Obsolescence and Made to Break themes

The themes of Made to Break and obsolescence converge by one item being produced and then each item produced after that, plays off the previous item. Consumers and producers find better ways of making products. Consumers then want every new item that is produced and sold. Producers study consumers and produce new items again. Planned obsolescence plays off progressive and technical obsolescence, making older items obsolete. For a couple of examples, when cars were produced each type of car designed after that reflected off each other. Each later model looked better and ran better than the previous model. When AM radio was produced, FM was later introduced and was a better product by sending out a sharper sound.

Capitalism seems that it will not succeed without obsolescence. Without disposable products, planned obsolescence, psychological obsolescence, progressive obsolescence and technical all build off each other to keep our economy moving. Americans make a want, a need. We want a new product because the one we have doesn’t function as well as the new item (or is broken). We naturally want the new, best item out on the market, and with advertising, companies make consumers think that we need the new, best item out there. Without obsolescence pushing consumers to buy new products that are out on the market, the country wouldn’t be making any money at all. We’d have to rely on products breaking for consumers to purchase new items, if producers didn’t come up with new versions of products. Obsolescence is a natural and normal cycle of any business, and economic system. Being part of any business is to make money.

Slade’s approach to obsolescence fits in with the themes, however it seems like his approach doesn’t have another side to it. There are many good facts, and history to back up his approach, but he doesn’t give a different side to the obsolescence idea. Like I said in the paragraph before, the economy can’t function without obsolescence and that’s agreeing with Slade. He says that obsolescence is a positive for the country, but what about it being a negative for the country? Factories mass produce a product. Consumers are buying it. Shortly after, the company comes out with a new product and now consumers want that one. What about all the items still on shelves or sitting in factories not being sold because of the new product taking over? This wastes resources, space and energy. Also, what about the old product owned by the consumer that was replaced? It’s most likely thrown away because it has become obsolete to them. This is a negative because all the now obsolete products are taking up landfill space, or adding harmful chemicals to the land.