The planned obsolescence was invented in the first half of the last century. Since then many industries build products with life times determined a-priori or by inducing in the consumer, by means of advertising, the need to change an "old" model with a new one that substantially has the same functionality of the "old". This behavior is ethically correct?
Product life cycles are an important aspect of technology that helps to maintain the highest level of applicable knowledge towards the continuous development of new products to address new service needs. Without this continuous need to incorporate new information that improves products, devices, and/or the procedures associated with them, innovation would be stifled. This is specifically true for medical devices but not exclusive because all products are subject to an end life in some form or another--even shampoo, perfume, and candy bars. However, to address your point on the ethical portion of planned obsolescence, this perspective is only valid if technology advances to cover product needs of a new population and/or meet new regulations in a way that increases efficiency, effectiveness, or equitable access. Product iterations that merely add bells and whistles would not meet ethical standards. You can, of course, apply this to many types of products which can be subject to the pass/fail ethical criteria. But there is one more dimension that is necessary to address. Consumers drive the need for some of these bells and whistles and if businesses want to stay in business, they must bring forth new products. A new scent of shampoo may not be required but may be more pleasing to a new group of consumers. By the same token, some new brand of shampoo may be perceived as 'more' ethical because it will address dandruff in a way that is perceived as better because the scent is improved. Ultimately, product innovation requires adherence to product demand. If there is a market then there must be a method to bring forth new product. This requires the perspective that 'old' products must be phased out in order to allow production of new and presumably improved products that meet some market demand. Hence, consumerism can be perceived as either ethical or unethical, but the fact that industry must comply to demand may give industry a 'pass' on the ethical conundrum. Obsolescence is also necessary because new product requires acquisition of new materials, new equipment, and planning without which opportunity for new markets would be decreased.
Product life cycles are an important aspect of technology that helps to maintain the highest level of applicable knowledge towards the continuous development of new products to address new service needs. Without this continuous need to incorporate new information that improves products, devices, and/or the procedures associated with them, innovation would be stifled. This is specifically true for medical devices but not exclusive because all products are subject to an end life in some form or another--even shampoo, perfume, and candy bars. However, to address your point on the ethical portion of planned obsolescence, this perspective is only valid if technology advances to cover product needs of a new population and/or meet new regulations in a way that increases efficiency, effectiveness, or equitable access. Product iterations that merely add bells and whistles would not meet ethical standards. You can, of course, apply this to many types of products which can be subject to the pass/fail ethical criteria. But there is one more dimension that is necessary to address. Consumers drive the need for some of these bells and whistles and if businesses want to stay in business, they must bring forth new products. A new scent of shampoo may not be required but may be more pleasing to a new group of consumers. By the same token, some new brand of shampoo may be perceived as 'more' ethical because it will address dandruff in a way that is perceived as better because the scent is improved. Ultimately, product innovation requires adherence to product demand. If there is a market then there must be a method to bring forth new product. This requires the perspective that 'old' products must be phased out in order to allow production of new and presumably improved products that meet some market demand. Hence, consumerism can be perceived as either ethical or unethical, but the fact that industry must comply to demand may give industry a 'pass' on the ethical conundrum. Obsolescence is also necessary because new product requires acquisition of new materials, new equipment, and planning without which opportunity for new markets would be decreased.
The product life cycle is import to maintain the high level so the change of the shampoo scent to make new product is part of perceived obsolescence. On the other hand, shorten the life cycle of a product to increase sales is dishonest and foolish with the environment, contributing to pollution and reducing the sustainability of the environment. Regards
Right or wrong, ethics often takes a back seat to profit motive.
Planned obsolescence is a business model designed to make more money for company owners/investors. For example, incandescent light bulbs could be made to burn forever, but they wee designed to burn out so that the companies could sell more.
But not all obsolescence is planned as part of profit motive. Battery packs will only take a certain number of charges before performance is reduced and it is just a consequence of the battery technology used. It is a limitation of the technology. On the other hand, building a device so that the batters pack cannot be replaced is profit motive. Similarly, ending support for perfectly good devices that are only 3-5 years old is also driven by profit motive.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics