Even though a pile is snow is falling as I write, spring is fast approaching and with a growing child, that means I am in the market for a new bicycle for her. We tested a few the other day to look at sizes and what was on offer, and I was pretty surprised that a half decent one (light enough) is between 400€ and 600€ new. There are some cheaper, but they are the super heavy ones that don't last. However, our daughter is not going to be a giant and is shorter than all of her friends, so I reached out to her best friend's dad (who also happens to be a mountain biking enthusiast) to ask some advice, and they happen to be looking to go up a size for their daughter.
Funnily and without my knowledge, the family was at my birthday party last night, and I had been messaging yesterday with him. So we talked a bit more about it and set up a check for today. So after testing this afternoon to ensure the size, at this point it looks like she can get a decent used bike from her friend for 50€ instead.
Score!
It isn't the money saving (though that is welcome), it is the chance to not have to buy new. And this led to a conversation over a cup of tea about consumer society and how everything is made to be disposable. Which is a bit of a hobby horse topic for me, because I think that longevity should be the goal of consumer products, so resources can be saved. And it was a bit of a surprise that despite this guy being a professor of business and innovation, he has much the same view.
He said that rather than having to buy new all the time, the focus of consumerism should be in upgrading components and updates instead. He used the example of his main bike, where while there is nothing wrong with it, it is seven years old and looks its age, considering how and where he rides. It makes him Want to buy a new one. However, what he thinks the company he favours should do instead, is offer services to update old bikes, like a fresh paintjob and updated components, like the latest brakes or something. This way it is cheaper and uses less resources, but he will still get the look and feel of new and improved experience.
Doing it this way of course means that the company itself would sell less, but there would also be the time where technical changes are so advanced that a complete change would happen. This is how I think if I were to buy an electric car, because I want to be able to keep a car for thirty years, but also not have to be stuck with a thirty year old car. For example, in ten years from purchase when the current battery is failing, I would want to be able to put in the latest technology as a replacement, without having to buy an entire new car. This takes some forward planning, but it also means less cars would be sold.
Good.
The economy, especially since resources are limited, shouldn't be geared toward volume selling. Instead, instead it should be toward sustainable selling, where longevity of products was the goal, so that they could be handed down, for a fee, to others. Just like the clothes in a family or across friend groups can be, or bikes as is the case of the bike for my daughter.
The friend brought up the case of going hiking up in the north of Finland, and the cost of all of the clothes and equipment needed, which can run into the thousands. Instead, there should be a rental company up there which has good quality equipment for rent, so that the average person who doesn't hike very often, never has to buy. And I agree with this kind of approach, even though I am an advocate for ownership.
There was the statement from a few years ago published by the World Economic Forum of "You'll own nothing and be happy" - which I strongly disagree with. But, I think that we should consider what we own more than just ownership in general. For example, I think it is important to own a house and to own investments that are controlled by the owner, but it isn't important to own hiking gear if going out once every year or two - that can be rented. Perhaps as a general rule,
Own what increases in value. Rent what decreases.
That is very general, because when it comes to daily requirements, it is better to own most things perhaps. But for the less used items that devalue once bought, it is likely better to rent. Even when it comes to cars, it might be better to have a far larger rental market than owner market. and it is likely use less resources too, because the rental companies would be looking for cars that have longevity, so they can have a longer period to collect ROI.
The average age of cars on the road should be getting much longer.
Just like how our healthcare has changed over the last century so that we are on average living longer, the daily consumer items we use should be similarly advancing. The technology is advancing, but it is also becoming me fragile, disposable, and obsolete faster. They engineer based on feature innovation, not lifecycle innovation. Lifecycle innovation would be development that extends the useful life of products, either by engineering for longevity, or designing for upgradeability, which requires over-engineering.
Built to last and built to stay relevant.
We have developed a cultural obsession with new, and falling into the trap of desiring the latest, even if there is only a slight incremental change that doesn't make a difference in our life. A slightly higher resolution television, a slightly faster computer, a slightly different styling on the car. Instead, what we should be doing is holding out for changes that make a difference in our life that matters, and only outlaying when there is reason to do so.
That is not good for the economy.
Because business is built on a volume of product sold mechanism, instead of the human experience value of what they sell.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
