An Inhuman World

Things are made for the benefit and convenience of businesses rather than for humans. This seems odd, as it is people that business, achievement, progress, or innovation is meant to serve—not the other way around. A small example is food, something seemingly obvious that it should be of use and benefit for people. However, food is not processed, packaged, or produced in the most nutritious manner. Instead, the focus is on convenience, yield, and longevity. Most foodstuffs will degrade and rot fairly quickly, from fruits and vegetables to prepared dishes; even with refrigeration, a week is a long time to expect food to last. In the distant past (more than 200 years ago), when people grew their own foods and had to store them, they developed a number of methods for preservation. Salting, dehydrating, fermenting, and cooling (think root cellar rather than ice box) are all long-standing practices. Because food is no longer produced locally, it is just a matter of logistics. We have food that needs to travel from production sites to some sort of store where it sits out on shelves for days before the consumer finally takes it home. This is true even of "unprocessed" foods, like whole fruits or grains. While this is where one reaches the borders of the argument about "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs), we do not need to enter that territory, but recognize that many such plants are quite different than in previous centuries. Most often, even these changes have been to make these crops more marketable (even if just more pest-resistant or larger). While this is a simple example, you may recognize other areas where the trend holds true: technology, clothing, or automobiles, for example.

There is an argument that the very existence of large population centers (cities of 5000 or more) exist as an expedient for business. One version is to get localized group of workers, ready to replace one another in whatever job is required, with infrastructure to most easily transport them to various destinations about the city while minimally supporting their biological needs. Beyond this, there are also ways societal expectations have been shaped by the needs of businesses for space, employees, materials, computers, etc.

Contrast that with a more traditional style, consisting of smaller groups (100-1000) who grow their own foods and make their own clothing, having time to pursue other interests and congregate for various events. For decades, people have been decrying the loss of "third spaces", meaning those places outside the home and workplace where they can gather and socialize. The only places that seem to exist are businesses which allow people to congregate as long as they spend money to do so: coffee house, public house, or event space. Recently, there has been much news about "offices standing empty" and "return-to-office (RTO) mandates" following the pandemic. This is not about people wanting to go back to commuting and being watched over by supervisors—it is driven by businesses wanting to re-establish control over and extract maximal value from employees.

This can only last as long as people allow it to, and that seems dependent upon recognizing how dystopian it actually is already.

Trash Talking

First, let us recognize that capitalism drives much of how things work in nearly all industries. The reason behind this seems to be the belief that a free market will arrive at the best solution while not compelling actions of citizens. The trouble with recycling is how the incentives are monetary and the consequences are environmental and physical health. We are finding that all the things we produce are becoming our death as plastics are found in increasingly dangerous places, including our own bodies. While the purely capitalist solution has been to rely on businesses being able to make money by collecting and processing recyclables, what we find is that is not adequately addressing the issue. Places previously providing these services are rejecting materials, leading to more recycling being trashed instead. There may be ways to rectify this using capitalist incentives, however it begins to call into question if a for-profit business will be sufficiently conscientious. 

Second, in recent years, things are invented to make money for people and not because they are necessary. Planned obsolescence and consumerism make the plans, not real inventiveness. Examples include car models which change year-to-year, fashion that has moved from seasonal to by-the-week (see "fast fashion"), and electronics which offer no improvements, but come in a new color. This results in tremendous amounts of waste, as excess stock which is not sold must be disposed of. This is not a critique of such already-condemned business practices, but to emphasize how critical the issue of waste and recycling have become.

Finally, so many items are made without being able to be un-made. While glass and metals can be melted and re-formed into new items, other materials have no such clear recycling possibilities. Electronics, for example, are complex items comprised of differing materials which require specific and thorough processes to dispose of them properly. There may soon need to be a serious discussion and examination of how things are produced in order to seriously address all the above issues.

To that end, I propose that any invention must include the full life-cycle of the product in order to be granted a patent. What I mean is that for any product, it will need to be clear how the disposal or recycling is to be done at the end of its use. Currently, patents are approved if they meet the basic criteria of being "novel", as in they have not been patented already. Patents describe the item, its assembly, workings, operation, and principles; there is nothing about how it adds value to the society or fills some need that citizens have. It certainly does not describe how the hundreds, thousands, or millions of units created by a business will be eliminated from the environment when the purpose of the unit is fulfilled. I think that must be a basic requirement if we are to make sustainable changes to business, manufacturing, and our environmental impacts.