AbstractThis paper argues that those who emphasise that designers and engineers need to plan for obsolescence are too conservative. Rather, in addition to planning for obsolescence, designers and engineers should also think carefully about what they could do in order delay obsolescence. They should so this by thinking about the design itself, thinking of ways in which products could be useful and appealing for longer before becoming obsolete, as well thinking about the wider context in terms of the marketing of products, and also the social and legal. The paper also considers objections that these suggestions are unrealistically idealistic, failing to recognise the economic realities. I respond to these objections appealing to research in advertising, psychology, cognitive linguistics, philosophy, history, and economics, as well as drawing on the Statement of Ethical Principles developed by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council.
[1]
Karlson Hargroves,et al.
Factor Five: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity
,
2009
.
[2]
Gillian Brock,et al.
Needs, Moral Demands and Moral Theory
,
2004,
Utilitas.
[3]
A. Macintyre.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
,
1996
.
[4]
Tim Jackson,et al.
Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet
,
2011
.
[5]
George Lakoff,et al.
The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics
,
2008
.
[6]
Brian Burns.
Re-evaluating Obsolescence and Planning for It
,
2016
.
[7]
R. Dawkins,et al.
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life
,
2016
.
[8]
Herbert W. Simons,et al.
Persuasion in Society
,
2011
.