TED Conversations

Huey Freeman

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

From possessions to access

Does it make sense to buy something only to use it for a fraction of the time of its full utility? For example, is it smart to make one of everything regardless of their usage by the person? it seems to me that the idea of "possessions" is completely unstable on a finite earth.

There is a place in Toronto where people share tools and when your done with using the tool you simply but it back in the tool deposits. A city near Amsterdam also share bikes in which they all use and share, no single bike "belongs" to anyone, and there are enough bikes to be used since no one takes the bikes home with them, kind of like a library. Abundance being the key notion here.

If we could extend these practices to larger objective (like cars, electronic devises ect.), we could cut down on the environmental cost of "having one of everything", and we would develop into a society with a new set values, such as sharing, and access abundance, instead of constricted possessions and "property".

Let me know what you guys think.

+3
Share:
progress indicator
  • Jul 5 2013: I think this will become more popular as more people experience the benefits. Driverless taxis might be the innovation that provides that experience and pushes this idea across the tipping point.

    I think driverless taxis will become so cheap and so common that owning your own car will not be economical for most people. It seems to me that without the expense of a driver, a taxi is essentially the same as sharing a car, and that must be cheaper than owning one. If there is no need to own a car, there is no need to have a driveway and garage, and those are expensive to own and maintain. On the societal scale, we would need fewer cars, far fewer parking spaces, and have fewer cars on the road. At rush hour it would be very easy to fill up the car with passengers; the coordination could done by a computer program.

    Once people become accustomed to sharing cars, the benefits of sharing other things will seem obvious and natural, and the practice will spread.
  • thumb
    Jul 3 2013: I don't know, my experience of life is that people take better care of things when they belong to them solely. Not everybody, some take good care regardless, but many do not.
    • thumb
      Jul 4 2013: If the system is dominate enough it would tote along more care and respect the larger it grows if this would even be a problem even. How often you get a book from a library and pages are ripped out? I never experienced this.
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: for whatever reason, I think people go easier on books. If they shared bicycles with strangers, and noone owned them, I think they'd go very hard on them.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: I read yesterday about three high school boys running a business in the context of what I think people have been calling "the share economy." We already have here- and perhaps you do also in Canada- businesses that rent cars on a short term basis through memberships. Someone can use the car for a couple of hours and then leave it. In that case a business owns the cars.

    What the boys are doing is accepting cars a traveler would normally leave in airport parking and then renting that out to someone flying into the airport who wants to rent a car.

    The owner of the car does not have to pay then to leave it at the airport and gets a share of the rental fee. The boys take part of the fee and do not need to own or maintain a fleet of rental cars.

    These cars do belong to someone, but they are being shared.

    We have tool libraries here also.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2013: greatidea...but ideas like this are unattractive to most businesses ..Historically you cn see precedence in England dealing with the native Indians...when forced onto land reservations they attempted to farm communally which was their style...the English forbade it and demanded each farm seperately...another instance of government seriously interfering in community is when they banne3d the POTLATCH a indian ceremony where the cheif gives away all his possessions to prove his spiritual strengtrh . So now you are aware that your idea while good has historicvally been intercepted by those whose loyalties have historically been enterprise,not family
    • thumb
      Jul 4 2013: This idea is unattractive to most businesses because of individualism. There is no thought into what would be best for everyone as a whole, only what is best for them and that means bringing in they money in order to stay alive in a monetary system.