It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Lightbulb Conspiracy

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Here's a German documentary which talks about a premise that we've all suspected: that products are intentionally made to fail after a certain time period or a concept called planned obsolescence.

They talk about the light bulb and the Phoebus cartel's actions with regards to monopolizing the light bulb market and ensuring that the bulbs did not last too long.

The documentary relates this idea to more modern items such as a printer, but in order for this idea to flourish, the consumer must want to buy things that he or she doesnt need, but simply wants.

This is a concept discussed by Edward Bernays. Bernays argued that population controlling propaganda shouldnt be reserved for wartime, that propaganda can be used during peacetime as well.


And where are we today? A nation that is at constant war. A World manipulated by the specter of dangerous boogeymen and consumerism which prompts people to buy the latest product because we "have to get it", even at the expense of crippling debt.

People are waking up but is it too late?

edit on 17-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
How many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?
Ten .One to change it and the rest to try and see the lighter side.

Maybe not.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Vintage goods are always bragged as being more durable. Not only planned obsolescence is everywhere today, they're holding back on technological developments to milk consumers. Apple is probably one or two generation ahead in iPhones, being tested in their labs. How can you run an ever growing company if what you produce is good indefinitely?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
well take it like this, there is a lightbulb burning for over 110 years now
www.centennialbulb.org... they even have a webcam on it to catch it when it burns out. so yeah, today's products are meant to breakdown
greed gets bigger every day



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Things that don't last long do keep jobs though. Think about it, if cars were made to last at least 50 yrs instead of the average 10(?) yrs...how many more people would be without jobs? I mean, 5 cars made a year opposed to 50 cars a year... you get the jist.
edit on 17-12-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
If new things didn't stop working after a while, I would have a lot more money to buy things that I don't need.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The old-fashioned light bulb has been declared illegal here (no idea about surrounding countries) so people are forced to use those new and more expensive energy saving ones. Trouble is, they contain mercury.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
And this will prove your theory. How can an old bulb be burning after 110 yrs when we supposedly have better technology today?




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
Things that don't last long do keep jobs though. Think about it, if cars were made to last at least 50 yrs instead of the average 10(?) yrs...how many more people would be without jobs? I mean, 5 cars made a year opposed to 50 cars a year... you get the jist.
edit on 17-12-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)


That's a great idea that could be expanded upon... factories could produce goods that were pre-broken, which would create a mass of jobs for people employed to fix them. And those fixers could be purposely trained to be incompetant, so requiring a mass of trainers to train them properly.
Or we could just NOT make anything at all & have millions of officials employed to 'service' the paperwork of imports from other countries... you guessed it... making broken crap.

etc etc etc.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrMaybeNot
Vintage goods are always bragged as being more durable. Not only planned obsolescence is everywhere today, they're holding back on technological developments to milk consumers. Apple is probably one or two generation ahead in iPhones, being tested in their labs. How can you run an ever growing company if what you produce is good indefinitely?


I guess what you are saying is a move to socialism is the logical solution. I agree but most people seem to get hysterical if you mention socialism. I think Libertarian Socialism is a good happy medium.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I remember learning about this in science class in year 9. Modern lightbulbs use tungsten which burns out after so many hours.
I cant remember what the element was but there is something we could use as a filament that would never run out.

Good old commercialism heh



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
even though it starts with light bulbs it doesent end there, it is far worse than that!
you can aplly it to almoast every household item that contains ellectronics in it,
because they are all built in a way to dissfuncition at a certain point so you must
buy a another, and that s just the way it works, becasuse todays economics is based
in a cycling and never ending consumption circle.

if you don t understand what i m aiming at take a look at this:
www.youtube.com... (story of stuff)

it s not that they ( i mean the corporations) can t produce a long lasting product,
it s just a simple fact that they don t wont to, because it wouldnt be profitable for them.
and what is not profitable, it s just not good for you and me.

it is simple as that!

my point is that WE AS CONSUMERS have to change our views about things and
recject to buy stuff that is made to be obsolete in a few months



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Perhaps people would learn to communicate more and work on themselves and the land instead of monopolizing towards consumerism...



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
If new things didn't stop working after a while, I would have a lot more money to buy things that I don't need.
In fact, you would need a lot less money so could work less. Think about it....

The obvious consequence of there being fewer jobs in manufacturing, if we built things to last, could be offset by the fact that we would need less money to buy things anyway. Surely advances in technology should result in humans needing to work less? Of course, for everyone to share these benefits requires a fairer distribution of work and wealth which looks impossible under the current economic system.

It's time to take a good hard look at the global economic system and consumerism.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
The old-fashioned light bulb has been declared illegal here (no idea about surrounding countries) so people are forced to use those new and more expensive energy saving ones. Trouble is, they contain mercury.


The energy companies sent out doorknockers here that offer to replace your light bulbs with these new ones free of charge.

I know enough about corporations to know something is not right when they appear to be cutting their own throats to "help us".

I also heard that the Holden Commodore a few years back was specifically designed to last for only 5 years. I spent a fortune replacing almost everything mechanical on my car (a 1989 model) because I know it will last another 20 years.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 

Now its funny you should mention that... can you believe that here (Holland) the local councils did the very same thing?
Yes, conspiracies abound but I'm sure they made a pretty penny out of it too, probably in conjunction with the bulb makers. They said it was a "special offer" (we didn't get them for free). Obviously these new bulbs had to cost something like 5-10 times the price of the old ones but they said they were environmentally friendly (use less power) but forgot to mention the mercury. Strange, that. Obviously electricity prices have now increased where you can only afford to run a 9 watt bulb and still pay the same as if it was burning 60 watts. They truly are a bunch of expletives.

I was also quite shocked to read of that cartel they formed way back in the 20's. Philips, I always thought they made crappy products and avoid them whenever possible.


edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Small clarification



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 


How many Mexicans does it take to screw a light bulb? Juan.

Anyways, I swear HP products break every 3 years. I noticed it with my dads computer, then his printer, followed by my printer. Im currently using a pretty decent HP computer and its half a year old,,, pretty sure this will die in 2 and a half years time.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I don't think many will find this version offensive (it's actually the Dutch version and I am not Dutch so really I'm just repeating
) I might need to explain that Friesland used to be a country but is now just a "part" of Holland. Anyway....

How many people does it take to change a lightbulb?

5

One to hold the bulb and 4 to turn the table.

Mmhmm!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Not necesarilly true, you see, my iphone did not break down but i decided to buy a new one since i really liked it. so mac marketing worked on me. You don't buy new stuff when stuff breaks down. you innovate and come up with newer products, people would still buy them.

i'll give you another example. you get 3 or 5 years warranty on a car. and the car works perfect in that timeframe. awesome. the thing is that most cars start to break down after the warranty time, and this my friend is not speculations, there were a couple of people that actually conducted studies in this phenomenon in my country. I'll try to look them up and post them here. how many times did you change the car just cos it broke down? i bet many just changed the cars while wanting a new one. but little breakups are simply frustrating.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


I am an automotive engineer myself - yes, developing cars, deciding which material to use, how to test the parts, etc.
I spent my first 7 years in parts development, and now I am working as Quality improvement engineer (i.e. checking the customers complaints and dissatisfactions with our vehicles, and then change the design of parts in existing vehicles, improve these parts so as to fix the issues experienced by the customers, in my area of expertise).
I work for one of the biggest world automaker.

I would like to reply to you and to most people who believe that we develop our cars so that they break down on in a given timeframe on purpose in order to boost the sales level.
I am sorry to say that this is not true in the way you mean it. I will try and explain it.

We are indeed devellping our vehicles for a certain timeframe/mileage, which is different from company to company (e.g. Mercedes are developing their cars for approx. 15 years/200,000km I think, most "mainstream" autos such as Renault, Ford, Fiat, etc. are rather in the 10 years/100,000 or 150,000km range).
Now, where I disagree with you, is that we do not develop a car for this timeframe/mileage in order to secure additional sales, as you seem to imply.
We are developing for this timeframe/mileage because it is a company policy based on very complex calculations and considerations.
A car is made of about 3000 different parts, which have to work together (interact with each other, stay clear from each other, etc).
Making them "work" together is in itself a very complex job (which is why there are engineers), then you have to consider the service time. Given these considerations we could still make some pretty reliable cars.
Then comes in another part of the equation, we have to build a vehicle, on he same factory lines, at about 500,000 cars per year in some cases. Therefore your design should not only be robust in regards to surrounding parts over a certain timeframe, but also designed for assembly, so that the parts can be assembled within a short time by an operator, without impairing the overall quality. Therefore the line operator, as opposed to Ferrari or Bentley operators, does not have 30 minutes to fit a part and check whether it is fitting properly, but rather 10 seconds.
And, last but not least, you have the costs consideration. Your part MUST cost a certain amount max. This is where trade offs happen.
If we had unlimited budget, I can promise you that I would be the first one to develop complet fail-safe parts using top quality materials, super advanced tooling and processes.
Some points worth mentioning are weight and safety. Our car must be lightweight to achieve certain fuel consumption and pollution targets, otherwise customers will not buy them. They must also achieve a top rating in NCAP.
You also have to think that we are also given a certain time to market timeframe.
In order to make our car fail safe, best way to test them would be to test thousands time each part until they fail, in order to know where, when and how they fail. Then repeat the test at higher level (sub-systemm system, vehicle). But that would take ages. And if our cars were hitting market after such a long time, yes you would have a great product, top quality, but 5 years (arbitrary number) late, therefore promised to a complete failure on the market.
So on the one hand you have top management who wants a car ready to be sold next week, and on the other hands you have the engineers who wants more time to develop their parts properly, negociate costs, and test the parts properly.
And all the parts have to be ready at the same time for prototype building and then serial building.

So, I hope I made a clear very short summary of how we develop cars, without giving away company know-how.
I hope I could make clear how complex it is to develop a car and how and why we have to do some trade offs.

I am sorry for this lengthy post, but I really want to clarify this point. Many people around me have told me that we are developing cars to break at a certain on prupose, so as to sell more cars. But I really want to clear this point, it is just an urban legend.
I also hope that my position as a car engineer will make my post trustful.
As an car engineer, if I could make my parts fail-safe, then I would definitely do it.

Just a quick note, a fail safe vehicle is also possible, but it would cost 50 times more (and probably even much more), would weigh 5 times more, consume 10 times more, and would look like a 80s design, with of course no feature such as bluetooth, CD reader, IPod or USB port, ABS or ESP, etc. (as its development would have started 20 years ago).
And here is then my question to you, would you buy this car?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join