So Many Choices
9 March 2012
Last night I had an involved conversation with a peer. I had come back from class thinking about the state of the global economy, and specifically the advanced rate of gadget consumption in the U.S. I insisted, as I lately do, that our obsession with high rates of gadget turnover is both unhealthy for our environment and for our happiness.
My thinking was largely inspired by the TED talk I had just watched, about what speaker Barry Schwartz calls “The Paradox of Choice.” His thesis is that, given some choice over none, people tend to be happier, but at some critical point the number of choices overwhelms the consumer and people simply cannot feel happy about their choices.
Today’s consumers have perhaps more choices than ever before, and arguably more choices in tech than in any other department of goods. Take a look at Lenovo’s website. I was browsing the latest and greatest in workforce laptops, and I was greeted by a web page spread wider than my five-year-old laptop’s 1080 horizontal pixels. Scrolling up and down and over and back I saw more laptops than I could reasonably hold in mind at a time, and worse, I couldn’t discern the difference between most of them. How do I choose between “SmartBuy” and “Enhanced Experience” ? How could I know whether a ThinkPad on the lower end of its price range would serve me better than an IdeaPad outfitted with the more luxurious options?
It’s not Lenovo’s fault, per se, that their offering are so diverse; nor is this a problem with Lenovo in particular. Over-diversification is common to basically every tech company today, and especially those marketed to the US consumers. I understand that some enterprise managers want very specific options, but detailed customization of this fine grain is not appropriate on a product home page. In situations like this one, in which I am trying to evaluate the state of the tech market, I am tempted to ask the designers and engineers, “Which product are you proud of? Which one of these options did you work hardest on?”
I suppose that, at the root of it, I want to know that modern designers and scientists and engineers are driven—like those of yesteryear seemed to be—by good quality and pride in craftsmanship. Our country needs things that get better with age. Or, at least, things that don’t obsolete so quickly.
I don’t mean to imply that I oppose technological innovation and progress; contrarily, I believe that technology is a transformative and potentially empowering and beneficial element of humanity. I simply think that we need to shift our mainstream focus from consuming more goods, more quickly, to valuing what we have.
This kind of shift would benefit hugely from interoperable and modular parts. If my computer can accept a new processor a few years down the road, I will be more likely to keep it. I could simply upgrade the components that need upgrading and keep the rest, which is in all likelihood perfectly functional. Incremental modifications and upgrades would save consumers money, cause companies to focus on long-lasting product designs, and ultimately help people live a bit lighter on the world.
I’m calling on technological collaboration, but also a shift in our social paradigm. It’s time for everyone to slow down, evaluate our priorities, and ultimately reduce consumption.
I don’t profess environmental concern as a means of self-valuation or absolution. I know that many people use “environment” and “green” as words to throw around in gaining credibility. I truly love and respect the natural world, and I also believe that environmental safety is directly connected to our safety. However far people think they can divorce themselves from the environment, we are all fundamentally connected to our natural roots.