It is argued that natural resources are finite, thus it is pivotal for companies to produce items that can be used in the long-term. I disagree with the proposal as it neglects the potential of innovation and the profitability of companies.
To commence with, I am convinced that it is necessary for products to be regularly superseded. The foremost rationale is that products need to be constantly upgraded to meet the demands of modern time. For example, electrical devices such as mobile phones and computers need to be constantly upgraded to keep pace with the increasing demands of consumers. Consequently, regular replacement of products allows for more innovation, which can be more eco-friendly and provide a better experience for consumers. Another notable reason is that creating long-lasting products can negatively affect a company’s profit, as it can lead to a substantial decline in sales and make the item unprofitable. This can also be seen in the way consumers might feel obligated to continue using outdated products as they are still usable, despite the fact that better models with cheaper prices are presented.
Granted, creating long-lasting items can be beneficial to a certain extent. One prominent reason is that using items with a long lifespan can remove the need for users to replace them. Consequently, the amount of resources and materials needed to create alternative replacement will be significantly reduced, which can be both environmentally friendly and financially viable for consumers. However, this proposal fails to account for the need for innovation, as some items such as computers need to be regularly upgraded to meet the increasing demand of the era.
In conclusion, I assert that making all companies produce items with a high lifespan is unnecessary and redundant, as regular replacement of devices and products allows for better products that require less materials while also increasing customer’s satisfaction to be made, as well as ensuring the production company’s profitability.