Built to Last
The central question explored here is: do builders and manufacturers have a long-term interest in what they are building or making?
For most of our history, the people who were building houses and streets, the people making the machinery, the household goods, the clothes etc were also the people who benefited from them being of good quality.
In terms of buildings, the city being beautiful, prosperous and sustainable was of benefit because most of the people involved in constructing it also lived in it. Today the architect could live anywhere – potentially not even in that country. The houses in which huge numbers of people in UK live are built by a huge company Redrow, Beezer Homes, Wimpey etc. Their sole interest is therefore to squeeze the maximum short-term profit out of a scheme. This leads to the use of "value engineers" whose job is to strip cost from a project; and at the same time strip the quality. This will inevitably lead to ‘uglifying’ it, to use Scruton's term. The investors do not care what happens to the building after it is sold. Ugly houses and flats are often pleasant inside, in some cases possibly even beautiful. It is everyone else who has to look at them.
Similarly, a manufactured object is made and sold at the least possible cost and the greatest possible profit. Not only is there no expectation of maintenance or repair; many things are deliberately built so they are close to impossible to repair. This the case with many Apple products which leads to them being scrapped at a fraction of their potential value if they could be kept going.
The way the economy works means companies are forced to focus on short-term profits to meet quarterly market expectations and service large borrowing. There is the constant demand for growth, which means making more stuff. This is difficult when we already all have way more stuff than the equivalent person in our society of 25 years ago. Manufacturers therefore need to create a sense of need to drive people to buy.
Apple is a classic case here. They have created a sense that the Apple product is part of the identity of the person owning it. The iPhone or Mac Book is not simply a tool they use; it is an expression of their very person. This was expressed explicitly in the series of ads a few years ago “I’m a Mac – I’m a PC”. Having convinced people of this it is then not difficult to persuade people to buy the latest Apple product when it comes out simply because it is the latest Apple product. Built in obsolescence is central. I had to stop using what I considered to be a perfectly functioning iPhone 6 because the latest iOS would not longer run on it and therefore an increasing number of apps ceased to work. The final straw was BBC iPlayer. I therefore had to put the 4 in a draw where it sits to this day and bought a 7.
A more complex set of problem lies in shifting towards a more sustainable way of living.
Extinction Rebellion
I have less than zero confidence in the Extinction Rebellion approach in that it will probably put off more people than it changes. The fact that thousands of children like to have a long weekend periodically to go on a ‘climate strike’ means very little. Negatively it is creating a generation who are neurotic and fearful and have a profound dislike of engineering; yet paradoxically are also glued permanently to their smartphones. These are the very people who are needed in technology – particularly engineering – who can bring fresh ideas and generate change. It is highly unlikely that XR will have any impact on the thinking of big corporations unless they think there is a marketing angle on calling something green. Persuading few CEOs of big corporations to shift in a small direction towards circular economy is likely to have more real long term impact than all the school ‘climate strikes’ throughout the world.
People on the ground
The obsession with the new and contentment with a total alienation from the technology we use are two strands which feed into many of our problems. The causes of this are probably multiple and interlinked. The modern cult of the individual and his immediate desires, and the related diminution of the importance of tradition and duty to one's community are almost certainly significant drivers. Linked to this is a rise of social media use and the loss of public religion.
The crunch questions for me are (1) how we ended up accepting this philosophy that new is simply better and we must have the new. TV advertising is a major factor. I think you are right that it is part of a general cultural shift. The focus on the self now makes sense; therefore less concern with the community and history. (2) how we can push back against this and instil in people a valuing of quality – which will therefore in the short term cost more – but will last for years and become old – and old can be good.
Churches should theoretically be ideally suited to making small shifts in perception and daily living in the people with whom they are in contact. They combine a sense of history and tradition and therefore a valuing of the past and not obsessed fashion with the now and the future. There is the underpinning ideology of the creation mandate which commands us to both ‘work’ and ‘take care of’ ‘the garden’. There is already in place an awareness of the need for good links with developing nations through the likes of Traidcraft, Cafod etc and use of Fair Trade products.
A major issue here is looking to the future rather than a simple nostalgia. Do I want a 1939 Velocette as my main form of Transport? Simple answer to that is a resounding ‘no’. Do I want a BMW R100RT as my Touring bike; or a ??R80GS?? as a general purpose bike? The answer there is ‘absolutely yes’. Given the choice between a 2020 R1200GS and a 19?? I would take the older bike – other than the fact that it is now of course old with worn out parts. I doubt however that the 2020 bike will still be on the road in 40 years time because it is not repairable by the home mechanic. In fact I would take a guess that there are plenty of small bike shops which would struggle to cope with the onboard computer managing the hill start and clutchless gear change or the modern bikes.
It requires a shift in the people on the ground and make them demand that which is built to last and repairable at home – or at least at the local repair shop; and also a shift at the level of the economy and boards of big companies who are willing to make small sacrifices in profits to make the change. It is probably the latter that is the major problem. This would require the profit motive to shift in the direction of quality of build instead of throw away fashion; which returns us to the people on the ground making decisions to purchase.