Two staples in this generation are the false sense of security that material wealth and technology give. The media strongly manipulates this perception that value is found through possession and electronic belongings. The practicality of replacing a perfectly good electronic device with the newer version is nonexistent.  However, societal pressure and strategic advertising create an environment that promotes the needless consumption that drives our economy. In this era, we buy and stockpile more possessions than we could possibly have use for. This perceived necessity is dictated by the societal  desire to fit in. In reality, material wealth and the false acceptance that comes with it is strictly a "want" and in no way a "need."

Interesting point. However, as technology advances, it can often become more expensive and impractical to try to fix a broken device than it is to buy a new one, especially with the way many cell phone plans are set up. Many phones are even designed not to be durable so that customers will keep coming to buy new technology. Perhaps this situation is caused in a lesser part by consumers' "societal desire to fit in" and is more largely caused by companies who desire to profit off not only (similar to what you said) consumers' craving for the latest and greatest technology but also to profit off systematic issues of the industry. That said, we ultimately reach the same conclusion: it should not be (made to be) necessary for us to purchase these devices as often or in as large quantities as we do. Thoughts?

That is a great point Alex. I couldn't agree more about the companies desire to profit off the consumers craving. Obvious examples are present in Apple where the charging ports and, soon, the earphone jack are altered to provoke increased spending. Subtly forcing consumers to spend more is frustrating and certainly shifts some of the blame onto the industries. Your claim that cell phones are "designed not to be durable" seems a bit extreme. I disagree that industries are corrupt enough to produce and sell inferior products because they will, ultimately, lose customers. I believe the easiest fix to this issue would be through the media. They dictate much of the younger generations' perceptions and have the power to stifle the "bigger and better" mantra that so many companies rely on.

Hey, Luke. Here's a great article about "planned obsolescence" by BBC: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016061 … ce-of-tech. It touches upon many of the points that I meant to convey.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           It is not so simple to call the industries where planned obsolescence is perpetuated "corrupt". Rather, there are social and economical reasons for doing so. The issue lies in the negative ecological effects of all the discarded products. I think that this is a very complex issue that may require an equally complex solution, but I also think that your suggestion of a push by the media to change our attitude as a society toward the "bigger and better" idea may be a step in the right direction.