• UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    What sucks is that stuff ends up in the landfill most of the time instead of being recycled.

    Yeah that’s the sad part. It’s such a colossal waste.

    it shouldn’t bother you to destroy it.

    I disagree. I think it should, and probably does, bother everyone involved. Why damage it further, when it could be sold or even just given to a refurb/repair outfit?

    I mean I know why, it’s because there’s no immediate profit motive there. Maybe even the opposite. Which again, is sad.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, but shipping it back to be destroyed instead would be more wasteful, with the same end result.

      It would be better to repair, but where repairs cost more than replacement, the only way to force them to repair is with regulations, as otherwise they do what costs less.

      I much prefer that they require you to break it and give a new one. From a consumer perspective it’s a better outcome. From an environmental perspective, it’s slightly better than ship back and destroy. The ideal is repair which has less waste and solves the problem for the consumer.

      • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I wonder if the cost of shipping a defective item were higher if it would happen so frequently. Polluting on that scale is largely free, even though it costs us all dearly.

        Like you said, we don’t have many tools other than regulation