LeBel, S. (2016). Fast Machines, Slow Violence: ICTs, Planned Obsolescence, and E-waste. Globalizations, 13(3), 300-309. (Will)

From Digital Culture & Society

Jump to: navigation, search

Will Provencher

Contents

[edit] Intro

In today's world, technology is guiding our world forward. It's making data travel easier and information sharing a breeze. The only issue that arises from ICTs is planned obsolescence and e-waste. Planned obsolescence (let's just call it PO) is what happens when companies with electrical products deliberately inflict a lifespan on a certain product. This leads to products dying on consumers, leading them to purchase the newer, better product over the older one they have just lost. It's a rather vicious cycle that companies have highly benefitted from, and it's detailed somewhat like this: "Consumer buys product í product fails on consumer í consumer buys new product." It's a fail-proof strategy and a highly scrutinized method of consumerism that has often plagued the likes of Apple, who have come under fire recently for releasing updates that slow people's phones down. Nevertheless, people will still go out and buy the latest products because that's the trend in today's society. Everybody wants the flashy new product, and companies who use PO to their advantage are only accelerating the buying process. Consumerism always expects the newest product to be of the highest magnitude and attention, and ICTs fully support that notion.

While it's great that people are ditching the old for the new, what exactly happens to the older technology? E-waste is what happens, and it's been a large burgeoning problem for the past decade, and it's only going to get worse. E-waste, or electronic waste, is the throwing away of technology, perfectly functional or not, without taking the necessary actions and precautions in order to do it in a safe and clean way that is beneficial to the environment. When consumers throw away their older, unused products and don't do anything about it, that becomes e-waste, and it's quite literally infecting the earth ground and atmosphere. The unfortunate reality is that e-waste will never be eradicated, and it'll only continue to grow. There's no stopping the amount of technological garbage that is amassing on our earth, and third-world countries usually take the heat for the waste of first-world countries.

[edit] Outline

Lebel's main argument revolves around slow violence and the impact ICTs and planned obsolescence have on e-waste. What she discusses the equation of ICTs + planned obsolescence = further e-waste, and she isn't wrong. The more upgradeable devices there are in existence, the more e-waste there will be. Slow violence impacts the ICT business and the employees that work under it because of the ecological damage that e-waste causes. Consumer technologies, the speed of e-waste, and acceleration are all points (and headers) that Lebel uses in constituting the slow violence of e-waste a relevant epidemic in today's growing technological society. The everyday consumer's habits combined with their lack of recycling properly have led to the crisis of slow violence in that electronics being dumped into under developed countries are feeling the pain. It's a slow and painful end, and it's one that'll last for decades.

[edit] Strength(s)

The strengths in the article are emphasis on the ecological side of e-waste and how planned obsolescence speeds up the e-waste cycle. Because ICTs are filled with many toxic elements that are harmful to the earth, e-waste's impact on the environment is that of deterioration. The state of the earth will only get worse as long as the piles of old and worn-down ICTs grow bigger, and they accumulate with each passing day. When Lebel mentions planned obsolescence, she claims it simply accelerates the amount of e-waste produced. E-waste's toxic elements harm the workers in the business and everything around them. Considering the lifespans of electronics are being decreased more and more, it only makes sense that the shorter you use a product, the easier it is to throw away - and Lebel argues that's just more problems for everybody.

[edit] Weakness(es)

The weakness on the other hand is Lebel's undecidedly intentional or unintentional omission of how ICT companies are aware of the backlash they obtain when enacting planned obsolescence and how different tech giants are making strides to becoming cleaner. Apple's recycling imitative is a smart way to get the younger consumer generation into the habit, and they've offered battery upgrades to their phones for low prices in an attempt to allow people to continue using their older devices and not allocate e-waste. While Lebel does show her strengths in the article, a weakness could point to her lack of recognition to companies who are attempting change.


Reference: LeBel, S. (2016). Fast Machines, Slow Violence: ICTs, Planned Obsolescence, and E-waste. Globalizations, 13(3), 300-309.

Link: https://proxy.library.brocku.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=113740837&site=eds-live&scope=site

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share