zlacker

That's a bit like the one horse shay. It's not how long it lasts but what are the costs associated with it lasting any given length of time. Nothing lasts forever but say buildings lasted 500 years - Suddenly 500 years from now all buildings have to be replaced? And what's the cost of this 500 year building? Is it 10 times as much? Or is it 5 times as much?

Saying we shouldn't have buildings that only last 50 years but rather they should last 500 is like saying they shouldn't last 50 years but instead 5. Maybe. Maybe 5 makes sense.

My assumption would be - shocker - it's probably a complicated trade off that's best adjudicated by the people with the most skin in the particular game.

>>hacker+(OP)
I understand your reasoning. The problem is that this line is seldom used in the opposite direction.

You want a flimsy shell and to externalise the environmental impact? Sure thing, whatever the market will bear and is legal.

I think it is fair enough for people to put pressure on current practices. Zara and H&M will persist, but their customers should be and, thanks to outside voices, are now aware that social and environmental factors are involved in fast fashion.

Sure, it's arbitrary. But we still have alternatives. All else being equal, less entropy is better than more.

>>hacker+(OP)
> Suddenly 500 years from now all buildings have to be replaced? And what's the cost of this 500 year building? Is it 10 times as much? Or is it 5 times as much?

What a weird argument. It's obvious for multiple reasons that all buildings won't fail at the same time.