I'll take environmentally responsible planned obsolescence over the current situation.
Nothing lasts. Durable plastic and metal goods become damaged or worn. What then? When repair, reuse, or recycling is not socioeconomically attractive, having some sort of naturally sustainable cycle would be nice, wouldn't it?
Even if I have to buy a new phone case every seven months, if it's part of a sustainable cycle that becomes quite economical due to the massive scale -- wouldn't that be better than maintaining the current production of long-lived plastics?
This strikes me as an example of capitalism learning something from biology.
The problem with "environmentally responsible" planned obsolescence is that it's never environmentally responsible to throw out what would otherwise be a functional device but for the fact that it was made to break down on a specific timetable. The three Rs are "reduce, reuse, recycle", not "recycle, recycle, recycle". Making the product degrade prematurely means you can't reuse, and by proxy, having to buy a new one means you're not reducing.
Degradable devices sounds like the sort of thing intended to assuage the consciences of very rich people who buy the newest iPhone every year.
Meanwhile, a lot of people end up buying cars sooner than they would have had to otherwise, because someone thought it was a good, environmentally-sound idea to make electrical wiring out of tasty, tasty soybeans.
Nothing lasts. Durable plastic and metal goods become damaged or worn. What then? When repair, reuse, or recycling is not socioeconomically attractive, having some sort of naturally sustainable cycle would be nice, wouldn't it?
Even if I have to buy a new phone case every seven months, if it's part of a sustainable cycle that becomes quite economical due to the massive scale -- wouldn't that be better than maintaining the current production of long-lived plastics?
This strikes me as an example of capitalism learning something from biology.