Broken by design?
A recent article by Dr. Mathew Maavak got me thinking about an old Heinlein short story, Life Line, and my recent article on “evidence mills.” Sometimes, I get triggered by news stories that send my autistic mind spinning back on stuff I’ve read or things I’ve written. When this occurs, I need to get them out of the theatre of my mind - clearing the bilge bay, if you will - so I can get back to what it is that I need to do. If I don’t clear this stuff out, my ability to engage in the world of words is severely compromised.
With that, if you’re not familiar with Heinlein, or his old short stories, then a bit of summary is in order first, so as to set the stage. It’s found in a number of places. I have it in a collection, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein. That old paperback originally sold for 60 cents, and now can be found for about ten dollars from the various used book sellers, but I digress.
Life Line
Life Line centers around a scientist named Hugo Pinero who claims to have invented a machine that can accurately predict how long a person will live. He demonstrates the machine to reporters by having them write down their birthdays and then predicting the dates correctly.
Pinero’s invention causes chaos in the life insurance industry, as people no longer need policies if they know when they will die. The head of a major insurance company tries to get an injunction against Pinero, claiming his machine is fraud. At a court hearing, Pinero proposes a test to prove his machine works - he will use it to predict the deaths of members of the Academy of Science and they can check the accuracy over time. The judge agrees.
Meanwhile, Pinero starts charging people to use his machine. Two young newlyweds come to see how long they will live as they are expecting a baby. Pinero seems troubled by their readings but won't reveal the results. Later, the couple dies tragically in a car accident after leaving his office.
It's later revealed that Pinero made a deal with the insurance company head to sabotage his own machine and kill himself, in exchange for a large payment to his heirs. On the day Pinero is found murdered, the scientists who were testing his machine discover he had accurately predicted the time of his own death. In light of this, the committee decides to destroy all the death prediction envelopes without opening them.
Broken by Design
In his article, Dr. Maavak argues that planned obsolescence, previously confined to consumer products, is now being applied to humans as well, with ‘the elites’ wanting everyone and everything to have an expiration date. He suggests this is part of the ‘creative destruction’ process under the ‘New Normal’ pushed by the World Economic Forum. Maavak contends that technology and products are deliberately being made to break down faster to force constant replacement and boost corporate profits. He implies this profit-driven strategy comes at the expense of quality, durability, and the greater public good. Maavak warns that universal digital ID systems and technology like microsensors embedded in products could enable greater tracking and control over people to ensure compliance as ‘human obsolescence’ accelerates. He equates this to the dystopian vision of the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ where ‘you’ll own nothing and be happy’ by 2030. Overall, Maavak portrays a bleak future of rapacious elites leveraging science and technology to fuel disposability and mandatory consumption across society so as to drive profit growth.
I write to process the connections I find …
Technological progress and scientific discoveries often promise societal benefits, yet the application of such advancements does not always align with the public good. This uneasy relationship between innovation and ethics frequently arises in literary reflections and critical examinations. For instance, Heinlein explores the moral quandaries of a machine predicting lifespans in “Life-Line.” Similarly, my article raises probing questions about potential methodological flaws and conflicts of interest in the education sector’s use of “evidence mills.” Finally, Dr. Maavak’s essay on “broken by design” products and services casts a dystopian light on planned obsolescence. As I considered Maavak’s piece, and thinking back on Heinlein, these three pieces provide interesting commentary on how scientific knowledge and technological capabilities become entangled with corporate machinations and elite agendas in ways that engender distrust. By examining the themes around predetermined expiration, compromised research, and disposability over durability in these works, my over-active autistic brain began to glean deeper sociological insights on the fraught relationship between advancing intellect and regressing ethics.
The speculative fiction of Heinlein invites readers to ponder life-altering innovations through an entertaining narrative. My work blends investigative analysis with firsthand experiences to spotlight real-world issues. Maavak’s op-ed synthesizes theory, history, and current affairs to provoke urgent debate. Despite their different forms, each work raises searching questions about who benefits from the inexorable march of science, which gates of perception remain locked, and whether gains in knowledge uplift humanity or entrench power structures. Their juxtaposition in my mind’s eye reveals recurring tensions between transformative creativity and status quo preservation. In the gulf between idealistic progress and pragmatic authority, profound truths about society await discovery by those willing to bridge the divide. By stacking these varied perspectives and peering through their prisms, pivotal insinuations about our collective course come into sharper focus.
Connections?
There are some interesting connections between the “broken by design” idea in Dr. Maarvak’s article and the themes in “Life-Line” plus my critique of education research “evidence mills.”
Dr. Maarvak’s article argues that planned obsolescence of products and services is now being applied to humans as well, with ‘the elites’ wanting everything to have an expiration date. This evokes the predetermined lifespans and death predictions in “Life-Line.”
Pinero’s machine providing knowledge of death dates is positioned as dangerous, just as Dr. Maarvak’s article suggests ‘the elites’’ agenda for planned obsolescence is harmful. Both imply this knowledge can disrupt the established order.
Dr. Maarvak’s article critiques how technology and other products are designed to break down faster, requiring constant replacement. This parallels the “evidence mill” issues of education products being intentionally designed in questionable ways to generate repeat business.
Dr. Maarvak’s article’s claim that durable and long-lasting products are now seen as a problem matches Pinero's invention threatening the insurance industry’s business model. Quality is framed as antagonistic to profits.
Just as education research is skewed to get funding, Dr. Maarvak’s article suggests science and technology are twisted to serve corporate interests rather than quality and durability.
Dr. Maarvak’s article hints at greater social control through digital ID systems and tracking human ‘expiration dates.’ This fits an anti-capitalist critique of “Life-Line” - knowledge used for elite exploitation rather than empowerment.
All seem to warn of the dangers of profit-driven motives superseding ethical considerations in science and technology.
In essence, the “broken by design” concept aligns with the themes of predetermined lifespans, the perils of profit-driven research, and technology being oriented toward disposability over public good. In my mind, the article added the broader, yet quite horrific context of planned obsolescence now extending from products to humans themselves in service of ‘elite’ aims.
What really triggered me …
Here’s the part of Dr. Maarvak’s piece that really triggered me.
“I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally “dead” and would be controlled by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept going and employment regularized and assured for the masses.”
As an autistic person with autistic sensory sensitivities, when I find a piece of clothing that fits and feels just right, I buy a bunch of them. I’ll wash them, and store them in a sealed container until they’re needed. As old as I am, I don’t trust businesses to keep the items that I rely upon in stock. I’ve long ago learned this lesson.
But now, if ‘the elites’ get their way, I could no longer do this.
Imagine government agents tracking the contents of my closet?!
“It gets worse. London urged that “taxes should be levied on the people who are retarding progress”. Ergo, the world needs to punish individuals who conserve resources for the sake of corporations which generate disposable junk on an industrial scale, straining our natural environments in the process. And just how do you tax people over clothes and shoes that come with an officially-mandated expiry date? Will electronic micro-sensors be embedded into products of the future? Likewise, will humans be cattle-tagged with similar sensors to ensure consumerist compliance and the profitability of corporations?”
The World Economic Forum …
I’m not a conspiracy nut. However, I don’t like the WEF for more concrete reasons.
Elite power preserve: The WEF is comprised of political and corporate elites who use their influence to preserve the status quo of capitalism and their own power/wealth. I see this as the capitalist class perpetuating their interests.
Limits discourse: The WEF claims to have open and diverse discussions but I argue it actually limits discourse to “safe” topics that don’t threaten capital’s interests. This prevents questioning underlying power structures.
Capitalist reform over abolition: The WEF’s reform proposals aim to improve capitalism, not abolish it. I argue true change requires overthrowing capitalism entirely. Reforms are limited measures to stabilize and legitimize capitalism.
Lacks labour representation: The WEF lacks meaningful representation of labor groups. Its agenda focuses on corporate competitiveness and growth, not worker rights or wellbeing. This embodies the capitalist exploitation I often criticize.
Superficial diversity: Whilst the WEF invites some diverse voices, I argue this is a superficial effort to appear inclusive. In practice, decision-making power rests firmly with Western corporate and political ‘elites,’ especially older cis white men.
Ignores systemic racism: I argue the WEF’s reform proposals fail to recognise and address systemic racism embedded in global economic systems. Its rhetoric about “improving diversity” is empty without confronting racial power imbalances.
In general, I contend the WEF ultimately serves to further entrench the intersecting interests of Western capital and imperialism rather than meaningfully empowering marginalized groups - like autistics. Any benefits from the WEF are incidental to preserving the status quo.
Concluding thoughts
The WEF’s ethos of ‘forward progress’ for capitalism seems to disregard the needs of disabled and marginalized groups, much like the dystopian future envisioned in “Broken by Design.” The WEF's relentless economic reductionism threatens to treat human diversity as a problem to be solved rather than embraced, akin to how Pinero's invention was seen as disrupting the insurance industry’s profitable status quo.
In its pursuit of efficiency and technology-driven progress, the WEF ignores issues of accessibility, inclusiveness, and interdependence, just as the “evidence mills” narrowly tailor research to corporate interests rather than diverse learner needs. The WEF’s digitization push into a world of mandatory tracking and expiration dates evokes the same anti-humanist themes that troubled Pinero upon learning of the young couple’s fate.
Whilst the WEF pays lip service to inclusion, its growth-above-all priorities marginalize vulnerable populations, mirroring how Pinero rationed lifesaving predictions based on ability to pay. Its vision seems measured only by economic productivity and ‘elite’ aims, not collective care. Just as compromised research serves corporate backers, the WEF’s policies engrain ableism and rationalize discrimination by markets and algorithms. To build a just future, we cannot allow financial motives and technological “progress” to trump human rights. The ethical application of knowledge should empower diverse lives, not foreclose them through institutional indifference.