What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion. Look at something as simple as painting stuff:
- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal. There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.
I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that safety is not entirely objective. It's subjectivity, however, is limited to degree. This is as opposed to "longevity" which can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. For example, a car's brakes system can be made to last a long time specifically because some parts of it are designed to not last long (in particular, the brake pads).
More interestingly, you'll note that the areas where safety becomes subjective is where it is the most problematic to regulate. Not problematic as in difficult, but problematic in causing real harm to the overall quality of a product.
I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that the subjectivity of safety is limited in a similar degree to the subjectivity of longevity measures. I'd actually argue that a car's brake system (when you look at the system as a whole)
are designed to last a long time . . . that's why the parts that
have to wear to provide the braking force are designed to be easily replaceable. In this way the rest of the braking system achieves greater longevity. But we'll come back to confusion between components and whole systems in a moment.
It's true, longevity can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. As can safety - that's why I showed how painting something a dark colour can make it less safe - but so can painting something a bright colour. Look, incompatible and contradictory definitions! By your own logic we cannot regulate for safety.
It's not interesting at all that subjective areas are more problematic to regulate. It's axiomatic, and not a point upon which we disagree.
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever. That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.
It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward. Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.
So products should last "forever". Interesting, but still a subjective goal. There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last "forever".
There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last do not cause any injury every (even if we get past the contradictions in the stated goal that have already been raised). If you hold any single design criteria to infinitely exacting standards you are fucked when designing a product.
Such regulation would result in products that are vastly over-engineered for ruggedness harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build and incentivize the continued use of obsolete (and inefficient) designs for products that have ongoing operational costs. Do you think we would be having this conversation if (as an arbitrary example) had been required to make computers in the 70s that would last "forever"? (answer: not a chance).
Yep.
Exactly the way that the stated goal of having a product not cause harm will result in products vastly over-engineered for safety harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build.
Did you know that there's a measured reduction in rate of fatalities in automobile collisions when cars drive at slower speeds? Simply by limiting the speed of automobiles to 1 mile per hour, they would become significantly safer. But I assume that you feel there are other design criteria to take into consideration beyond just safety, right? Like . . . utility of the finished product. Typically there is a balance struck . . . so while the ultimate goal may be that nobody dies because of a car, someone has to subjectively decide somewhere that the utility of being able to drive 50 miles an hour outweighs the pesky deaths that creating a two ton vehicle that can go those speeds will entail.
How much extra energy (and pollution) do you think we would have generated had we only been allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs built to last forever (which would require a far less energy efficient design). (answer: a lot)
Yep. That's why longevity can't be the
only design criteria. Just like (as we've established above) safety can't be the
only design criteria.
How many people would switch to LED light bulbs when they have a house full of ruggedized incandescent bulbs? (answer: very few).
Agreed. Although we're running into a problem here. There are quite a few regular incandescent light bulbs already in existence that have lasted in the 90-100 year range. You know why? Because they were never/rarely turned off . . . so the micro fractures that develop in the filament and eventually kill an incandescent didn't occur.
A light bulb on it's own is useless. The goal is a system that can produce and occlude light on demand. You're looking at a single component of a system (the light bulb) rather than the whole system. The whole system involves some power source, a switching system, and the light bulb. The goal is system longevity. But again, as with safety it can't be the
only goal.
Well, we can just force people to buy LEDs with new regulation, right? Wait, LED bulbs wouldn't exist or would cost astronomical sums since semiconductor production would not exist or not be anywhere as mature as it is today.
One of the best things about LEDs is that they last (in a whole system typical use case) tremendously longer than incandescent bulbs. Forcing people to buy LEDs
is a stupid suggestion (good thing nobody made it!), but setting regulations for efficiency can be used to guide people towards more efficient products. Just as regulations for longevity can guide people towards longer lived products.
The only thing we really seem to disagree on here is that safety is somehow a magically different design criteria than anything else . . . be it efficiency, longevity, or other.