>>60524

> Why cars don't get as cheap as laptops do.

Because they are way more complex and use much more material? Here, you get a tiny new car for 14 k€ (and if you want e.g. a station wagon with some nice features, you can easily pay two or three times that price), while you can get a used, road-legal car for approx. 1000 €, but it doesn't get much cheaper than that.

A car consists of quite a bit of metal, so even if it is defunct as a car, you can still remove the still working parts and sell the rest as scrap metal and earn some money. This sets a lower floor on the price.

And about upkeep, yes that is expensive everywhere. When my parents sold the station wagon, I was curious how expensive a car would be for me and found that that particular one would have cost me 100 € per month for insurance alone, my dad said that a small car costs roughly 300 € per month (though that also included fuel, repairs and deprecation). A fellow student paid something like 250 € per month for his car -- "Still cheaper than moving to the city," he said.

Laptops consist of so little material that that avenue doesn't really make sense, I guess -- I don't know prices for scrap metal. Also, there is no safety test that makes your laptop illegal to use when it fails, so you can keep it working longer. And there is much less wear and tear, less rain, less corrosion and so on, so it needs less care than a car.

>>59943
That's Western lack of holistic, perspective because it is truncative rather than integrative. Partly it's a problem with Western scientific methodology itself through needing controls and reproducibility but is also a mindset thing. It is the mentality of seeing legs and breaking it down to segments than seeing how not just the butterfly works as a whole but also how the butterfly itself is only an extension of interedependent systems. It is the result of Western individualism mentality. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's rooted in Abrahamic theological views of things trying to trace it back to its true origins, and that it could be somehow rooted in out linguistics if not vice versa.

It's something that drives me crazy about Western science, which is very much a not seeing the trees for the forest type of a mindset and is why only recently we have begun working on superior theorizing such as systems and chaos theory to explain why and how dynamic overlapping and interconnected systems work, like say climatology, meteorology, the carbon cycle, geological records etc. This makes a lot of Western moderns complete and total ass at understanding things like economics, climate change, meteorology, and pandemics because they are solely using inferior linear thinking of, at best, point A goes to point B which leads to outcome C, if they even are capable of thinking that far ahead. This leads them to being perpetually surprised and ignorant about a great many things the average person should've seen coming from miles away, like say how climate change is directly leading to our highest level national security threats in the very near future, or why neoliberal globalism is a pants on head retarded ideology. They might eventually figure out it is a bad thing eventually, but usually not until it is already happening to them, and certainly not why X is a bad thing let alone how a bad thing like X could possibly happen.

I would even go far as to argue it is only partially rooted in our linguistic development towards learning through narratives, because we still are pattern recognizing apes and you fundamentally do not need linguistics in order to understand a Rube Goldberg machine or puzzle solving, though clearly such a machine is just a more intricate linear thinking problem so I would say multipathed dominos falling or pool trick shots are better examples.

We are of course trapped in this by our inferior pedagogy which is itself a byproduct of industrialization that rewards adherence to the rules in strictly segmented class as well as topic with rote learning rather than innovation, creativity, problem solving, careful analysis, or any type of lateral thinking, because the objective was just making large masses able to follow instructions on operating machinery under their bosses, which has led to such stagnation that we're basically outsourcing anything else to foreigners first, and then later in a service economy not even that is emphasized because all that matters is "people skills" and malignant "socialization" because the fact is our society does not value any of that. You will do things the slow, stupid, and inefficient way if your boss tells you to do it that way, even though your boss only tells you that way because corporate is full of complete fucking idiots that far removed from real operations.

In short, it is not impossible nor even improbable, but merely deemed socially and economically undesirable. This is even more true when you consider how much money is tied up on doing things the stupidest way imaginable.