that there is no shred of logic in what you say, so what are you mumbling about retard?

>>15358174
>stay relevant technologically
There's been very little innovation in smartphones for about fifteen years. An iphone 4 can do everything important the latest modal can.

After around 2014 apple started doing ads showing off nintendo tier gimmicks like facial recognition emojis and moving backgrounds. But they don't even promote the new iphones now, so many people are on expensive contracts that deliver them a new phone every year and they think it's worth it because of the shiny product receive. And the rest buy new ones out of social obligation.

>>15391039
i have never owned a "smart" phone, those things are for idiots

>>15391039
>An iphone 4 can do everything important the latest modal can.
It only has limited video support, really not good enough.

>>15390959
I think it's actually completely opposite, lifespans are reduced to a fraction to shave off a tiny fraction of the price.

>>15357632
This is a very good question. Surprised to see it on /sci/. the likely answer is that she knows it won't be popular to tell people to give up their iPhones

>>15357632
Environmentalism like all politics are fake, fake and gay. It's a hamster wheel for retards to run on their whole lives but get no where. Nothing you think is real is real, all illusions of real things made to trick you into living a life chained tot he floor of a cave always chasing shadows. Billions of retarded hamsters running on billions of little wheels, that's what powers this hell world we call Earth. That's how the devil makes the gears move.

If they really cared we'd all use glass bottles instead of plastic and end that problem overnight. Soda used to come in glass bottles, the pollution problems was already solved before you were born. Pollution is the invention, it is the feature not the bug. But retards will fail to understand this and choose to chase "the solution to X/Y/Z" for all time. These are problems invented to keep you distracted and it's working perfectly.

>>15394206
Apart from tech enthusiasts normalfags don't care about video quality. What about the iphone 5 and iphone 6, how do they manage against their successors?

>>15394248
Gretchen's celebrity is Instagram based, when Instagram was first launched, it was exclusively for iphone users, couldn't be accessed on other devices. Only later did they make a web version for it, but even that required hacks to post. They only officially allowed posting from the web fairly recently

>>15394316
Iphone 4 supposedly only supports 720p30 H264. I think you need at the very least 1080p60 in H265/vp9 (1080p30 is doable, but a bit of a pain).

>>15390902
How credible is it that the cars still have their number plates attached?

>>15396665
What does that have to do with anything?

>>15358174
>stay relevant technologically
Progress is fake, and artificially staged. Normally you would see it coming in stages, instead of this unnaturally smooth improvement.
Proof: 1080i TVs came before 1080p TVs.

>>15357632
stand aside bitch, someone of genuine importance is coming through

>>15369303

>>15390902
how progressive

>>15357632
because everything you see in the modern world must be approved by the corporations via whether or not they decide to fund it

>>15400362
So you're saying that classical fascism is the current reigning world government?

>>15385429
So is Ron Desantis, several parts of the Christian bible are now illegal in Florida.
"Synagogue of satan" is now illegal hate speech

>>15403082
are we seeing noahide laws in action?
grim

>>15357632
>people live in society don't have a right to critique society!
You idiots. We use cell phones, airplanes, and cars because if we didn't we'd be forced to live in caves which wouldn't solve the problem because nobody listens to people who live in caves. Climate activists are well aware that our actions add to the climate crisis but we don't have much options for choice.

I can't buy food at the grocery store that doesn't contribute to climate change. I can't get to work using a method that doesn't contribute to climate change. I can't manufacture my own clothing and I don't have an option to buy clothing that does not contribute to climate change. My argument is I would like those options available to everyone. Your argument is that because I'm forced to buy products that contribute to climate change I don't have a right to critique it.

>>15396934
>What does that have to do with anything?
Quite a lot. In many European countries it means taxes are still paid for.

>>15357632
because capitalists are fundamentally retarded and believe there is literally an infinite amount of potential money, so it's all about just attempting to infinitely increase profits to them.

on the contrary, if there were simply just a machine which printed an infinite amount of USD, that would obviously cause inflation and USD would become worthless, $0.00; so entirely worthless that the cost to produce more money could not be afforded because anyone willing to consume any resources to get the work done could not be paid to get it done. Very easily suggesting there is not an infinite amount of potential money, but definitely finite, and the faster those finite resources are run-thru (as per planned obsolescence), is also the sooner such producers of such technology go bankrupt, which is only a potentially feasible money-making scheme if not attempting to sin via usury and selling one's soul to the devil by investing in the made-up imaginary concept of "growing %interest" on money; otherwise it'd make much more sense to make quality products that last because value is supposed to appreciate over time, which returns us to the fact that any company invested in planned obsolescence is quantumly erasing themselves from the future.

>>15403647

>>15357632
Planned obsolescence is necessary to Capital accumulation.
Climate change as well, as you need to dump your old car, and buy a brand new electric model.

>>15357632
Because they are retarded and take all their information from shitty youtube videos.

Source: German "Last Generation" activists gluing themselves to busy roads, stopping the work traffic of the common people.
Their demands are a speed limit on the autobahn and a cheap train ticket. Meanwhile Germany reactivated a fuckton of coal plants and shut down their nuclear reactors. And most of the remaining CO2 comes from industry and transportation of goods.
A cheap train ticket is already coming (not quite as cheap as they demand).
So all they are doing is piss off most of the population for minor improvements, while ignoring the real problems.

>>15404162
>Meanwhile Germany reactivated a fuckton of coal plants and shut down their nuclear reactors.
Germany also destroys carbon sequestering rural areas in order to mine coal, so reactivating the coal plants was doubly effective in terms of increasing German CO2 output.

>>15405067
This only proves that global warming is a hoax and the point is controlling something other than the environment.

>>15405067
based germans seeding the atmosphere with plant food, if we all follow their lead and pour on the coal it won't be long before a tiny plot of land will be able to produce a year's food for a whole family. 420ppm is rookie numbers, i want to see 1000 by 2050

>>15403546
Grow you own food, get the bus to work, buy clothes second hand. You are not forced to buy new products. No one is stopping you from using a 20 year old recycled computer and smart phone and car, but you don't. No climate activist does. In your post you depict a false dichotomy of either buying everything new like normal people, or not buying anything at all.

>>15357632
Our economy works based on constant purchasing, the people who pretend to care about global warning don't actually give a fuck you pleb

If we start making things to last then we go into a massive recession

>>15405879
>using a 20 year old recycled computer and smart phone and car
even they did you'd still be whining about they're hypocrites for using even that

>>15406854
>We start building everything to last
>get rid of plastics, single use shit
>recession happens
>wait 3-4 decades
>recession goes away but growth stagnates
>humanity exists in a solid state economy until the end of time
I dunno, sounds pretty good to me. People would no longer have to live like rats worrying about how they're going to 1 up the previous generation, especially when we all know Gen Z is going to fail.

>>15406854

>>15359731
Agriculture doesn't produce CO2, it absorbs it

>>15357632
They do.

>>15410303
you think so? where does the carbon come from, and where does it end up?

with a tree, it takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to make sugars and cellulose and lignin. then the CO2 that was in the air is now trapped in the wood.
you burn the tree, you return the CO2 to the atmosphere. or, the tree dies and rots and returns to the atmosphere.
or, you build a house out of it and the CO2 is trapped as long as the house stands. and when the house is burned down or landfilled or whatever, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere.

when you grow corn or wheat or whatever, the same process occurs. CO2 from the atmosphere, builds the plant. you eat the plant, you digest it, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere. the chaff is burned, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere.
the transport and machinery all lead to a net CO2 production, because the plant is fundamentally CO2 neutral over time.

the only way to sequester organic carbon is to bury it underground where it cannot decay, or sink it deep under the ocean. this is how fossil fuels are made. or in carbonate minerals, like limestone.

pretty much:
>autistic as shit
>probably indian since he doesn't even qualify as ESL but more ETL or E4L
>gets banned daily
>thinks copy pasting the same shit is some epic troll, doesn't even get (you)'s since he gets filtered
>sometimes breaks off from the threads to annoy other generals when he gets sick of being ignored
>buys 4chan passes
>pretends to be multiple people but always gives himself away cuz he unironically pulls the "damn what a fine job these group of handsome trolls did this, i bet everyone thinks they are very epic fr fr"

>>15410343
what are you even talking about, skizo?

>>15410342
trapped CO2 is wasted CO2

> Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
Their corporate masters tell them not to

>>15412643
This, we want more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. 1600ppm is the target number

>>15410303
If agriculture didn't take place that farmland would be completely barren and lifeless

>>15358113
>I'm sure you can find someone who does
Can you find them? And by them, I mean all of the political leaders, media talking heads and government funded corporations that continuously spout muh CO2 talking about it?
>And you have numbers to back that up right?
Industry makes up a lot more of the contribution to CO2 than households, and farming combined. And yet, they focus more on central heating and cow farts than they do on industry and especially on this issue.
>forever or even very long time are by no means optimal for climate change
prove it
>or even the consumers at large
Who gives a crap about the consumer, when you erroneously believe that world is going to end, because of the gas that makes plants grow?

>>15414984
CO2 is just fine, its not a pollutant, its not a greenhouse gas, its plant food, the more we have in the air, the better off we are.
CO2 is what enables plants to store solar energy as matter rather than as heat. rocks are hot after a long day in the sun, plants are not, they stay cool because they absorb solar energy and store it as matter rather than as heat, plants don't reradiate the way rocks do.

>>15415661
this
organic matter doesn't follow the same thermodynamic rules as dead matter does

>>15417658
Energy independence bad?
preserve rain-forests bad?
green jobs bad?
liveable cities bad?
renewables bad?
> clean water
> healthy children
r u srs my nigga

i gues you don't think any of those things are the restulf of climate policy?

>>15417667
No is all about who makes the better clean organic propaganda

>>15417667
>Energy independence bad?
Germany has that now that they've switched back to mining and burning their own coal. Greenshit is a wasteful, useless hoax.

>>15418900
coal is the best energy source, always has been

>>15419485
Gas is, retard

>>15357632
Yeah faggot, hippies never complain about consumerism, nope not ever.

>>15419499
hippies are massively materialistic, have you seen how they dress?

>>15357632
>Do they really care about the climate?
Nope. Its just corporations getting in the fad in order to remain on top. Controlled dissidence.

>>15358174
Incredible you wrote all that and there's no sound argument there, all false comparisons.

>>15358340
>extinction rebellion
You mean how it can be both interpreted as
>Rebelling from extinction
>The extinction of rebellion

>>15419886

>>15420788
this was the same people in 1999

>>15406886
>even they did you'd still be whining about they're hypocrites for using even that
A predictably pathetic strawman. You don't even deny owning the latest iphone and gaming pc and whatever the fuck else. No attempt at improvement, no attempt at setting a good example, just demanding it from everyone else. Typical "green" promoter.

>>15421842

>>15357632
Planned obsolescence isn't really a thing. When there's demand for things that can last a long time, someone will sell things that last a long time and those who don't will lose reputation. When there isn't demand for things that can last a long time, then producers won't put focus on making a product that lasts long.
The thing is that technology makes a lot of the stuff we use obsolete naturally, so there's no point in making, say, a cellphone that lasts 20 years if most people will replace it in 1~2 years anyway. On the other hand, you may want to be still using your toilet 20 years from now, so you'll probably avoid any brand that is known for having toilets that will somehow break beyond repair in 1~2 years.

>>15422726
Printers with anomalous fail codes for ink sponges and strange reset conditions that had people hacking them to make it work.
Lightbulbs can be made to last an indefinite amount of time, however they may not fit aesthetic and power consumption targets.
However, these are all minor. Planned obsolescence certainly exists and Apple has been successfully sued for intentionally slowing down iphones to get people to purchase the next one. In addition, Apple and others also develop products, locking down parts and documentation such that repair is impossible. The repair channel is part of their business model. This is a huuuuge red flag for planned obsolescence.
And some meme-tier stuff, the mcdonalds ice cream machines.

>>15422796
The problem here is asymmetric information: the producers known more about their own product than the consumers, so of course they'll fuck with things here and there if they know they can get away with it. But it'll hurt their reputation in the long run once the scheme is known.
Unless, of course, if they bribe the government to add artificial barriers to entry. Without competition, you may know you're being scammed but there'll be nowhere to run.

>>15423039
>know more about their own product
Fixed.

>>15359819
oil drilling helps the environment by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
managing forests helps the environment by controlling wildfire risk

>>15357632
>me reading this thread on an ancient mac book air with a non-existant battery, a fully frayed power cord that they don't sell anymore and the screen broken so that i can only use half of it.
at least i'm not an ARM fag. definitely getting a real computer after this one explodes.

>>15357632
Forbidden in EU, no?

>>15423605
This.

>>15424432
how many of the keys on your keyboard have fallen off? your machine will never fail, other than the moving parts, the guts are all solid state.

>>15419876
yeah, they're more image conscious than anyone

>>15422726
In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life or a purposely frail design, so that it becomes obsolete after a certain pre-determined period of time upon which it decrementally functions or suddenly ceases to function, or might be perceived as unfashionable. The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle"). It is the deliberate shortening of a lifespan of a product to force people to purchase functional replacements.

>>15423605
but wildfires add co2 to the atmosphere

>>15358340
>there was an oil crisis in 1973. it highlighted how dependent the west is on arabs and russia, two groups the west would rather not see holding their balls.

Lol

The US/NATO practically owns the oil producing Gulf kingdoms; if there was any real possibility of them trying to deprive the west of oil then they'd literally just get glassed and militarily occupied, think the Iraq war but without even pretending to care about local civilians.

The 'green revolution' is naturally emergent from the fact that fossil fuels are toxic and, more critically, finite/non-renewable.

>>15357632
>Do they really care about the climate?
none of these new "environmentalists" care about china or 3rd world countries shitting up the planet faster than the west, they just cry about "per capita" to use it basically as an argument to reduce our standard of living

>>15429053
>The 'green revolution' is naturally emergent from the fact that fossil fuels are toxic and, more critically, finite/non-renewable.
They're natural, abiotic, and renewable.

>>15429706
this

>>15357632
because planned obscelescance is not part of the ZOG narrative

>>15429706
>>The 'green revolution' is naturally emergent from the fact that fossil fuels are toxic and, more critically, finite/non-renewable.
>finite/non-renewable
which is why they don't care at all about planned
obsolescence

>>15357632
they don't talk about how 34% of papers are fake and gay either
cause they're liars with dirty secrets to hide

>>15432665
The dishonesty of scientists is an inconvenient truth

>>15357632
Greta is not even good to be a whore, such useless individuals can only become corporate shills.

>>15434080
thats because greta is a boy
>wide shoulders
>strong jaw

>>15358090
>Netherlands
They deserve to be retards

>>15429706
no

>>15435183
>OMG a picture of garbage!!!
>Pipelines are cleaner

Even the average retard can see how full of shit you are.
This is why you clowns are gonna get your walking paper on the 29th.

>This is why you clowns are gonna get your walking paper on the 29th.
What did the glownig mean by this

>>15357632
because they only care about getting money

>>15435183

>>15436577

>>15436582
>oil extraction isn't an environmental concern because I depicted you as the basedboy

amazing counterpoint now for an ad hominem
you're fat

>>15436605
you hatred for people larger than yourself is a thin mask for your fear of them. the big guy could squash you like a bug and you know it, but you're too lazy to get big yourself, so instead you resort to name calling to hide your fear

>>15434694

>>15380605
Germany going to all coal power will make ethanol fuel even cheaper than it already is

>>15357632
Electric cars are planned obsolescence, you will never see an old one on the road no matter how long you live. They will never make one with a replaceable battery

>>15357632
ulterior motives

>>15357632
Gosh, I wonder why so-called environmentalists ignore environmental problems caused by their corporate masters, its so hard to figure out, we may never know

>>15357632
They replaced millions of shopping baskets at our local supermarket with "recyclable plastic" ones, God knows what they did with the old ones, which I assume weren't made from recyclable plastic (otherwise why replace them?)

>>15440638
no complaints from the environmentalists about massive environmental plastic waste caused by covid, why not?

>>15357632
They don't care about the environment, they only care about controlling human economic activity

How long until every plastic we use is replaced with biodegradable ones that dont last even a year ?

>>15442296
I jus wanna shit in your drinking water because if i shit in a toilet instead it would cost me money
you're a piece of shit commie for wanting to control human economic activity

>>15385853
>You can find out about it easily with a single google search
Then post it ivan

>>15438008
meme magic strike again, "greta" definitely has a penis

>>15357632
They miraculously never discuss anything that might cut into their corporate masters' profits

>>15445655
Corporations want the environmentalists to fuck right off.

>>15445670
Depends on what they are advocating. There is an element of the movement that is dangerous to them, but a lot of activist groups nowadays are pushing the narrative that our individual lifestyles are responsible, which actually aids the large corpos. The carbon footprint was invented by British Petroleum to shift the blame to the broader society and divert attention. So long as activists blame you for driving to work in your car instead of challenging large corporations and structural problems, they are useful idiots to economic and political elites

>>15445655
this
environmentalists are corporate stooges

>>15447041
all sjw activists are

>>15446327
They hate cars, but the private jets the corporate bosses all own are never an issue for them. Al Gore owns several private planes, so does John Kerry.

> Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance
because they're dishonest

>>15441188
Its a mystery

>>15357670
this, but unironically

>>15448074
Ya and the trumptards who hate immigrants don't really give a fuck about the fact that trump's construction business wouldn't be profitable without population growth through immigration.

>>15450666
Why do you think people who support Trump politically care about how much profit he makes from his businesses? Do you personally get upset when a politician whom you like doesn't make a sufficient amount of money from private endeavours?

>Why don't climate activists talk about planned obscelescance
they literally do

>>15451290
I don't think anyone that holds office should make any profits from private business, and anyone that tries to create loopholes should be barred from public office permanently.

>>15357632
then it would disrupt the 1%'s plan in making ALL the cash

>>15451830
don't credit MS with building anything as reliable as a 1980s Volvo, they don't even build hardware.
t. posting from an 11 year old apple laptop

>>15452085

>>15357632
she wants his penis inside her

>>15450666
>>>/pol/

>>15441188
they don't mind because its petroleum based

>>15455892

>>15452085
Before about 2010 or so you needed a new computer ever 5 year because the technology was advancing so rapidly. That is no longer the case, technology stopped progressing, so old computers still work just fine.

>>15357632
>Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
or in other words,
>why don't corporate shills talk about the harmful greedy policies of their corporate masters?

>>15451830
>>15452085
Apple products can be easily repaired, even easier than non apple stuff. In fact a lot easier because macbooks have well documented schematics. It's just that Apple intentionally makes their official repair service a scam operation to make you purchase more product. If you go to a 3rd party repair shop they can do actual repairs for you, and you can keep a macbook for a couple decades even.

>>15451789
Obama made more money as president that Trump did, supposedly Obama sold over $100 million worth of books, even though you've never seen anyone reading any of those books

>>15357632
>Why don't climate activists talk about plannedobscelescance?
their desire to own the latest iphone conflicts with discussing planned obsolescence, so they avoid the topic

>>15461581
also their electric cars that need to be replaced ever few years due to battery life issues

>>15357632
The climate change people do talk about about it. Just not corporate shills. Because why would they duh! Are you retarded?

>>15357632
climate activists are all urbanites, urbanites hate nature, thats why they live in cities, as removed from nature as they can possibly be

>>15357632
better question why are companies advocating being green yet waste untold amount of electricity by writing all their apps in electron that use 100x more energy than efficient native code