Thrifty Thursday: Reduce

Antiques are awesome.  There's a reason that Antiques Roadshow has been running on the BBC since 1979.  People are interested in old things.  Some of the interest is based upon wonder about what things were like, who were the primary users of the antique, and the way old things used to work.  Sometimes remakes just go for old styling.  So now lets up the ante.  What about old things that are still in use?  Like classic cars, antique appliances, and old cookware.  Other examples: vintage sewing machines, cook stoves and ranges, corningware, guns, houses.

Filter wringer at our favorite SugarShack

Jen's grandparents on the Cape have some really great gadgetry THAT THEY STILL USE.  Like this toaster.  Nifty.

Antique Universal 947 Toaster, image from this collector

I have a friend at church who still uses the same cell phone he got in 1999.  He claims it gets great reception, and he doesn't need any of the perks on the newer versions.

So why do I bring up antiques as part of my Reduce post?  Well, I am of the opinion that:

1. They don't make them like they used to...
2. Our society tends to get bored of objects prematurely (before it's irreparably damaged).
3. Technology is moving faster than things wear out (Have a friend who ditched his ipad for an ipad2.  Seriously--and a different friend hoped his iphone would die so he could get the new one. )
4. We live in an age when it's really easy to buy things we don't need (Amazon is great, Black Friday BigBox stores, sky mall, home shopping...)
5. Marketers are pushing single use, disposable, individually wrapped, convenient things.

Saw this the other day.  All about the upgrade.

I haven't gathered empirical evidence to illustrate the economic benefits and conservational costs to this upgrade cycle, but there's a verse in the Bible that says "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."  (1 Samuel, 15:22)  The conservation application of this principle would indicate that it is better to conserve/reduce our consumption in the first place than to live excessively and be reusing or recycling after the fact.  I figure it's a matter of production.  If we don't buy "it", demand will go down, and less will be produced, so less will be wasted and end up at the dump.

It is kind of an anti-consumerism stance, which flies in the face of "Cash for Clunkers" type of mentality.  (Which presumes that it is better to have a shiny new "green" widget than to continue repair/reuse an average performing  "clunker".  I hold that to be a really sneaky campaign to get people to open their wallets, leaning on vanity.)

Don't get me wrong, I like new technology.  I also like new clothes and new furniture every once in a while.  But wouldn't it be better if we just had what we needed (ask Jen about my t-shirt collection sometime) and no more? I don't think I could live in a tiny house, or a earth house, but I could certainly consume less.  And that which I have I could use more carefully, to delay the need of disposing/upgrading.

Here's an idea if you still want electronic gadget: buy refurbished.  The item will be half price, vetted for faults, and you'll have the perk of using something you want without directly contributing to new production.
A few example that have worked well for us: netbook, camera, desktop computer, router, cell phones, microwave, vcr (seriously).