Eternal Things. The Great Transition from an Industrial to a Post-Industrial Society
“Robotization and technological progress in industrial society free people from the need to work to produce things. Therefore, in the post-industrial era, they will also free people from the need to work to acquire things.”
Today, we spend most of our money completely in vain. And that means we also waste most of the time we spend earning it. The problem isn’t necessarily that we’re terrible at budgeting—though that might be part of it too.
The truth is, the vast majority of our purchases are unnecessary. And not always because we don’t need those things, but because there’s no real reason for us to keep repurchasing them. More often than not, our perceived need for a particular item is artificially created, and we don’t even realize it.
Take something as simple as a light bulb. If one burns out, we need to buy a new one so we’re not left in the dark. At first glance, this purchase seems entirely reasonable—perhaps even essential. But here’s where things get interesting: a hundred years ago, manufacturers of these very bulbs made a deliberate decision to limit their lifespan artificially. So, in reality, the choice to buy a replacement bulb—a choice that seems logical and well-considered—was never really ours to begin with. It was made for us.
In 1885, in the state of Ohio, USA, an inventor named Adolphe Chaillet created a carbon-filament light bulb capable of lasting indefinitely. For the late 19th century, this was a groundbreaking achievement: a simple, shock-resistant, and inexpensive-to-produce incandescent bulb that could bring enormous benefits to humanity—saving both money and natural resources on a massive scale.
Adolphe Chaillet found investors, established Shelby Electric Company, and launched a pilot production. His bulbs were immediately purchased by local government institutions. One of these bulbs has been continuously burning for over 120 years at a fire station in Livermore, California, and can still be observed via a live webcam.
But why, more than a century later, do we now have to replace high-tech bulbs multiple times a year?
When Chaillet’s bulbs were already thirty years old and still showed no signs of burning out, on December 23, 1924, a secretive meeting took place at a private resort in the Swiss mountains. The attendees? Executives from the biggest lighting companies: Osram, Philips, and General Electric. This gathering later became known as the Phoebus Cartel.
Compared to Phoebus, Colombian drug cartels seem like mere amateurs in terms of the scale of their crimes against humanity and the profits they generated. The agenda of that meeting boiled down to a single question: “How do we keep making money?” The solution they arrived at?
“From now on, no lightbulb shall last more than 1,000 hours!”
This decision was officially recorded in their memorandum.
To grasp the full impact of this scheme, consider this: today, almost no one remembers the name Shelby Electric Company. Yet the invention of its engineer, Adolphe Chaillet, deserved to be written in gold letters in the history of global technology.
General Electric acquired the patent for the everlasting bulb from Chaillet, then bought Shelby Electric Company—and shut it down.
There is no official confirmation of this, but it is highly likely that General Electric was the initiator of the Phoebus Cartel. The technology behind Shelby Electric Company’s everlasting bulb was deliberately erased from memory as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the lifespan of bulbs from General Electric, Osram, and Philips was reduced to just 1,000 hours—even though, before the cartel’s formation, their bulbs lasted an average of 2,500 hours.
You don’t need to be a math genius to see that, with a simple stroke of a pen, these companies boosted their profits and increased the environmental burden by 2.5 times! And since the production of everlasting bulbs was halted, the environmental impact of manufacturing new bulbs became constant and endless.
In fact, one could argue that the members of the Phoebus Cartel invented the billion-dollar lightbulb—and not just a single billion, but many. Yet, even that wasn’t enough for them.
At the time, Osram, Philips, and General Electric controlled approximately 95% of the global lightbulb market, which meant they could raise prices freely without fear of competition. The cartel members were true capitalist sharks, leaving no room for other manufacturers to challenge the disposable lightbulb system they imposed on humanity.
By 1929, a document was leaked to the public—a table listing fines for exceeding the imposed lifespan of lightbulbs. The demand to limit product longevity was disguised as a need for standardization, patent exchange, and technical cooperation. These so-called "standards" still apply today, affecting even modern energy-saving and LED bulbs, which are designed to fail after a short period.
So now, every time we buy a new lightbulb, we are handing our money to the lighting mafia.
Upon learning that the patent for the everlasting lightbulb had been locked away in a safe and its production halted, Adolphe Chaillet was devastated. He would have never sold his patent had he known how it would end. After moving to Mexico, he began working on a new way to reinvent his everlasting bulb using his expertise. He shared his plans with fellow engineers—shortly after, he died under mysterious circumstances.
After Germany was divided into East and West, the Phoebus Cartel grew concerned: in socialist East Germany, manufacturers began producing lightbulbs with a guaranteed lifespan of 5,000 hours. In the West, this was seen as a direct threat, as these longer-lasting bulbs inevitably found their way into Western markets.
In 1981, East German engineers took things a step further—they developed an ultra-durable lightbulb that could last just as long as Chaillet’s invention but was even brighter, cheaper, and of higher quality.
When this innovation was showcased at a West German exhibition in Hanover, the response was shocking: Western industry representatives called the inventors insane. Being products of a capitalist system—where the priority wasn’t the well-being of society, but the prosperity of a handful of people at the expense of everyone else—Western engineers simply couldn’t grasp such thinking. They were conditioned to focus on profits and money, even if that meant using dishonest methods.
By contrast, the East German engineers were true engineers, devoted to universal benefit and dedicated to producing the highest-quality goods. The thought of intentionally reducing a product’s lifespan—deliberately harming people and the environment—was simply inconceivable to them.
The factory that produced these long-lasting lightbulbs was called Narva. However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Germany’s reunification, it was one of the first factories to be shut down, allegedly due to “unprofitability.”
The Geneva meeting and the Phoebus Cartel marked the first-ever corporate conspiracy in human history to intentionally degrade product quality. Millions of dollars flowed into the pockets of these so-called “conscious manufacturers of defects.”
And, as is often the case, a bad example is contagious. Soon, across Europe and the U.S., companies began systematically reducing the quality of virtually everything. Today, this manufacturers’ conspiracy has reached unprecedented proportions: home appliances, smartphones, computers, cars, clothing—everything in the 21st century is designed to be disposable.
In 1991, Toyota produced cars with engines that had a guaranteed lifespan of 1 million kilometers. Today, that warranty has been slashed to just 100,000 kilometers—meaning that, over a quarter-century of scientific and technological progress, car quality has not improved but rather declined—by a factor of ten or more.
How is that even possible? With all the rapid advancements in technology, shouldn’t modern machines be more durable and reliable than ever?
Yet, automakers now design vehicle parts in a way that ensures entire systems break down as soon as the warranty expires. Manufacturers install chips in critical car components that trigger deliberate failure after a certain mileage or time. Even the materials used in car parts (as well as household appliances) are now intentionally substandard.
This practice is called planned obsolescence. It sounds harmless—but in reality, it leads to thousands of car accidents every year.
According to statistics, the most common failures in expensive cars involve:
- Brakes
- Steering systems
- Transmission failure, where the casing literally tears apart, causing vehicles to break down at full speed.
Even spare parts have become less durable. For example, swirl flaps in many vehicles are deliberately made from non-durable plastic. After just 50,000–60,000 kilometers, their bushings break apart, crumble, and fall into the engine, causing severe damage.
Gasoline engines are coated with Nikasil, a material that quickly wears away if foreign particles enter the system—eventually destroying the entire engine.
In the 20th century, all commercial trucks were equipped with million-kilometer engines. Today, manufacturers boast that their new vehicles can reach 250,000 kilometers—four times less—before their systems begin failing almost simultaneously.
This is planned obsolescence in action. The consequences of deliberately engineering products to fail include deaths on the road, explosions of electronic devices, fires, and more.
From an environmental perspective, this practice places an immense burden on our planet, as valuable resources are continuously extracted to manufacture short-lived, disposable products.
Many tech giants have stopped producing replacement parts for household appliances, ensuring that even a minor malfunction forces consumers to buy an entirely new refrigerator or washing machine. Devices are now intentionally designed to be unrepairable.
Everything is done to make people buy new products as often as possible.
Most modern printers contain a chip that tracks the number of pages printed. Once a certain limit is reached, the printer locks itself. Previously, a standard cartridge could print 2,300 pages—now, its newer equivalent prints only 1,600 pages. Manufacturers claim this is for our own benefit, to prevent printers from producing faded documents. But if the chip is removed, the same cartridge can continue printing hundreds more high-quality pages.
In other popular printer models, the chip has been replaced by a low-melting-point fuse that burns out after printing a few reams of paper. As a result, the user receives a message stating that the drum unit has failed—forcing them to buy a new one.
A simple yet blatant scam.
When new smartphone models are released, users of older versions are encouraged to download the latest operating system, promising significant performance improvements. However, once the update is installed, older phones start lagging and breaking down.
The result? The user is forced to buy a new phone.
The same applies to modern clothing. The new fabrics used today are thinner and less durable than those produced 15–20 years ago. According to independent studies, the lifespan of textiles has decreased threefold since the early 21st century—and this decline is still ongoing. Major manufacturers deliberately design clothing and footwear to last only a single season.
In 1937, nylon was invented in the United States. The main product made from it? Ultra-thin stockings that were far more durable than silk ones—a dream come true for women! These stockings were so strong that advertisers even used them to tow cars.
Women were thrilled that runs and snags didn’t appear on their new stockings for a long time. But once the chemical corporation DuPont had dominated the market by convincing consumers of their product’s reliability, they began thinning the nylon fibers to make the material tear more easily.
Women whose stockings started ripping more often had no idea this was intentional.
Stockings were an expensive purchase, but DuPont had no competition—they aggressively protected their business from new rivals.
And so, under highly suspicious circumstances, Wallace Carothers, the inventor of nylon, died.
Since then, women worldwide have spent enormous amounts of money on stockings.
The principle of functional obsolescence is widely used in the technology sector as well.
In the past, upgrading a computer was simple—you could invest a small amount and end up with a modernized device.
Today, laptops are practically disposable, often becoming obsolete within 3 to 5 years.
New software is deliberately designed not to work on older generations of computers, and new cartridges and connectors are made incompatible with previous models.
Take Intel, for example—the world leader in computer processor manufacturing.
The socket on the motherboard for first-generation Core processors had 1,156 pins, while second-generation Core processors had 1,155 pins. The difference? A single pin.
Yet, as a result, computer owners who wanted to upgrade their processor had no choice but to buy an entirely new motherboard, even though the physical sockets were nearly identical.
Disposable products have become the defining trend of modern manufacturing, and we fail to notice how we’re now being charged premium prices for products that, twenty years ago, would have been considered defective stock.
Today’s products are designed to break at a precisely planned moment, forcing people to buy replacements. This system wastes both time and money—and, ultimately, destroys the environment.
In theory, this marketing deception should have been regulated by consumer protection laws.
On March 15, 1962, President John F. Kennedy introduced the Consumer Bill of Rights in the United States. This document established that the consumer society has the right to information, the right to choice, and the right to be heard.
Today, March 15 is recognized as World Consumer Rights Day.
However, this date now carries a hint of irony, as manufacturers have found ways to exploit the very laws meant to protect consumers—particularly the clause about the right to information.
In the past, you would replace a lightbulb only when it burned out. Now, products themselves notify you when it’s time to buy a replacement—before they even stop working.
This devious strategy is known as “obsolescence by notification.”
For example:
- Water filters display an alert after a certain time, prompting replacement,
- Razors feature a color-changing strip that “reminds” you to change the blade—even though modern technology could have made ultra-durable razors long ago.
Thus, manufacturers pressure consumers into making purchases, even though the products could still function for a long time.
Consumer rights have been reduced to choosing between different types of deliberately low-quality products. No one today has the option to buy goods of the same quality that was available thirty years ago.
Corporations are trying to normalize planned obsolescence—to make it seem natural, even though it violates every moral and ethical principle, as well as environmental, legal, and human rights standards.
The production of low-quality, short-lived goods is a deliberate act of harm against people.
It is also a violation of spirituality, because spirituality is about caring for the well-being of all, in the spirit of service to God.
Technology has already advanced to the point where we can build cars, computers, and phones that last for decades without breaking down.
It is fully possible today to manufacture cars that could run for 100 years or more without major failures.
Some Russians still have ZIL refrigerators from the 1970s at their dachas, and they have been working flawlessly for over 50 years—without a single repair!
What happens if we extend product lifespans by five times?
If we increase the lifespan of goods by just five times, we could reduce the environmental burden by the same factor!
At the same time, people would no longer need to work as much to maintain their current standard of living.
The extra free time could be spent on personal development, connecting with loved ones, and turning our planet into a flourishing paradise once again.
An industrial society is one built on the development of mass production. As industrial society progressed, robotization and technological advancements began freeing millions of people from the need to work in manufacturing.
This does not pose a problem as long as product quality keeps pace with technology—since as durability increases, the need for constant replacement decreases.
However, unemployment becomes an issue when robots, empowered by advanced technology, take over production entirely. Humans are no longer needed to manufacture goods, yet they are kept dependent on the endless cycle of consumption.
This imbalance must be corrected to transition into a post-industrial society.
People need money to buy new things—but if goods become truly long-lasting, the need for constant purchasing disappears, and with it, the need for excessive financial dependence.
A post-industrial society is not based on resource extraction, production, and consumption, but rather on the expansion of services focused on human development. Producing high-quality, long-lasting goods would free people’s time and allow business sectors to grow in areas like health, wellness, active longevity, and relationship-building. It would also foster spiritual, physical, creative, and intellectual development, helping individuals achieve a sense of fulfillment and happiness.
The Mind vs. The Reasoning Level
An industrial society represents the platform of the mind, while a post-industrial society reflects the level of reason.
- The platform of the mind is focused on perfecting lifeless material objects, improving comfort for the body.
- The level of reason is about caring for life itself—developing the human being and enhancing their spiritual, immaterial essence.https://awakening.team/humankind-have-to-rise-to-the-level-of-intelligence/
Material comfort does not suffer when transitioning from the platform of the mind to the level of reason. On the contrary—producing high-quality, long-lasting goods would only increase material well-being.
This shift would:
- Improve the planet’s ecosystem
- Eliminate soil and water pollution
- End wars fought over markets and resources
- Restore soil fertility and promote the growth of high-quality organic food, leading to better human health
But most importantly, enhancing people’s moral and ethical values would bring prosperity to society, because the quality of life depends on the quality of human relationships.
Where do outdated smartphones, laptops, and refrigerators go?
Every year, millions of tons of electronic waste are generated due to planned obsolescence.
All of this waste is shipped to so-called “Third World” countries—countries that became “third world” because developed nations drained their resources to manufacture disposable goods.
Locals extract valuable metals from this imported e-waste without any basic safety measures.
- Plastic parts and insulation are burned in open fires, releasing toxic smoke into the atmosphere
- Toxic chemicals from batteries seep into the soil and water
- A single phone battery contaminates 20 square meters of soil with heavy metals
All of this destroys the planet.
Is “reducing consumption” the answer?
Today, some not-so-wise figures in Western countries suggest that to “save the planet,” people should consume less and reduce the population.
But what does “reducing consumption” actually mean?
- Eating only once a week?
- Using a fridge, shower, washing machine, or iron just once a month?
No.
The real solution
If humanity returns to producing high-quality goods, we could minimize our environmental impact to nearly zero—without having to reduce our standard of living.
People could still:
- Eat healthy, organic food
- Use durable, well-made products that don’t break down unnecessarily
And most importantly, they wouldn’t be forced to throw things away just because they were designed to fail.
Most of the world’s energy resources today are consumed by transportation—commuting to work and back, extracting resources from the earth, transporting them to factories, manufacturing goods, delivering them to warehouses, then distributing them to stores, and finally hauling them to landfills for disposal. From the perspective of rational economics, this cycle is completely unjustified.
This process is responsible for the vast majority of harmful emissions released into the atmosphere.
If manufacturers stopped deliberately lowering product quality, harmful emissions would decrease by 95–98%, and people would not have to sacrifice their standard of living. They would continue using computers, refrigerators, irons, and other appliances—but they would no longer be forced to replace them every few years. The strain on roads and transport infrastructure would be reduced hundreds or even thousands of times over. The sky and rivers would clear.
Economics is about meeting human needs while conserving natural resources.
There is no need to reduce consumption or decrease the population to avoid resource, energy, or environmental crises. Such “solutions” do not propose banning the production of disposable goods that harm the planet; instead, they advocate reducing the number of consumers.
But this is neither a rational nor a spiritual approach.
What should be more important for a state—the production of harmful, short-lived products or caring for the people who were sent here by God for spiritual growth?
There is only one logical and natural solution to this problem:
Humanity must produce high-quality, durable goods. The time freed from the endless cycle of replacement and consumption—the time that was given to us by God for a reason—should be used for self-development and caring for the world around us.
For more details, see the article “The Great Plan for Transforming Nature.” https://awakening.team/the-great-plan-for-the-transformation-of-nature-an-unaccepted-gift-from-previous-generations-or-unlearned-lessons/
At international economic forums, the topic of sustainable development is frequently discussed.
According to Gro Harlem Brundtland, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Therefore, the core principle of any Sustainable Development program should be the production of goods with maximum longevity.
This issue should be a priority topic for discussion at economic and political forums.
The deliberate reduction of product lifespan should be recognized by the International Court as a crime against humanity, a crime against future generations, and a crime against nature.
The production of high-quality, durable goods would transform industrial society into an environmentally harmonious post-industrial civilization and solve the most pressing global problems:
- Climate change: Harmful emissions would drop by over 90%.
- Environmental crisis: We would stop turning the planet into a landfill.
- Plastic pollution: The problem would shrink or disappear entirely, since plastic is primarily used for low-quality, short-lived products and disposable packaging.
- Energy crisis: The demand for energy resources would decrease significantly.
- Ocean acidity: We would stop poisoning the ocean and begin restoring it.
- Military conflicts: Wars fought over resources and markets would come to an end.
- Hunger eradication: Freed-up human resources could be redirected toward restoring soil fertility, turning the planet into a flourishing garden once again.
Public health: Many modern illnesses stem from nutrient depletion in food due to soil exhaustion. The same issue contributes to obesity in the U.S., where people are forced to eat more just to obtain essential nutrients. Restoring soil fertility would solve this problem.
The well-being of society depends on the quality of human relationships and mutual care. And the production of high-quality, long-lasting goods is an expression of this care for one another and for the world around us. It is an essential part of our service to God.
Alexander Evgenyevich Usanin
General Director of ANO “Earth’s Revival” (“Vozrozhdeniye Zemli”)
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Chinese 
Nepali 
Hindi 
Persian 
Arabic 
Korean