nature magazine might not like a comment that's actually longer than the paper which was presented by peer-reviewed scientist, so i'm posting a copy here.

I've been analysing this situation for some time and have decided to take responsibility for it by designing computing appliances that have an extended lifecycle through reuse and repair. The full whitepaper which partly explains the strategy is here http://www.rhombus-tech.net/whitepapers/ecocomputing_07sep2015/ and (yes, Nature, I am aware of your policy on links, yes I read the terms and conditions, no I am not a "Corporation", no I am not "promoting", i am providing evidence that there is actually someone who is *actually* taking responsibility for tackling this - me - from a different perspective, but i can also tell you *right now* that very very few people in the world are) it's actually going ahead at an early phase on http://crowdsupply.com right now (yes, Nature, the campaign will have ended by the time most people read this).

My view on the author's perspective is that although it is necessary, it doesn't actually solve the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem is that electronics are *designed* for obsolescence. Why would we do this to ourselves?? Well, it's very simple: we are selfish at heart: we want to spend as little money as possible. So we push the price down, using the tactic of "shopping around". Corporations listen to this (they try to avoid it by setting up Cartels on the components, or other tricks such as whitelisting of internal peripherals using DRM locking) but ultimately they have to listen to you, and compete with you for your money. That leaves very little margin for profits, so Corporations compete based on providing us with the bare minimum for the bare minimum.

The consequence of *that* is that, as an Industry, in order to stay in business, Corporations have to make sure that the products will fail, so that next year you will buy another one, so that they can stay in business for another year, and another year, and thus continue to exist *at all*. I remember hearing stories from the 1950s about companies designing "durables" instead of "consumables" - vacuum cleaners and wrenches that were so high quality that nobody needed to buy another one from them, and the company that made them went out of business!

Knowing this to be the case - knowing this to be the world-wide situation on a massive scale - how can we *possibly* propose that *disposal* of the electronics could actually 100% solve such a massive problem? My feeling is that all it will do is open up black market opportunities for Mafia and Triads (depending on country of origin), giving them a fantastic new way to make money by offering cheaper "recycling" options than the 2% to 5% proposed by the authors. and you know where those will actually end up.

Now, being a lot less harsh, it has to be said that even *any* attempt to reduce e-waste is definitely a good thing, especially now that the concentrations of rare earth metals is *higher* in landfill sites than it is in the original mines from where they were extracted.

My view - one which I've stated that I am *actively* taking responsiblity for by working on it for the past five years to get to its current crowd-funded phase - is that we need to design computing appliances that can be re-used. That means creating hardware standards (open ones, unlike Google Project ARA which in *no way* can be said to be open) where the main "computing" part is actually a general-purpose tiny robustly-packaged computer that can be transferred from device to device.

If the main computer is packaged in a small robust form-factor that can be transferred from device to device (or more accurately housing to housing or Dock to Dock) then older computing modules *can* be re-purposed, by giving them to the kids, or to friends, or to charies that will find uses for them, or sold on ebay for other people to re-purpose them in electronics or low-power co-located "server" scenarios (google "raspberry pi colocated hosting" for details on this concept) and many other scenarios, the ultimate end result of which is that the computing modules are kept in service indefinitely.

And if the "housings" (aka "Docking Stations") are designed to be *repaired* rather than thrown away.... by providing people with instructions online.... then the "Housings" can be kept out of landfill indefiniteiy. How many people do you know who have "waited for the contract period to expire on their phone" then THROWN AWAY a perfectly functional device which happens to have a single cosmetic blemish? that is just *so* irresponsible and morally reprehensible it makes me want to shake people until their teeth rattle... but because there aren't yet any alternative products for me to tell them to go and buy instead, I have had to take the puzzling step of deciding to take responsibility for *designing* modular computing appliances!

The sad fact remains though that the average mass-volume manufacturer is stuck and will remain trapped in the endless hermetically-sealed cycle of "designed for obsolescence". I've even spoken to the CEO of one of them: he told me flat-out that "Modular Computing is unprofitable". I understand why he came to that conclusion: I happen not to agree with it. My feeling is that he was underestimating how many people there are in the world that want modular products, and this is borne out by Dave Hakkan's "Phonebloks" concept.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any other ideas that could help slow down e-waste to manageable levels, such that world-wide we have the time and resources to undo the damage caused by landfill sites.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:

iinteresting

crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Alexander Ross maillist_arm-netbook@aross.me wrote:

...

http://www.nature.com/news/take-responsibility-for-electronic-waste-dis posal-1.20345?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

---

arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk