On 6 April 2010 12:53, M. Adam Davis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Alexandros Nipirakis > wrote: >> I suppose the only final comment is to point out that many people find >> the senseless destruction of things to be abhorable. =A0I am one of >> these people. =A0The thing was produced by someone and does in it have >> the original person's labor. =A0It represents human time in its design >> and manufacture. =A0Therefore, people should respect that someone >> created the things they have, have taken pride in their work and >> therefore the product should be respected as such. > > Interesting! =A0I suppose it follows, then, that the payment for the > product was only part of the responsibility the purchaser owes to the > creator of the object? > > What, then, do you think of one birthday activity I had many years ago: > > =A01. Spread out a large tarp on the lawn. > =A02. Place old computer equipment on tarp (some worked, some didn't > mostly valueless) > =A03. Don suitable safety equipment (glasses are a must, gloves, long > sleeve shirts, and full pants good) > =A04. Pass around a baseball bat and let people enjoy the entertainment > of applying large mechanical transient forces to the old computer > equipment > > Aside from the shear joy of destruction, there was lots of education > to be had - but let's dismiss the possible educational aspects of this > and discuss the point: > > Was this activity abhorrent to you, given that it differs from the > iPad incident by only a few particulars? I think there is a big difference between taking some computer hardware, much of which probably didint work and smashing it and taking something that is brand new and smashing it. I suppose my objection comes from the fact that the device never saw useful life. I suppose the destruction of old computer hardware is less bad than destroying something new. But I think both are senseless. Furthermore, we are loosing much of our computing past because people do not preserve old computer hardware. Much of it is destroyed or thrown away. Myself, I am quite interested in computer history, and have several older computers in my house. My wife hates this of course, saying "what use is this" and I tell her that you never know when you will need something. I think your point about the destruction being informational is at least partially interesting. I remember in my younger days (err -- which were not that long ago) when I was in High School, the teacher would frequently encourage us to take apart old (non-functional) hard drives to understand how the insides worked. > If not, what particulars make the difference, and what is that difference? > If so, what is the proper "retirement" for objects that people put > their time and labor into so we can show proper "respect" for that > labor when the object no longer has practical use? > In 30 years when a given iPad is literally useless, does one still > have a responsibility to the creator of the iPad to treat it with > suitable respect, or does that responsibility have a time limit? > I think my point is more that people simply don't respect the time and work that goes into stuff any more. Everything magically came to existance and nobody cares who's time went into it. I think this is why many people easily and without thought throw things away. If we thought of things as the products of human labor, then perhaps we would have less of an interest in throwing them out. Consider antiques -- Why do we not, then, smash up old cars who are less efficient than new ones and have already served their useful life. Or why do we not burn old science books and encyclopedias that are not useful anymore (and are probably digitized anyways). Or old appliances? Or (name your favourite antique). Why not go the centre of athens and demolish the parthenon? Sure, blasting it would be a spectacular show, and since no one is using it anyways, what's the point. We don't do these things because we appreciate the objects for what they are, the product of human inginuity and labour. Each can be respected because it provides us a window into its creators. Now, the destruction of one iPad? Of course not as detrimental as the destruction of an antique. It is, however, probably a poor display of how we (as consumers in America) respect the things which we are privleged to have. Not everyone on the planet can justify plunking down 500 bucks for something like an iPad, and for someone to basiclly say "not only can I spend this money for this device, but I can destroy it since I am so rich" is particularly disturbing. -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist