It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The end of ownership

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:33 PM
Do you need to own a car or do you need mobility ? Do you need to own a light bulb or do you need light ? Do you need to own a refrigerator or do you need refrigeration ?

One of the greatest stupidities that humans have invented is planned obsolescence. It goes against everything that is sane, everything that is intelligent and it creates mountains of waste in a world with finite resources and a fragile ecosystem, a delicate equilibrium. How can we force companies and manufacturers to let go of this ?

Imagine a company that doesn't sell light bulbs, but sells light. Imagine you just built a brand new house, and you need your house to be lit. You ask this company to bring light to your house and that company takes care of the rest. What would happen ? The company would be forced to use the most efficient light bulb that can be produced : extremely long life and extremely energy efficient. Because the company not only would have to furnish you with light bulbs but it would also have to pay the energy bill.

This same logic can be applied to many other things : washing machines, refrigerators, cars, televisions, computers etc.. In some countries it is already happening : people can rent a fridge which stays the property of the company, thus it is in the best interest of that company that the fridge is as solid as possible. The company also has to take care of the fridge once it is dead, for recycling.

But this would only be the 1st step towards a world in which we don't need to own something to be able to use it as we need, a world based on access to commodities rather than a world based on ownership. The next step is the end of money.

Please watch this documentary.

edit on 4-1-2016 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:40 PM
I don't have time to watch a video, but I don't share or play well with others.

I doubt this system would work for me.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:41 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

How far are you willing to go with this "not owning" things. Underwear are things. Would Hanes then be responsible for washing their property?

Dentures, same reasoning.

Just asking...

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

I did not watch the video but have difficulty understanding this giving of power to big companies over us.

Everything that we need would be owned by some organisation ?

That needs some explaining

edit on 4-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:53 PM
Sounds like life for the working classes in 1970's Britain.

When I was a child my parents used to rent all electrical appliances through a company called 'Rediffusion'.

By the early 1980's these goods were more affordable to purchase outright, so most families discontinued renting.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:16 PM
In the 1970's, you could rent a large CRT TV set from a company called Rediffusion. They did cable TV as well - I remember being in a hotel room, adjusting the room temperature and the TV channel would keep changing... Problem with renting a TV is that it was cheaper in the long run to just buy. Even when they offered free upgrades.

But it's no different from buying a smartphone with a contract these days. Buy the phone unlocked, that's £500. Buy the phone with a lock-in contract, that's £50 + a 1 year contract + monthly direct debit bill, full warranty with free replacement if lost or broken.

It's still cheaper to buy outright.
edit on 4-1-2016 by stormcell because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:20 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

Unfortunately planned obsolescence, version churn and rampant capitalism are not the only things causing turnover of goods.

Everything rusts. Everyone dies.

Currently, computer support companies and their customers are exploring the provision of services rather than the provision of goods. It has not all been smooth sailing and is attendant with unique issues that are unlikely to be resolvable to everyone's satisfaction.

There are problems with delinquent payers, delinquent providers, bait-and-switch untruthful marketing, sabotage by those wishing to force an upgrade, poor response to theft and damage and questions of who is responsible for the rectification of problems.

Sorry to be such a 'downer'.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:22 PM
Who is responsible when my refrigerator dispenses me too many beers and I "trip" and fall, damaging said equipment? How does the service policy work? It would be quite inconvenient if I had to wait a day for my coffee maker to be served (I'm not really that uptight, lol), when I can choose to go buy a new one at my leisure. I hope I understand the premise of your OP.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:27 PM
"Planned obsolescence" rarely exits in the real world. It's more a matter of making things cheaply enough so consumers will buy them. Any engineer knows that if you make things with parts that will last, so will the object, but that costs more money. Given the choice between a Black & Decker mixer for $19.95 compared to a Kitchen-Aid mixer that does the same thing for $350, consumers go for the cheap end, then complain when it breaks after a couple of years, Meanwhile, the Kitchen-Aid mixer is an heirloom that gets passed down to the next generation. There's also the matter of maintenance. Consumers won't be bothered, so stuff breaks and they cry, "Planned obsolescence."

This is why I can drive a car for 150,000 miles and it still runs like a new car and my kid can drive a car for 50,000 miles and claim to me that "it's falling apart!" But, as usual, if you can slough the blame off onto some "evil corporation," people will do it in a heartbeat.

Funny this should come up, though, because I just today got this survey from my electric company that wondered if I would be willing to "lease" a water heater rather than buy one. They said it would cost me $18.00 a month and that every three years they would "maintain" it for a $200.00 service call. Now it just so happens a few years ago I had to replace my water heater. The damn thing cost me $800, but it lasted for 20 years. So I can lease for a mere $18.00 a month, or buy a water heater for $800 that lasts for 20 years.

You do the math. Such a deal, extols the electric company, but I think not. But the whole thing begs the question. Do you think I will NOT put in efficient light bulbs because I "own" them? Or mightn't I want to do it anyway because it uses far less electricity? I'm liking the way I do math better than those guys, sorry.

Next they'll want me to put all my data "in the cloud where it's safe!" Riiiight. Is my data safer on a thumb drive or in Microsoft's cloud? They just told me they will notify me in case a government tries to hack my data.

I feel so much safer now.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:39 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

The best way to overcome planned obsolescance is to either buy quality goods in the first place and eliminate the rubbish that has a planned or predicted shelf life or accept that you don't need it in the first place.

As for your lighting last house had a total of about 50 watts in total for all the bulbs and only one or two on at a time. Hardly a big issue and I was happy paying the 28 euros per month for my total electrical consumption.

Unfortunately, people want, feel and are told that they need more options, more choice, the latest features, the fastest, most economical etc etc.

The GOOD things are expensive for a reason but most people cannot afford them or want to pay for them, hense, they buy a cheap equivalent which gets trashed in a fraction of the time and replaced with more rubbish.

Don't change the stuff, change the people and FORCE the producers to make better quality items. Also, have you considered how many jobs would be lost if things lasted longer and the demand reduced?

I am not a traditional consumer but a maker, repairer, restorer, improver and a 'do withouter'. THAT is my statement to the world of stuff....I just don't feed the machine. If it only makes a tiny difference, it still matters.

The world is amazingly greedy and ignorant and while I won't take part in that, I will always do my bit to help change others.

ps..this post was created on a computer I built from old bits I salvaged from the local dump about 5 years ago. Not a mobile phone, tablet, laptop or other modern tekkie gadget. See my point?

edit on 4/1/2016 by nerbot because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:07 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

People like to purchase new stuff, we consume, we are consumers. Kind of ingrained into the very fabric of our society via the capitalist mentality displayed by our first world nations.

Right or wrong if we were to stop consuming our financial institutions and infrastructure around the world would deteriorate, stagnant and ultimately fail over time.

Which is probably the way its set up in the first place by TPTB. Self perpetuating and self sustaining at the expense of the many and enjoyed by the few.
edit on 4-1-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:18 PM
Sounds like what Adobe is doing with their Creative Cloud membership. Don't buy the programs, buy a membership license to use them.
When is it ever preferable to rent vs. own? Sounds like less individual power and more communism.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: Treestyle

Sounds like less individual power and more communism.

Because that's basically what it is. The OP has long argued for a moneyless society without any form of ownership. What he has proposed here doesn't end ownership, it transfers ownership over to large organizations and takes it away from individuals. At the end of the day someone has to decide how natural resources get used and someone has to own them.

I would also like to remind the OP that we already do rent "light", it's called paying for electricity. Owning a bulb isn't enough to give me light, I need to pay an energy company to supply me with energy. I like to have the freedom to chose my own bulb because I can make sure it's durable and energy efficient, preferably an LED based bulb.
edit on 4/1/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:57 PM
The reason I like owning a car is because I like controlling the means through which I have mobility.

I resent the idea that I pay full price simply to pay for the license to so much of my software these days. I feel like I'm being ripped off to never actually hold a copy in my hands. If all I'm actually paying for is the key, shouldn't it cost less than the full hard copy?

And you better believe when it comes to spending my money, I search for the best option. We did have the cheap blender, but we have used the heck out of it and so when we replace it, we'll pay for the expensive one that's likely to wear much better.

When we buy a car, we pay for maintenance. We have one over 300,000 miles now.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: gosseyn

Already we have rented homes, cars,boats tv,washers,timeshare condos, lighting and sound companies, fully appliances rental warehouse and homes we can lease....I think we're past that...since I970's...even internet and, dishes, phone....we are already there, and a lot of folks like living with others providing.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:24 PM
a reply to: stormcell

It's still cheaper to buy outright.

It always will be, because with the OP's system the supplier has to meet additional costs besides those of supply and distribution. Who pays? The consumer.

Also, I am not sure why the OP thinks a rental company would have a greater incentive to provide cost-effective solutions than a private owner. And why he thinks customers would put up with the inconvenience of such solutions.

This is essentially a Socialist idea without the coercive power of the state to enforce it. Won't work.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:27 PM
a reply to: NewzNose

I have issues with using dentures and underwear in the same post.

But seriously, Google, Apple, and now GM want you to borrow their cars. It makes sense, except to the person that gets the second ride from the bar at 3am.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:39 PM
Don't worry
The consumer world we created is nearing its end

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:39 PM
The ownership is not the problem of this world; greed is.
If people would not be able to buy things, they will make them and own them. We need to posses things, it makes us feel comfortable and safe, even if is just an idea. Make us feel free to use a thing in our own terms, when we want and how we want.

Look at a kindergarten; all kids have access to the same toys, all toys, yet they still fight among them for that one favorite toy. As opposed to when every kid have his own toy, and they play with what they have. Of course, they may still want the other kid toy but they know "is not mine" and that stops it most of the time.

The problem is when we want to posses much more than we need, when we're jealous of other people possessions, when the need for safety becomes an obsession, a purpose of life.
What the world needs is for the people to change, not the systems. Every system can be abused and corrupted as long as people act on the same destructive impulses.

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:34 AM
a reply to: gosseyn

I haven't watched the video but I have read enough to know that to suggest we dont need to own anything is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

I agree that in the not to distant future none of the masses will own anything but it will be because copyright law will effectively and eventually strip everyone (bar those rich enough to be above the law) of ownership of anything.

John Deere, the people who make farm tactors and lawn mowers have already said as far as they are concerned, farmers do not own the tractors they but only own the right to use them because farmers (end users) have not brought the copyright.

Similar things are in the wind to prevent car owners fixing and servicing their own cars for the same reason, they don't own the copyright.

Think about it, you wont even own the shirt or skirt you wear because you do not own the copyright, You cant even keep a coka cola can because you do not own the copyright.

at the moment its a mere drop, drop, drop. its not even a trickle but one day the copyright bomb will effectively strip the masses of everything and none of them will own any wealth what so ever. Get it???

I bet my balls that the video the OP has posted was made by and for the copyright dreadnought. IMO, the purpose of this is video is designed to train people to accept that they have no need (and therefore no right) to own anything.

Does anyone seriously expect the rich, the super rich and the billionaires to subscribe to what this video is teaching?? They must be laughing their guts out at anyone who believes this absolute crap.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in