Building something suitable for repair requires attention to fundamental structure -- design, materials, construction. All of that has costs. I have shoes a decade old that look brand new and will look so three decades hence. I'm wearing a boot of a type that will last forever and could climb Mount Washington or attend a Fortune 500 board meeting. Every time I replace running shoes I curse their irreparability and 6 month life span. But a solid shoe costs three or four times a comparable cheaper shoe and need annual maintenance costing about 10-15% of initial cost.
I have one fountain pen that's twenty-five years old. Pricey, cost about 100x a disposable ballpoint, but it's charged by ink bottles and has now outlasted 500 of those things.
Or t-shirts, you can now get woolen ones that last for years, can be worn several days without washing, and are warmer or cooler as needed. But each is 20x the cost of cotton alternative, and they last best if washed in an expensive detergent and air-dried.
Now I think these are good choices economically, and also socially and even spiritually. But I can see why others might not like those costs. Buying stuff worth of repair is a form of savings. It imposes some new maintenance knowledge and chores. And it forces some long-term decisions, if you want to change the style message of your shoes every year then this is not the route for you.
The culture of repair and retain is already around us and has always been. The question is the proportion of the population willing to pay the cost and acquire the knowledge to access it.
> Every time I replace running shoes I curse their irreparability and 6 month life span.
Psst, there's no scientific basis to claims that certain types of shoes reduce the rate of injury[1]. If it's above freezing and not rocky or thorny, the self-repairing waterproof soles you've had since birth will work just fine.
To drag this slightly back on topic, simply not buying stuff is another route to reducing throw-away objects. How many things do we just buy and use without thinking? I haven't been able to come up with much beyond running shoes myself. A second car for some people? Food items that are easy to make oneself from more basic ingredients?
I know what you are saying about knowledge. I want to break out of the terrible world of throw-away razorblades, but it requires some googling (and living in the right country).
One obvious item where I have made the wrong decision twice are bloody Eastpak backpacks. They have a gazillion years of warranty on everything except the zippers. Now both backpacks' zippers are broken and I am shocked that absolutely noone is willing to repair them, even if you'd pay them most of the €90 that the bag originally cost.
The advantage of a service model for computers, cars etc., would be to avoid the huge one-time cost.
Ohmygod, I accidentally repeated what seems to be an urban myth in Germany. Eastpak DOES repair broken zippers - unlike all the independent repair shops that I have asked.
Grandparent poster, thanks for making me actually google this!
I have one fountain pen that's twenty-five years old. Pricey, cost about 100x a disposable ballpoint, but it's charged by ink bottles and has now outlasted 500 of those things.
Or t-shirts, you can now get woolen ones that last for years, can be worn several days without washing, and are warmer or cooler as needed. But each is 20x the cost of cotton alternative, and they last best if washed in an expensive detergent and air-dried.
Now I think these are good choices economically, and also socially and even spiritually. But I can see why others might not like those costs. Buying stuff worth of repair is a form of savings. It imposes some new maintenance knowledge and chores. And it forces some long-term decisions, if you want to change the style message of your shoes every year then this is not the route for you.
The culture of repair and retain is already around us and has always been. The question is the proportion of the population willing to pay the cost and acquire the knowledge to access it.