Planned obsolescence is often discussed as a moral problem, and so it is. It does real damage, socially and ecologically. But it’s also something else: a future assumption baked into design.
Products designed to fail, wear out, or become obsolete rely on a very specific vision of the future. That vision is one in which resources remain available, replacement is easy, and the costs of disposal are externalised. In that version of the future, speed and novelty are prioritised over longevity and repair.
In futures work, I’m less interested in whether planned obsolescence will be banned, and more interested in what kinds of futures this “feature” normalises. What does it teach people to expect? What behaviours does it reward? What alternatives become harder to imagine when disposability is the default?
Seen this way, planned obsolescence isn’t just an economic strategy. It’s also a way of narrowing the future.
Futures and foresight can help make these assumptions visible. Not to prescribe solutions, but to widen the frame: to ask what other futures might be possible if durability, care, and repair were treated as design values rather than inconveniences.