"The Selfish Products Debate: Beyond Consumer Responsibility and towards Systemic Change"

2023-05-08 07:56:58

After the Dyson Zone test video was released, it also attracted heated discussions among netizens. Many people felt that the shape was too weird and they didn’t have the courage to wear it.

The Sad Reason Behind Selfish Products

In fact, neither faction is the main problem. I visited the designer of this product at the Dyson headquarters in the UK before. He felt that the air quality of the London Underground is very poor, and there is a lot of noise during busy hours, so he wanted to design a product that can solve the problem at the same time. These two pollution problems. This seems to be a natural cause and effect relationship, but in fact this result is not the best solution.

Dyson Zone is a “selfish” product, because it can only solve your own problems. Other people in the subway station, sorry, you are breathing bad air. To solve the problems noticed by Dyson Zone designers, we should actually start from the source. Isn’t it possible to benefit all the people in the station by strengthening the air filtration system at the station? I believe the designer also understands this truth, maybe he also understands that if It is difficult to realize the huge expenditure of the station.

Is Consumer Power Alone Enough?

The above strange examples are everywhere. It is obvious that the reform of the enterprise itself can have the greatest effect, but the responsibility is always pushed to the end user first. In many environmental actions, consumers always play the biggest sinner. There was a period when restaurants in Hong Kong no longer provided drinking straws because of “environmental protection”. In fact, the best way is not to provide drinking straws, but to replace the original plastic drinking straws with environmentally friendly drinking straws. Supermarkets only charge consumers for plastic bags, but the government has not forced or subsidized companies to switch to environmentally friendly plastic bags that are easier to decompose. In addition, environmentalists don’t use your plastic bags. In fact, they should deduct the cost of their own plastic bags as an encouragement, but it is strange to charge for plastic bags instead. Does this mean that the cost of plastic bags that the supermarket itself has to pay is now passed on? To consumers? These examples can easily lead people to misunderstand that the name of environmental protection is actually saving costs for enterprises. Faced with such unfair misunderstandings, it is difficult to persuade the public to join the ranks of environmental protection. Environmental protection should be the responsibility of every person on earth. If the enterprise itself does its best, and the environmental protection users do their best, I believe other people will be willing to follow suit. This is the best for the earth.

Another major human problem is coming

In fact, we, the media, are also responsible. In fact, in recent years, many companies have implemented many environmental protection programs to reduce the impact of their products on the environment. We also receive press releases from Apple and Samsung in this regard from time to time, but we haven’t properly reported each of them to readers. I need to blame myself and reflect on this. The development of science and technology and civilization, why the cost is always the damage to the environment. Is it impossible or not to reduce the impact on the environment with today’s human technology? With the rise of electric vehicles in recent years, it can be predicted that a batch of aging lithium batteries will need to be disposed of in ten or eight years. Time is running out. Governments of various countries are ready Will the car battery recycling work in the future? Or should we still point the finger at the end user first, and stipulate that the car is not allowed to be sold when the battery is not aged to 50%? In addition to the above reasons, environmental pollution has not had its own impact on human life, which is also the reason . As the saying goes, “A person does not shed tears until he sees a coffin.” It doesn’t matter if the lake water is polluted ten miles away, as long as I can drink clean water at home. It is estimated that human beings will not face up to environmental protection until there is no clean water to drink, but will it really be possible to restore the earth? To solve a problem, “action” is always more effective than “blame”, so I don’t want to say this and that and then do nothing.