Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyager | Hacker News Reader

> "It is time to end the model of 'take, make, dispose' that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy." ... "New products will be designed in a way that benefits all, respects our planet and protects the environment."

> The agreement outlined that the European Commission can issue legally binding requirements to make goods such as furniture, tyres, detergents, paints and chemicals more environmentally friendly.

It's interesting to watch how people constantly invent new ways to re-introduce legal concepts that we threw out when we invented liberalism. For example, we got rid of sumptuary laws, which restrict the consumption habits of the lower classes, but now we're bringing them back under the principle of being environmentally friendly.

View on HN

Sumptuary laws limited expenditure, these laws are intended to limit waste with the pressure applied to the producer and not the consumer.

Fast fashion put waste into overdrive, easily by a factor of two thirds as it specifically encouraged online ordering with free returns so that consumers ordered their size, a size above, a size below and returned two out of three purchases .. rather than sell "worn goods" returns went to land fill.

The mountain of excess production (consuming energy, resources, producing excess CO2, etc) that comes with the past decade of fast fashion brought little of real value and is a practice worth discouraging.

Let the consumer spend by all means, but at least reduce the litter that comes with every purchase.

"This law doesn't prevent consumers from buying X, it prevents vendors from selling X"

The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptuary laws can be good (which may be correct! Not arguing that), not a refutation of the idea that this is a sumptuary law

It doesn't prevent the sale of X - it incentivizes vendors from producing X + X^1 + X^2 + X^3 + X^4 etc with the additional production going to pure waste.

Look at the nature of production to meet demand before and after fast fashion .. there's been a sea change to not simply meet demand or provide a little additional choice but to over produce as a means of changing consumer behaviour to milk out every cent with a by product of magnitudes more landfill than has previously existed.

What, concretely, is the X in this case?

I used 'X' per se specifically because I am making a generalized example. The proposition is absurd for all X.

The law is clearly not preventing vendors from selling X, its preventing them dumping it if they can't sell it.

Not sure how people can't see this difference. Preventing companies dumping or disposing of their (harmful) waste (in an unregulated manner) is pretty common practise and generally agreed upon good thing.

Read the article, or any of the stuff I quoted. This is more widely-reaching than "you aren't allowed to throw things away" (which would also have a sumptuary effect, although more indirect).

C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer.

"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."

No, you cannot equate two things even if they lead to the same outcome

If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.

The intent is to limit waste not consumption.

There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799

You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.

Execution details are salient. Outcomes are higher dimensioned than what you describe.

There's no chance those words are intended to convey meaning. Is there?

These are not complicated words

When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint

Even if true, economics is only one part of the equation.

When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.

They're not forbiding any transactions here though, unless you considering yeeting stuff in the garbage a transaction.

This is a really interesting point! I think regulation is the wrong way to go in this case. It sounds reasonable until you consider the burden of enforcement. Your comment brings in another dimension of how and why we determine certain things to be poor ideas for the ‘masses’.

I’m not sure why you are downvoted. If history and precedents are anything, then the industry will find new ways to exploit the new laws to their advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com