I’ve previously written about how design encourages sustainability. The gist is that people keep well-designed things, so good design encourages conservation, discourages waste.
But there is an obvious dark side to attractive things: we want to have more of them. So good design encourages over-consumption.
This article on reusable grocery bags is the perfect example. Reusable canvas bags should be more sustainable than single-use plastic bags in the long run, even though they are 400x more expensive to make. But people who use well-designed bags them like them so much, they tend to acquire too many of them!
I’m guilty here too. As I wrote,
I still shave with straight razors that are 60-80 years old. Although manufacturing, say a new Thiers-Issard razor, is expensive, the legions of disposable shavers it nullifies will grow for decades, possibly centuries.
That sounds good. But note the plural in “straight razors”. Because I like them, I have more than I strictly need from a utilitarian standpoint. And the truth is, over half of my razors were are new, not heirlooms (which are harder to get in good condition). Granted, I’ve used these “new” razors for 5 years, and will continue to use them for decades. But it’s still a big resource-debt to work off. If I start buying new razors regularly, I’ll never even the score.
The very same attractive qualities of good design that transform disposable goods into artifacts of lasting utility also encourage people to use more items than they need.
I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before, but this is not the intent: http://www.vitsoe.com/en/gb/about/gooddesign . “Good design is durable” and “Good design is concerned with the environment” should work together to encourage things so good that replacement or augmentation/hoarding are not desired or necessary. Take a good chef’s knife. You can purchase a block of crappy pressed knives, or you can get a single really good blade. The former will dull and likely be thrown away, but what do you care—they were cheap. The latter is pricey, but is reusable, resharpenable, and likely so much more of a joy to use (if it really is a thoughtfully balanced knife, that is) that you will need nothing else (except maybe a bread knife) for cutting preparation in the kitchen at large.
Or take an electronic shaver: I’ve had my Braun shaver (topical, considering my link to Rams) for over six years. I have to replace the cutting block every 18 months or so, but the thing is way more reusable than disposables (which should ideally be replaced at least once a week).
Finally, consider the lowly iPhone. Via convergence, it is fairly environmentally responsible. It’s a phone, iPod, video player, browser, note-taker, calendar, rolodex, email reader, gps device, and now (via the SDK) infinitely extensible. Though it obviously does not always do so, it is conceivable that it could replace an iPod, GPS device, dedicated address book device, and netbook. That’s good design.
Comment by Jason Petersen — July 23, 2009 @ 1:59 am
Yes, I don’t think encouraging over-consumption is ever the intent. (Well, with advertising and sales yes, but not with product design.)
Almost always hoarding is a secondary effect that’s eclipsed by the benefits of durability. But in certain rare cases, like plastic vs canvas bags, it can be the primary effect.
Fundamentally, I don’t think it’s possible to make something appealing without encouraging hoarding to some degree. Someone who uses cheap, disposable, kitchen knives almost certainly won’t buy one unless they need one. But isn’t there always some temptation to try the latest iteration of the knife you like so much if you see it on display? Again, people may never act on this temptation. Even if they unnecessarily replace a knife every few decades, the net impact is benign compared to replacing a disposable knife twice a year. But if you really like something, I think it’s inescapable human nature to want to have a few extra.
Comment by Vincent Gable — July 23, 2009 @ 3:49 am
Reusable shopping bags also need to be cleaned, and that consumes resources.
Comment by Vincent Gable — January 8, 2010 @ 4:41 pm