sick and tired of new scrap appliances.

[Noirblack]

Sure, I understand being attached to something for sentimental reasons. You must have gotten a lot of use from it over the years. But if your current mixer dies you can't say that after 32 years it let you down. Even the most durable products that we have will eventually give up the ghost. Just give it a proper send off and a good eulogy

The reality is that we people are finite little beings, and our inventions and creations are finite too. I've come to realize that everything we buy in our lifetimes will eventually end up in a landfill. Even if we bequeath it to our children, it will eventually end up in a landfill. The only exception I can think of is anything made of a precious metal or a precious stone. Even the precious metal will likely be melted down sometime in the future.

 

[jamespowers]

You know what they say. The more that moves, the more there is to break...

That is what my father used to say about cars with power everything. I know it was just wonderful when the harness to one side of my Escalade died and I couldn't roll the windows up. :eusa_doh: The service department was not thrilled either.

 

[tonyb]

My Western Electric 302 is 68 years old. Still works fine. Over the past decade I've been through three or four cordless landline phones and at least that many cell phones. But I ain't giving up my iPhone. No way. It's just too convenient to have all that information at my fingertips. And that mapping app? With the GPS? Killer.

The sewing machines in my shop are either old "all metal" jobs or, in one case, a modern "clone" (an exact copy, with 100 percent parts interchangeability) of a commercial Singer specialty machine that I suppose was designed 80 or more years ago. There is nothing that a modern sewing machine can do for me that these machines can't, and I suspect they'll still be chugging along when those modern machines have long been dead.

I really dig old cars. There's a romance to them that newer cars can't touch. But that's just me being sentimental. Besides my ability to carry out repairs on them myself, there is very little practical reason to favor one over a newer car, leastwise not if I actually need a car I can rely on to get me where I gotta be, on time. Cars have come a long, long ways over the decades -- they're much more reliable; they can rack up a lot more miles before they're fit for the scrap pile (good thing, too, seeing how we commute greater distances than we once did, a reality the modern automobile itself made feasible); they're much more fuel efficient; they're a whole lot safer; they're easier to drive; they don't break down nearly as frequently (guess I already said that, but it bears repeating); the list goes on and on. And they're only getting better. I'll probably always own at least one "collector" car, but I won't be using it as a daily driver. Nope, wouldn't wish to subject it to the risks and rigors of the road all that much.

I'm in sympathy with the general spirit of this thread. Stuff made to fall apart is just plain wasteful. Household appliances and furniture and such can be made to last a human lifetime or longer -- much longer, in many cases. We know this is so because we've seen it many, many times. I'd gladly pay twice as much for a microwave oven (another modern contraption I would prefer not giving up) if I were more confident it would last longer than the last three I've owned. But our friend Noirblack makes good points. Thanks to him for raising them.

 

[jamespowers]

My Western Electric 302 is 68 years old. Still works fine. Over the past decade I've been through three or four cordless landline phones and at least that many cell phones. But I ain't giving up my iPhone. No way. It's just too convenient to have all that information at my fingertips. And that mapping app? With the GPS? Killer.

The sewing machines in my shop are either old "all metal" jobs or, in one case, a modern "clone" (an exact copy, with 100 percent parts interchangeability) of a commercial Singer specialty machine that I suppose was designed 80 or more years ago. There is nothing that a modern sewing machine can do for me that these machines can't, and I suspect they'll still be chugging along when those modern machines have long been dead.

I really dig old cars. There's a romance to them that newer cars can't touch. But that's just me being sentimental. Besides my ability to carry out repairs on them myself, there is very little practical reason to favor one over a newer car, leastwise not if I actually need a car I can rely on to get me where I gotta be, on time. Cars have come a long, long ways over the decades -- they're much more reliable; they can rack up a lot more miles before they're fit for the scrap pile (good thing, too, seeing how we commute greater distances than we once did, a reality the modern automobile itself made feasible); they're much more fuel efficient; they're a whole lot safer; they're easier to drive; they don't break down nearly as frequently; the list goes on and on. And they're only getting better. I'll probably always own at least one "collector" car, but I won't be using it as a daily driver. Nope, wouldn't wish to subject it to the risks and rigors of the road all that much.

I'm in sympathy with the general spirit of this thread. Stuff made to fall apart is just plain wasteful. Household appliances and furniture and such can be made to last a lifetime or longer. We know this is so because we've seen it many, many times. I'd gladly pay twice as much for a microwave oven (another modern contraption I would prefer not giving up) if I were more confident it would last longer than the last three I've owned. But our friend Noirblack makes good points. Thanks to him for raising them.

I'll tell you what, my new Escalade has broken down more times than my 1955 Chevy ever has and when it has I can just fix it on the spot and keep going. When the computer in my new car died--that was it. Oh and I use it to commute to and from work, as I do my 57 Chevy, 57 GMC, 59 Oldsmobile, 73 Mach 1 etc. I'll also take any one of those cars over the egg cars they make today. lol lol

 

[tonyb]

Well, we can swap anecdotes. I have a buddy who is in the "black car" business. (That's essentially a taxicab without markings and which isn't licensed to pick up "flags.") He put more than 500,000 miles, city miles at that, on his 1990-something Lincoln Town Car before he retired it. It still had its original engine and transmission when he sent it to its deserved rest. Lotsa brake jobs and more oil changes and such than you can count, but it still ran well after all that use. Of course, he's a grownup who drove it like he was the one paying to fix it and eventually replace it. I have no doubt that many people wouldn't get half as many miles out of an identical car.

Back when I was a youngster and was getting around in '50s and '60s cars, I was doing valve jobs and ring jobs and such on cars with well under a hundred thousand miles on them. And I never went anywhere without a box of tools and a set of points and a length of wire and a fan belt and a light bulb or three. A quart or two of oil and a jug of antifreeze was a good idea, too, seeing how those cars tended to drip and/or burn a lot more of their precious fluids than newer cars do.

Both of our "regular" cars here -- a Chevy Astro and a Ford Windstar -- have more than 150,000 miles on them and both are still running strong on their original engines and trannys. And neither has ever stranded me. I expect to get at least another 100,000 miles out of each.

 

[jamespowers]

Well, we can swap anecdotes. I have a buddy who is in the "black car" business. (That's essentially a taxicab without markings and which isn't licensed to pick up "flags.") He put more than 500,000 miles, city miles at that, on his 1990-something Lincoln Town Car before he retired it. It still had its original engine and transmission when he sent it to its deserved rest. Lotsa brake jobs and more oil changes and such than you can count, but it still ran well after all that use. Of course, he's a grownup who drove it like he was the one paying to fix it and eventually replace it. I have no doubt that many people wouldn't get half as many miles out of an identical car.

Back when I was a youngster and was getting around in '50s and '60s cars, I was doing valve jobs and ring jobs and such on cars with well under a hundred thousand miles on them. And I never went anywhere without a box of tools and a set of points and a length of wire and a fan belt and a light bulb or three. A quart or two of oil and a jug of antifreeze was a good idea, too, seeing how those cars tended to drip and/or burn a lot more of their precious fluids than newer cars do.

Both of our "regular" cars here -- a Chevy Astro and a Ford Windstar, each have more than 150,000 miles on them and both are still running strong on their original engines and trannys. And neither has ever stranded me. I expect to get at least anther 100,000 miles out of each.

I've got that beat on every single one of my cars by many more miles---after over fifty years that tends to be the case though. I always keep them in top condition so they never burn oil and leak little if anything at all. Changing the belts,oil and tuning them up is a good idea too.

 

[tonyb]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Is it that each of your collector cars has many more miles than my relatively new cars have, at only a bit more than 150,000 each? Or that they each have more than the 500,000 miles my friend put on his Lincoln Town Car? And of those old cars of yours (which I wouldn't mind having myself, by the way, although I'm more of an old British sports car kinda guy, seeing how I'm into leaking oil and burned-out lights and long walks at night in the country and all), are any running on their original, and not extensively rebuilt, engines and transmissions? If so, well, you gotta acknowledge that that's quite extraordinary.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Products will keep changing because companies will change them to keep up with demand for change.

Companies will change them to *create* the demand for change, ensuring that no matter what The People already have, they'll be made to think it "isn't enough." The tail is wagging the dog.

You mention that you don't need a faucet in your fridge as you have one in your wall. Why go to the bother of indoor plumbing? Why not just have a well outside? Why not just stick with an outhouse? Who needs indoor plumbing? Your milk is cold. Why bother? Just keep a cow in your backyard.

If I had grown up in such an environment, I'd likely do just that. I have friends who get along just fine without electricity or indoor plumbing, who raise their own food, and pump their water with a well. I admire their self-sufficiency, and when the modern house of cards collapses, it'll be the people like them who have the best chance of survival. As for me, I was raised in an environment with a 1940s-level of technology, so that's where I stay, because I see no good reason to do otherwise. I'm perfectly satisfied with it, and don't *need* any of this other stuff. I can find my way around just fine with a paper road map -- why would I need a GPS?

Why do you scrounge computers? It doesn't matter that you aren't buy them, you are still upgrading to keep up with change.

Only reason I bother with computers at all is because of work. I think my overall quality of life was much better without them, and would get rid of them in a heartbeat if my work didn't require them.

 

[tonyb]

I'm young enough to have never known a world without TV. Living without one in my home for more than a decade was just fine by me. Indeed, I'd consider doing without again, but others in this household feel otherwise.

Got dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age (a mandatory email account, among other impositions) something like 17 years ago. Sure, it's convenient, and it makes lots of stuff -- from shopping to banking to paying bills -- much easier. But mostly it's a big waste of time -- a bit more of an "active" waste of time than sitting in front of the boob tube, perhaps, but the overwhelming uses I put it to, truth be told, are just trivial. I suspect this is true in general.

I have little doubt that our "smart" technologies actually dumb us down in many ways. No need to memorize phone numbers if your regular contacts are a quick touch or two on your phone's screen away. No need to memorize addresses and hundred blocks and all that if your GPS will guide you to your destination. So what? some might ask, to which I'd respond that exercising those parts of the brain beats letting them go flabby. Or so I like to think. But then, commonly committing to memory epic poetry and holy scripture and such (to the extent such practices truly were common) went away with the advent of literacy.

The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since the ancients reflected on the matter. (With enough practice, maybe we'll get there.) In more recent times, within the memory of the most elderly among us, there was much speculation that this technology that transports our voices over vast distances would spell the end of letter writing, and perhaps literacy itself. But here we are, banging away on our fancy letter-writing machines.

And I still ain't giving up my iPhone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have little doubt that our "smart" technologies actually dumb us down in many ways. No need to memorize phone numbers if your regular contacts are a quick touch or two on your phone's screen away. No need to memorize addresses and hundred blocks and all that if your GPS will guide you to your destination. So what? some might ask, to which I'd respond that exercising those parts of the brain beats letting them go flabby. Or so I like to think. But then, commonly committing to memory epic poetry and holy scripture and such (to the extent such practices truly were common) went away with the advent of literacy.

I dunno as I'd go that far. I memorized the entire Sermon On The Mount when I was a kid in Sunday School, and it wasn't considered any kind of a special achievement. In grammar school we memorized the Gettysburg Address, which isn't much of an achievement compared to memorizing, oh, Beowulf, but I don't remember anyone asking "Hey, why are we bothering to do this? Can't we just look it up in a book?"

Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, here's something I've been wondering about. There are plenty of threads on the Lounge praising various aspects of modern technology -- and rarely, if ever, will anyone make a point of going into those threads and start criticising or denouncing such tech. Those of us who are of an atavistic persuasion generally don't bother with such threads -- a thread praising the new i-whatever would get zero attention from me. I wouldn't even bother to click on it, because it's simply nothing that interests me. And yet, any time a thread is posted that *is* specifically critical of any aspect of modern tech or modern life, within two pages, tops, someone shows up challenging us for even presuming to question the value of such things. It's funny how that *always* seems to happen. Are those of us who reject the modern ethos really such dangerous apostates that we must be reined in at all cost?

Drink all the Kool-Aid you want, folks, but don't be surprised if some of us would rather pass.

 

[tonyb]

... Only reason I bother with computers at all is because of work. I think my overall quality of life was much better without them, and would get rid of them in a heartbeat if my work didn't require them.

I can't see how my overall quality of life is much improved by these gizmos either, but we've both provided much evidence that we use them, frequently, for things other than earning our daily bread. Maybe we're a bit like those Amish folks who allow how a telephone might be of some value to them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, you know, it's a funny thing -- the more time I spend online, the more I find myself asking *why?* As you said, it really is an epic time waster. I keep the Lounge open at work to help alleviate the boredom of working in a tiny office with no windows, but, really what's the *point* of it? When I first came here six years ago, it was primarily a gathering place for people with a deep interest in the culture of the Era, but more and more it's revolving around subjects that really don't interest me at all. This is the only Internet forum I participate in, sort of an experiment to see if social-media is worth my time, and increasingly the answer is that, well, it really isn't.

Sure, the net makes it easier to buy things I use -- fabric, radio tubes, books, etc -- but I was able to find and buy all those things locally long before I ever heard of the Internet. If anything, the net has destroyed my local sources for such stuff, *forcing* me into using online sources when I need replacement parts for something I'm fixing. I don't see that as a positive at all. It certainly doesn't save me money, and I find it much more aggravating than being able to walk into a shop and see the merchandise for myself.

 

[tonyb]

Well, you know, it's a funny thing -- the more time I spend online, the more I find myself asking *why?* As you said, it really is an epic time waster. I keep the Lounge open at work to help alleviate the boredom of working in a tiny office with no windows, but, really what's the *point* of it? When I first came here six years ago, it was primarily a gathering place for people with a deep interest in the culture of the Era, but more and more it's revolving around subjects that really don't interest me at all. This is the only Internet forum I participate in, sort of an experiment to see if social-media is worth my time, and increasingly the answer is that, well, it really isn't.

Sure, the net makes it easier to buy things I use -- fabric, radio tubes, books, etc -- but I was able to find and buy all those things locally long before I ever heard of the Internet. If anything, the net has destroyed my local sources for such stuff, *forcing* me into using online sources when I need replacement parts for something I'm fixing. I don't see that as a positive at all. It certainly doesn't save me money, and I find it much more aggravating than being able to walk into a shop and see the merchandise for myself.

Agreed.

 

[tonyb]

And another thing ...

The more prevalent new technologies become, the more everyone, even those who would rather do without, is compelled to adopt them. With the possible exception of subsistence farmers (ain't many of them left), people pretty much need modern transportation and communications technologies to make their way in this world. People in increasing numbers of occupations are expected to be instantly reachable, so they really must have cell phones. Jobs are advertised online, resumes are submitted online, etc., etc.

My hat is off to those who arrange their lives in such a way as to do without all of that. A person can live close to work and the people with whom he or she wishes to interact on a regular basis. Sounds like a good quality of life to me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think most of the reason I stick around here now is out of a sense of obligation -- being a Bartender and all, I feel a sense of responsibility to the place. But the sense of actual enjoyment I used to get out of the content is increasingly rare.

A good example of what you're talking about is what's happening to the film distribution and exhibition business. There was never any -- and there still isn't any -- actual public demand to replace 35mm film with digital exhibition. It's all being driven by corporate greed: the studios want to eliminate the cost of film shipment -- while at the same time charging theatres a "virtual print fee" even when they show a movie digitally. The studios are blackjacking small, independent exhibitors into making a change they don't want to make and can't afford to make, their audiences couldn't care less about, and which will probably drive many of those small exhibitors out of business. This is not progress, it's racketeering.

I refuse to be "instantly reachable." When I go away for a weekend, people at work know I'm gone, and I leave them instructions as to what they're supposed to do if something comes up. Don't try to call me, use your heads and figure it out for yourself.

I commute on a bicycle. I'd rather die than live in suburbia.

 

[tonyb]

I shudder to think how my favorite little movie theater (the Blue Mouse in Tacoma) will cope with this unfortunate new reality. I gotta drive something approaching 40 minutes to get there, so doing so turns into a considerable expenditure of time and money, what with the price of gasoline these days. The place is a for-profit venture, but the one full-time employee there once intimated how its profits get plowed back into maintaining the 1923-built structure. So in many ways it's a labor of love. It's good to see that there are still investors who see a value in things other than money alone.

To kinda steer this thread back to its original topic ...

One wonders how long these new digital projectors will be in use. My guess is they will break (or "crash," or however it might best be characterized) or be made obsolete long before those few houses still showing 35 mm prints even consider replacing their projectors.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Is it that each of your collector cars has many more miles than my relatively new cars have, at only a bit more than 150,000 each? Or that they each have more than the 500,000 miles my friend put on his Lincoln Town Car? And of those old cars of yours (which I wouldn't mind having myself, by the way, although I'm more of an old British sports car kinda guy, seeing how I'm into leaking oil and burned-out lights and long walks at night in the country and all), are any running on their original, and not extensively rebuilt, engines and transmissions? If so, well, you gotta acknowledge that that's quite extraordinary.

The 59 Oldsmobile, 73 Mach 1, 75 cadillac and 57 GMC all are running on their original engines with over 500,000 miles on them. The clock has spun like a lathe on them. It really isn't extraordinary if you keppe changing the fluids, tuning them and changing the rubber parts when they look worn. The reason your taxi cabs and constant use vehicles last so long is because they are used constantly and the engine keeps the parts and seals lubricated. A vehicle that sits for long periods of time will leak like a sieve and seize up because they are not being used as they were made for. There are vehicles out there that have over a million miles out there. It just means they are maintained.
I know what british engineering is. I have several BSA motorcycles as well. They leak no matter what you do, the electrical system is best described as designed by the prince of darkness(Lucas) and you need to be followed by a mechanic. Those I play around with but would never use for long distance. lol

 

[tonyb]

No rebuilds?

No doubt that regular maintenance is necessary to long life. A religiously maintained fleet Crown Vic -- a taxicab, say -- might well clock a half million miles or more before it's put out of its pain, whereas your typical civilian (as we used to call 'em) version gets melted down and turned into new Hyundais with fewer than half that many miles on its odometer. Original owners, who pay big bucks, generally take reasonably good care of them. Second owners generally less so, third owners even less, etc., until it ends up with someone who got it for grand and drives it into the dirt. But even the best cars wear out. Sure, a person can continue replacing parts (even entire bodies for early MGBs and Ford Mustangs and Model Ts and As can be had these days), but it can get to be like the guy who is still using his grandfather's axe -- the one that's had its handle replaced four times and its head twice. But it's still a good axe.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One wonders how long these new digital projectors will be in use. My guess is they will break (or "crash," or however it might best be characterized) or be made obsolete long before those few houses still showing 35 mm prints even consider replacing their projectors.

The majority of 35mm projectors in use in theatres around the world are at least thirty years old, and it's not at all uncommon for projectors made in the 1930s to still be in regular daily use. They've been modified, in most cases, to feeed the film off platters, and it's uncommon to find a carbon-arc lamphouse still in use, but the projector mechanism itself, the gears and sprockets and shutter, continues to function as well as it ever did.

We've gone thru two digital projectors in six years here -- we use digital for trailers, pre-show slides, and alternative content. They just aren't built for the sort of use they get in a professional environment, and that's why theatres are kicking so hard. At $100,000 a screen to convert to full digital, with no guarantee it'll actually last past its warranty period, it's robbery, plain and simple. Add to this the fact that most of the digital-cinema stuff today is equipped with all sorts of proprietary security features that require a factory tech to so much as change a bulb, and it's even more egregious a robbery.

 

[sheeplady]

Sure, I understand being attached to something for sentimental reasons. You must have gotten a lot of use from it over the years. But if your current mixer dies you can't say that after 32 years it let you down. Even the most durable products that we have will eventually give up the ghost. Just give it a proper send off and a good eulogy

No, the mixer didn't let me down. I feel like modern society let me down. There is no one around to fix it, no parts easily or readily available, and that is because there is no culture of conserving and appreciating what a person has. In fact, I've been told by numerous people that I was "stupid" for keeping it this long when I have the opportunity to buy a new one. Why even try to fix it when I can have new? What is "wrong" with me that I don't want new? It's a pervasive culture of wanting and needing new.

I've heard that "things have to break and be replaced to make jobs." But when I go to replace my standmixer the replacement will be built (at least in part) by people in inhumane sweatshops overseas. Buying a new standmixer doesn't make their lives any better- it doesn't guarantee their job or ensure they won't get beaten or starved that day. By getting into the consumer culture, we're not giving people jobs, we're actually near-enslaving people to work in conditions we haven't seen in most developed countries in nearly 80-100 years. We're actually taking away the jobs of the repair-people, and the shop keepers, and the part manufacturers.

We tell ourselves that consumers won't pay "that kind of money" for a kitchen gadget made by fair labor. And they are perfectly right that consumers won't pay a huge sum for something that is not repairable and is going to break in 5 years. There is a tradeoff in quality versus price and our society for the most part doesn't see it. You can't blame most people from shying away from more pricey modern goods- they've spent the last 30 years getting burnt by every appliance they've bought when it dies 5-10 years later. There's no guarantee that the uber-expensive item won't just be an expensive piece of junk, and they've been conditioned to expect junk. So they will only pay for junk. If you want something repairable, you have to go with extremely high-end appliances- like restaurant quality stoves and such.These are considered life-time plus appliances and will get a repairman out to you the next day. So, there is still a vein of "quality" in our society, it just costs $5,000+ to tap into it. For smaller items, that doesn't exist. For most people, the high end market for larger appliances is totally unaffordable.

Everything might end up in a landfill or being melted down, you're right. But what happened if every standmixer lasted 40 years instead of 20? We'd half the amount of garbage from standmixers. Do that with every household appliance, you'd end up with a lot less landfill waste. Also, getting people to compost would help too.