#RightToRepair will become an absolute necessity in the near future. Having all the supply chain completely fucked up and prices all over increasing like never before, people will need to learn how to do stuff themselves instead of pulling a credit card.
In which cases it's *usually* still a win to manufacture just the broken component rather than re-manufacturer the whole device... Assuming ofcourse those are the two options, which yes is a dangerous assumption.
No, that's not inaccurate. Of course there is new material in the picture when repairing, even if it is only a screw, glue or gas for welding. That is not the point. Also if something is completely destroyed it might not be feasible to repair (i.E. a broken chassis on a car which has to pass inspection), but still the thought of repairing FIRST is sustainable. Let's not divert energy from the topic here.
My point is that "sustainable" has a meaning. It implies that the production of the ecology keeps up with the demand.
Depending on the repairs the extraction could outstrip the ecology. It might require a non-renewable resource, it might require too much of a resource, etc.
Confused about the thoughts part. "Thoughts are sustainable" isn't what is written on the poster.
It's not a diversion of energy to suggest we create a poster that makes sense. Otherwise the only people who will be convinced are people who already agree.
first I thought you were just being obtuse but you're right, there are a LOT of problems with this poster, especially in the "only convincing those who already agree" department It doesn't explain or justify ANY of it's points, doesn't even make a case for them, it literally says they are "held to be self-evident" Seems rather masturbatory rather than actually trying to dispense any information
Are you trying to prove a point? Because you do the same with this comment. You invalidate something somebody else did/wrote without backing your statements up with evidence or proposals for change. I would not expect "proof" on a poster given that there is very limited space available.
But I would be interested if you could give information on misleading information and/or proposals on how to change it to be less "masturbatory"...
Okay, this might be a language barrier thing. I understood it as "To repair (instead of buy the same thing anew) is sustainable". Of course this is not true for every product in every state. A broken coal power plant should be dismanteled and be replaced by a more sustainable method of power generation. This is what I meant with the thought of repairing stuff. It *should* be an option, you *should* consider it, you *should* be able/allowed to do it.
Gets tricky with old computer hardware too, once you factor in energy consumption, where you get your electricity from, plus heat output and how that affects your HVAC bills.
Sure, you can repair a PDP-11 and run Unix on it, but at 2kW or more plus cooling costs how long would it take before the emissions impact exceeded that of a new Raspberry Pi running on 6W or less?
I'm upgrading my repair capabilities! I have my Sherline lathe and mill, and have already done my first repair--a 1930's or 1940's (no date stamp, that's the age range of the product line) rolling pin. The handles were binding, so I had to get the handle loos from the pin body, turn them down on the lathe, re-saturate them with food grade wax, and reassemble.
Odo Tournesol
in reply to riveck • • •alcinnz
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •Odo Tournesol
in reply to alcinnz • • •alcinnz reshared this.
Aram Loosman
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •Odo Tournesol
in reply to Aram Loosman • • •My point is that "sustainable" has a meaning. It implies that the production of the ecology keeps up with the demand.
Depending on the repairs the extraction could outstrip the ecology. It might require a non-renewable resource, it might require too much of a resource, etc.
Confused about the thoughts part. "Thoughts are sustainable" isn't what is written on the poster.
Odo Tournesol
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •Gold-Tinged Excrement
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •It doesn't explain or justify ANY of it's points, doesn't even make a case for them, it literally says they are "held to be self-evident"
Seems rather masturbatory rather than actually trying to dispense any information
Aram Loosman
in reply to Gold-Tinged Excrement • • •Are you trying to prove a point? Because you do the same with this comment. You invalidate something somebody else did/wrote without backing your statements up with evidence or proposals for change.
I would not expect "proof" on a poster given that there is very limited space available.
But I would be interested if you could give information on misleading information and/or proposals on how to change it to be less "masturbatory"...
Aram Loosman
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •Of course this is not true for every product in every state. A broken coal power plant should be dismanteled and be replaced by a more sustainable method of power generation.
This is what I meant with the thought of repairing stuff. It *should* be an option, you *should* consider it, you *should* be able/allowed to do it.
mathew 🦜☕
in reply to Aram Loosman • • •Gets tricky with old computer hardware too, once you factor in energy consumption, where you get your electricity from, plus heat output and how that affects your HVAC bills.
Sure, you can repair a PDP-11 and run Unix on it, but at 2kW or more plus cooling costs how long would it take before the emissions impact exceeded that of a new Raspberry Pi running on 6W or less?
riveck
in reply to mathew 🦜☕ • • •Calypso
in reply to riveck • • •Proposal:
Repair is more sustainable!
Even more sustainable would be more or less to stop existing and consuming at all
Andy Valencia ✅
in reply to Calypso • • •nieebel
in reply to Odo Tournesol • • •Just throwing some numbers in the round:
fairphone.com/wp-content/uploa…