What are the items you refuse to own on principle?

[Serial_Apologist]

Referring back to the thread title "What are the items you refuse to own on principle? " the principles are unspecified.

Reasons could be:

* economic - can't afford
* economic - don't want to identify as rich/richer
* economic - don't want to identify as poor/class related

* group - don't want to identify or be identified with a particular group
* class - as above but with group being replaced by class
* gender - many men wouldn't want to have a dress, and many women probably wouldn't want a DJ

* environmental - don't want to have objects which damage the environment

* humane - don't want to have objects which harm animals or have harmed them (e.g. animal traps, fur coats)

* human - don't want to have things which harm humans

* utility - objects which are just in themselves "useless" - e.g broken down old cars

also objects which are useless for a particular owner - e.g. an artificial leg for someone who is able bodied.

* aesthetic - things which are viewed as ugly/beautiful

* fashion - things which are trendy - or not
(Keeping up with the Joneses phenomenon - don't really like them but have to have them to "fit in" or "get one better than" ...)

* used/new - some people only like to have new things, not second hand

* obsolete - things which are no longer needed - but may become fashionable or collectible - e.g. old gramophones, vinyl records

We have so far made quite a number of suggestions, but the principles behind the suggestions have mostly been left to be inferred. We might think, for example, that someone not wanting to own a Rolls Royce doesn't want to have one because:

* they don't want to be known to be rich
* they don't want to identify with rich people
* they don't want to demonstrate conspicuous consumption

but the "real" reason(s) might be that

* they can't drive
* they prefer Lamborghinis

or even just

* they wouldn't mind, but they know they can't afford one anyway

etc.

We can't always assume that we can know the reasons for someone else's declared non wishes.

I would just add durability, given the disposable quality of much merchandise, as a principle.

[Serial_Apologist]

I refuse to buy a new car anyway (not that I've ever wanted to). Keeping an old one going is far better for the environment and the local mechanic's business.

Depends on the make and how old it is! I suppose if you're way out in the wilds somewhere the amount of pollution emitted matters less...

[Richard Barrett]

Depends on the make and how old it is! I suppose if you're way out in the wilds somewhere the amount of pollution emitted matters less...

There's also the fact that older cars use far more fuel than they did when they were new.

[Dave2002]

Depends on the make and how old it is! I suppose if you're way out in the wilds somewhere the amount of pollution emitted matters less...

No! Out in the wilds probably means more miles travelled, so = more pollution. Just because it doesn’t immediately affect town and city dwellers doesn’t mean it’s better, or OK simply because it disperses into the atmosphere.

[MrGongGong]

No! Out in the wilds probably means more miles travelled, so = more pollution. Just because it doesn’t immediately affect town and city dwellers doesn’t mean it’s better, or OK simply because it disperses into the atmosphere.

How much polution does making a new one involve?
How much does disposing of an old one?

I think the whole idea that someone buying new cars to "save" the planet is very suspect indeed.

[Richard Barrett]

I think the whole idea that someone buying new cars to "save" the planet is very suspect indeed.

Of course the most environmentally responsible way to get around is to use human-powered vehicles wherever possible, and otherwise to have a widespread and efficient public transport system so that reliance on private vehicles is kept to a minimum, but there are all kinds of political reasons why this doesn't look like happening (until it has to).

[oddoneout]

There's also the fact that older cars use far more fuel than they did when they were new.

At what point does that stop being the case? The only car I've had the use of from new was a VW Derby which had the then common VW fault of being greedy in town(although anorexic over distances which balanced it out costwise if not pollutionwise). Its overall consumption worsened slightly when 2* fuel stopped being available. When I finally had to get rid of it it was still getting through MOT emissions tests with no problem(and was on more than one occasion better than a car coming in for its first MOT) Since then my 'new' cars have been old and the fuel consumption doesn't vary over the time I have them; their MOT emission results have always been at the lower end of permissible limits as well.

[Dave2002]

How much polution does making a new one involve?
How much does disposing of an old one?

I think the whole idea that someone buying new cars to "save" the planet is very suspect indeed.

Most kit which needs serious power seems to require between 15-25% of the “running” energy during manufacture and disposal. Scrappage schemes which give car owners money for old cars are very possibly a terrible idea re the environment. Similarly trading in old cars for new if the old one will simply be scrapped by the garage - highly likely for older cars - not good.

On the other hand if a car is getting old enough that it presents serious maintenance and also safety problems then it should be scrapped. One of ours was about 22 years old when we let it go.

[Richard Barrett]

Since then my 'new' cars have been old and the fuel consumption doesn't vary over the time I have them

I've only owned three cars; none of them was new when I acquired it, and all of them had higher consumption than they would have had when they were new. (I often rent cars when travelling so I have quite some experience with new ones.) Whether they go on getting worse indefinitely I haven't investigated closely. I guess not.

[teamsaint]

I've driven an average of around 30k miles a year for around 30 years, for the most part paying for them from my own earnings ,and thus keeping a watchful eye on fuel consumption. I have had around 8 cars in that time , usually running them from " Nearly new " or new ( in the case of 3 company cars) to 100k to 150k miles.
I have never noticed a reduction in fuel consumption as they got older.

[Richard Barrett]

I have never noticed a reduction in fuel consumption as they got older.

"Your mileage may vary", as they say. Really? I found it highly noticeable. Maybe I just had the wrong cars.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The only new car I've ever owned was my very first - a Ford Fiesta (complete with spare wheel - ahh; those were the days!) bought in 1984; there was a very noticeable deterioration in fuel consumption over the first four years, but then it levelled off for the remaining twelve years that I had it.

[teamsaint]

Mine have all been diesel, except for a Fiat Tipo Maybe petrol cars suffer more from this ?

[ahinton]

Of course the most environmentally responsible way to get around is to use human-powered vehicles wherever possible, and otherwise to have a widespread and efficient public transport system so that reliance on private vehicles is kept to a minimum, but there are all kinds of political reasons why this doesn't look like happening (until it has to).

What's wrong with electrically powered vehicles in this context? And perhaps fuel cell powered ones eventually? Whilst "a widerspread and efficient public transport system so that reliance on private vehicles is kept to a minimum" is essential in urban environments, in sparsely populated rural ones that's always going to be a non-starter. Any "political reasons" that risk standing in the way either of efficient public transport systems in urban environments and/or of environmentally friendly vehicles for private use are not "reasons" at all but expressions of perceived political expediency.

[Dave2002]

What's wrong with electrically powered vehicles in this context? And perhaps fuel cell powered ones eventually?

Electrically powered vehicles usually have limited range, and that may be more of a problem in rural areas than in urban ones. The electricity has to be generated somewhere, and then stored - and it does not follow that this is necessarily a clean or efficient process. It can be, if wind or solar energy is used, but that's not guaranteed. Fuel cells are I believe not really in the running, nor likely to be. At one time I thought that hydrogen based fuel cells might be a reaonable alternative power source, but now I think that's unlikely.