In defense of the washing machine(vox.com)
vox.com
In defense of the washing machine
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/374286/degrowth-economic-growth-washing-machines-electricity-global-poverty
75 comments
Having grown up without a dishwasher and gotten one in my late 20s I can not go back. The thing with these machines is that they are actually more efficient than humans, using less water and less soap. If you had to drive to get to a river you would also use more energy as well...
I grew up in Brazil and I remember the news stories about soap pollution in the Tiete river in São Paulo city. The people who lived next to that river were some of the poorest people in the country (the river often flooded the surrounding areas), the amount of laundry soap they were dropping in the river directly without treatment was causing huge environmental problems.
(note a lot of them did have washing machines, they didn't have proper sewage treatment)
I grew up in Brazil and I remember the news stories about soap pollution in the Tiete river in São Paulo city. The people who lived next to that river were some of the poorest people in the country (the river often flooded the surrounding areas), the amount of laundry soap they were dropping in the river directly without treatment was causing huge environmental problems.
(note a lot of them did have washing machines, they didn't have proper sewage treatment)
I also once stayed in a remote village in India for a few weeks, I had the exact same conclusion. Washing machines are enormously valuable, a huge win for society.
This is so true. If I was only allowed to keep a single electrical device at home, it would be my washing machine. If I want to exercise, I'll go for a walk while the machine magically washes my clothes, thank you very much.
I was skeptical the washing machine needed defending; I'm not convinced this article, or the offending tweet really need highlighting.
That said, this is a genuinely quite surprising statistic to me:
> The UN estimates that only two billion people have washing machines; for the other six billion, a life of washing clothes by hand is not a relic of the distant past but an exhausting chore that consumes a significant fraction of women’s time and energy worldwide.
I suppose that "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed" == "The past is still here, it's just not evenly distributed"
That said, this is a genuinely quite surprising statistic to me:
> The UN estimates that only two billion people have washing machines; for the other six billion, a life of washing clothes by hand is not a relic of the distant past but an exhausting chore that consumes a significant fraction of women’s time and energy worldwide.
I suppose that "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed" == "The past is still here, it's just not evenly distributed"
I wonder how that's counted; is it ownership or access? In Finland most apartment buildings have shared spaces with a washer and a dryer where you can book time for free. Doesn't mean everyone relies on them, but many people don't bother buying their own machines, especially those living alone in small apartments. I assume we're not the only country doing this.
That phrase is REALLY intresting because HOW it is wrong
From the UN site https://unhabitat.org/washing-machines-indicator-for-measuri...
2 billion - 5 billion
Not 2bil-6bil
The article seems to be from 2015 or we are talking about 10 years ago
From the UN site https://unhabitat.org/washing-machines-indicator-for-measuri...
2 billion - 5 billion
Not 2bil-6bil
The article seems to be from 2015 or we are talking about 10 years ago
This also clarifies that the 2 billion are those who have access to a washing machine, not own one. Of course the question is how you define access - how near does a laundromat (or similar establishment) have to be to still count as "access"? What if there is one, but you can't afford it?
The quote is wrong, that's what i'm saying.
The article says 2-6 but the article says 2-5.
The author wanted to say "we are 8 bil people on the planet" but when the article was written there were 7.
The article says 2-6 but the article says 2-5.
The author wanted to say "we are 8 bil people on the planet" but when the article was written there were 7.
Yes, I checked the source, and I don’t think it meaningfully changed my reaction. Though you’d hope more people have access to washing machines now than in 2015.
I had to click the source tweet because this reads so insane. If I saw it in the wild I would have guessed it was rage bait. Washing machines save everyone time and money. One of the greatest inventions in the modern world.
I clearly remember when I first bought the house I live in now. We had a load of people staying for Xmas, and after a few glasses of wine I went to the kitchen to get another bottle - and I marvelled at the things I had running in that moment - a fridge keeping my wine nice and cool, a dishwasher effortlessly handling everything from a meal for 8 people, the washing machine going as we'd just had some people leave (as others came) and needed to clean the bedding, and the tumble drier full of my kids clothes.
Was one of those moments when you really realise just how insanely lucky I am to be born into the life I live - when billions of others could only dream of the luxury.
Was one of those moments when you really realise just how insanely lucky I am to be born into the life I live - when billions of others could only dream of the luxury.
> “Washing clothes by hand is a chore, oftentimes a lonely one. But it needn’t be. We could have communal washing facilities in each neighborhood where people can plan to come in groups to do their laundry together,” he proposed on Twitter. “Washing clothes by hand is also tiring work if you have a load, but it’s still physical activity & exercise. We spend time in the gym & running outside to keep fit; would it be so bad to devote some of that time & energy to washing clothes by hand?”
I grew up until I was about 7-8 without a washing machine at home, my mom would do the laundry with my grandma, me and siblings would help however kids could and it took many hours to wash a week of laundry.
Fuck that noise, a coddled Dutch PhD student who's never had to do this week in, week out, trying to bring back some romanticised view of "communal manual washing". It's absurd to the point of enraging who actually had to live with these conditions at some point.
I grew up until I was about 7-8 without a washing machine at home, my mom would do the laundry with my grandma, me and siblings would help however kids could and it took many hours to wash a week of laundry.
Fuck that noise, a coddled Dutch PhD student who's never had to do this week in, week out, trying to bring back some romanticised view of "communal manual washing". It's absurd to the point of enraging who actually had to live with these conditions at some point.
> One of my takeaways when I delved deeply into the degrowth movement was that it was substantially a lifestyle fantasy masquerading as a political movement.
This is, sadly, the case for a lot of political movements.
I wanted to draw on my personal experience as to why, but i realize its not important and everybody here will agree with the statement when they think about it. And it's fine to have a lifestyle fantasy, you ought to strive to live how you want to.
What isn't right is to fetishize other people lifestyle (fantasy or not), ether positively or negatively. I think a part of anti-queer discourse wasn't really about about the queerness itself, but about the imagined/fetishized lifestyle.
(PS: quick handwashing is cheap and fine for cotton and linen clothes as long as you still use a washing machine from time to time to deep clean them. If you're a struggling student, do that!)
This is, sadly, the case for a lot of political movements.
I wanted to draw on my personal experience as to why, but i realize its not important and everybody here will agree with the statement when they think about it. And it's fine to have a lifestyle fantasy, you ought to strive to live how you want to.
What isn't right is to fetishize other people lifestyle (fantasy or not), ether positively or negatively. I think a part of anti-queer discourse wasn't really about about the queerness itself, but about the imagined/fetishized lifestyle.
(PS: quick handwashing is cheap and fine for cotton and linen clothes as long as you still use a washing machine from time to time to deep clean them. If you're a struggling student, do that!)
[deleted]
It always seemed like a chore to gather and sort laundry, load and unload the machine, hang, fold, etc, but we've now been without a machine for a few weeks, and doing it by hand really is an exhausting chore taking a couple of hours every day, and the misery is compounded by knowing that a machine could be doing it for just pennies in electricity.
Someone should design a cheap and efficient (and modular, repairable, hackable) volksmachine and arrange to have it made and distributed for free or very cheaply, thus releasing a few billion extra hours a day for people to do something more meaningful.
Someone should design a cheap and efficient (and modular, repairable, hackable) volksmachine and arrange to have it made and distributed for free or very cheaply, thus releasing a few billion extra hours a day for people to do something more meaningful.
Raises the question about over washing of clothes. Obviously under garmets need to be washed after every use. Clothing needs to be washed where sweat accumulates, like armpit area of clothing to remove the odour. The rest of the garment maybe not so. Lots clothing probably now washed needlessly is my suspicion. Jeans would seem not to need washing after every time being worn.
I wash my jeans when they get dirty. They can go a couple of months in the winter. My wife is into washing things after every wear and she'd make a big fuss if my jeans were causing an odor so I assume it's fine. Obviously (or maybe not otherwise I wouldn't feel compelled to mention it) I wash my gym gear after every use and so I don't do sweaty activity in jeans.
Note to self. I should try to find some research ( like a thesis or such ) to support or even prove wrong my suspicion .... about needless washing of clothing ...
I find them mesmerizing. Sometimes, not always, I like to observe how the different washing programs work. I also think how the different components work and how I would write the code to accomplish the same functionality on a (probably) very simple chip.
[deleted]
I would champion repairability of the machine over any marginal additional efficiencies you can get out of it by making it more "energy-efficient".
The worst one I can find is rated at 78kWh vs the best at 47kWh.
I'm pretty sure making the machine and disposing of it when it breaks instead being repaired obliterates that savings immediatiely.
Easy to repair designs is the only sensible way forward to reduce energy consumption during the whole life cycle of the devices.
The worst one I can find is rated at 78kWh vs the best at 47kWh.
I'm pretty sure making the machine and disposing of it when it breaks instead being repaired obliterates that savings immediatiely.
Easy to repair designs is the only sensible way forward to reduce energy consumption during the whole life cycle of the devices.
It's funny how all these modern eco luddites don't realize their life style is supported in the background by a huge technological civilization.
Yeah so some Dutch guy wants to bring the community together while washing clothes communally. Uh, no. I’ve done it. It’s exhausting, backbreaking, shockingly inefficient, and feels gross. Someone’s going to slack off, people will gossip, etc.
I was still a kid when everyone (well, only women, men were working in the fields) in our village was going to the irrigation channel in the street with a piece of wood, a bar of soap and the dirty clothes to do the laundry.
It was social and those women enjoyed the company. Once washing machines became common, no one chose to go back to do the laundry by hand. They decided to walk together and just chat.
I find unbelievable that a Dutch PhD candidate is so ignorant about the world around him and especially about the tough work that many women had to endure to wash the laundry.
What is next? Asking farmers to stop using tractors and go back to horses and mules, while reducing our farming productivity 1:100 and as a consecuence a multiplication of the price of food?
These modern socialist ideas of degrowth are very dangerous, specially for poor people. And that really exposes how far away are these intellectuals from the real world and from the same poor people they claim to support.
It was social and those women enjoyed the company. Once washing machines became common, no one chose to go back to do the laundry by hand. They decided to walk together and just chat.
I find unbelievable that a Dutch PhD candidate is so ignorant about the world around him and especially about the tough work that many women had to endure to wash the laundry.
What is next? Asking farmers to stop using tractors and go back to horses and mules, while reducing our farming productivity 1:100 and as a consecuence a multiplication of the price of food?
These modern socialist ideas of degrowth are very dangerous, specially for poor people. And that really exposes how far away are these intellectuals from the real world and from the same poor people they claim to support.
Maybe these people should do practical experiment with this. Find a group and then do the thing for some sufficient period say 1 year. And only then come out and tell if it is good idea or not. Could even make paper out of it.
Unfortunately, most people do PhDs when they are young and have limited experience of the world. It's not a problem in sciences, it is in sociology and politics. Those degrees should require the candidate to be a minimum age and/or pass a general life experience test, and I say that as a socialist.
Yizahi(1)
i must have been living under a rock not to know that washing machines need to be defended suddenly.
> It costs only a few dollars to run your washing machine for the full year.
That doesn't sound credible.
That doesn't sound credible.
A quick googling suggests it's probably in the $10-20 range, though there's obviously variance in how often you run a load, and electricity costs in your area.
Not literally "a few" in the sense of like three or four bucks, but a very small price compared to the dozens of hours of labor you're saving each year.
Not literally "a few" in the sense of like three or four bucks, but a very small price compared to the dozens of hours of labor you're saving each year.
A high efficiency front-load washer can be remarkably efficient. I bought an LG MW3400 last year and here's what the energy guide label says: $12 estimated yearly cost when used with with an electric water heater, $10 when used with a natural gas water heater.
That's based on an energy cost of $0.12/kWh for electricity and $1.09 per therm for natural gas, and 6 loads of laundry per week.
The estimated annual electricity use is 100 kWh.
It's an interesting washer technically. It has LG's "smart diagnostics" but it does not have WiFi. Instead it sends the diagnostic data to the LG app acoustically. You tell the app to get the diagnostics, then press and hold the TEMP button on the washer. The washer then sends the data using what sounds like the modems we used to use in the dial-up days.
Note: some review sites, such as Consumer Reports, say that it does have WiFi. My guess is that they assumed that because of the smart diagnostics which do use WiFi on models that have it.
That's based on an energy cost of $0.12/kWh for electricity and $1.09 per therm for natural gas, and 6 loads of laundry per week.
The estimated annual electricity use is 100 kWh.
It's an interesting washer technically. It has LG's "smart diagnostics" but it does not have WiFi. Instead it sends the diagnostic data to the LG app acoustically. You tell the app to get the diagnostics, then press and hold the TEMP button on the washer. The washer then sends the data using what sounds like the modems we used to use in the dial-up days.
Note: some review sites, such as Consumer Reports, say that it does have WiFi. My guess is that they assumed that because of the smart diagnostics which do use WiFi on models that have it.
That doesn't take into account costs of water and detergent, does it?
Also, https://www.lg.com/us/washers-dryers/lg-wm3400cw-front-load-... says it costs $700. Optimistically assuming the machine will last 20 years without needing major repairs, that's $35/year.
Also, https://www.lg.com/us/washers-dryers/lg-wm3400cw-front-load-... says it costs $700. Optimistically assuming the machine will last 20 years without needing major repairs, that's $35/year.
I doubted this too, and since I just got a new one (ok, it's 5 months old but I haven't removed the paper), I took a photo: https://imgur.com/a/9EsB6pm
I wouldn't call $22 a few dollars.
And it's missing the detergents.
That said, this one has one of those detergents dispensers. And my detergent now seemingly lasts forever, indicating that I've always used too much.
I wouldn't call $22 a few dollars.
And it's missing the detergents.
That said, this one has one of those detergents dispensers. And my detergent now seemingly lasts forever, indicating that I've always used too much.
It's funny because on the other side of the pond, Republicans have introduced the "Liberty in Laundry Act" :
> The legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or enforcing energy efficiency standards for clothes washers that are not technologically feasible and economically justified, that are likely to result in additional net costs to consumers, or that are not likely to result in a significant conservation of energy.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress...
I think both proposals are silly. But you do you.
> The legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or enforcing energy efficiency standards for clothes washers that are not technologically feasible and economically justified, that are likely to result in additional net costs to consumers, or that are not likely to result in a significant conservation of energy.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress...
I think both proposals are silly. But you do you.
You laugh, but my previous washer didn't rinse all the detergent out normally and I had to run every single batch a second time with no detergent added to keep my skin from getting puffy, usually in the most inconvenient places.
Only now, with my new washer that lets me do 2–3 "extra" rinse cycles, do I not have to age my clothes twice as fast with duplicated washing.
If the laws/regulations prohibit making washing machines that properly clean and rinse clothes, then the laws/regulations should be repealed.
Only now, with my new washer that lets me do 2–3 "extra" rinse cycles, do I not have to age my clothes twice as fast with duplicated washing.
If the laws/regulations prohibit making washing machines that properly clean and rinse clothes, then the laws/regulations should be repealed.
It is possible that machine was restricting the amount of water artificially, to comply with better standards. I did an experiment with mine - you need to time when washing cycle ends and before rinsing starts, and then top up the water inside through the detergent compartment, all 1-2 liters in total. It indeed improves rinsing, but is very annoying to do in practice (hard to time correctly), so I stopped after a few tries.
Maybe you were using too much detergent? People have a tendency to use way more than is actually needed.
I'm not sure it is. The EU has increasingly strict energy efficiency requirements for washing machines that are frankly stupid - they're pretty efficient already, so the way that manufacturers have improved efficiency through ludicrously long multi-hour wash cycles that keep on getting longer (there's apparently a direct relationship between the length of the wash cycle and how little energy can be used to clean clothes). The efficiency gains make washing less useful and consume more of people's limited time to the point that the cycles those numbers are based on don't really seem to be intended to be used.
Why it is silly to prohibit regulators from forcing people to not have a washing machine? (because this is what happens when you let regulators enforce draconian "green" measures in communities where people don't have enough wealth to buy the "green" equipment they are enforcing).
I'll bite.
Putting regulations on new products doesn't influence the existing ones.
If someone can't afford a new washing machine without regulation, regulations won't change a thing. They'll still have to buy second hand.
The regulations won't send the FBI to retrieve the existing washing machines not meeting the new regulations. People are still going to use them/sell them as long as they work.
Meanwhile efficiency regulations will reduce the cost of use. I bought a new washing machine at the beginning of the year to replace the one I had for more than 15 years. The new one uses a third of water and about a third of electricity compared to the older one. Given how much the cost of electricity is rising those last years, the savings are huge.
Also, new washing machines have never been cheaper. Sure, their lifespan is probably going to be shorter, but planned-obsolescence is another matter. But I suspect that you could provide the same arguments against regulations intended to fight planned-obsolescence.
How could a technically-oriented person use "green" (with the quotation marks) to talk about efficiency regulations is quite surprising to me.
Putting regulations on new products doesn't influence the existing ones.
If someone can't afford a new washing machine without regulation, regulations won't change a thing. They'll still have to buy second hand.
The regulations won't send the FBI to retrieve the existing washing machines not meeting the new regulations. People are still going to use them/sell them as long as they work.
Meanwhile efficiency regulations will reduce the cost of use. I bought a new washing machine at the beginning of the year to replace the one I had for more than 15 years. The new one uses a third of water and about a third of electricity compared to the older one. Given how much the cost of electricity is rising those last years, the savings are huge.
Also, new washing machines have never been cheaper. Sure, their lifespan is probably going to be shorter, but planned-obsolescence is another matter. But I suspect that you could provide the same arguments against regulations intended to fight planned-obsolescence.
How could a technically-oriented person use "green" (with the quotation marks) to talk about efficiency regulations is quite surprising to me.
That xitter author is walking set of red flags, just from a brief scroll of his xit feed. Sure, he got one thing correct, is that climate change is getting worse, but it seems that he is simply an accerationist. Destroy "gLoBaL WeSt" and pick up the broken pieces, hopefully taking the biggest piece a.k.a. come on top afterwards. Meaning it looks like he doesn't want to elevate countries which are behind, but instead degrade countries which ahead currently. Meh.
[deleted]
Sounds like a straw man argument. Of course, washing machines are good (until a better technology comes along). But the author implies it is in fact possible to have unlimited growth. I would actually love to know how that works. Rather than arguing for washing machines, they should have explained that.
Only the clinically insane are anti-washing machines.... so HN I guess.
They are the most accepted tech in the Amish communities - https://x.com/lefineder/status/1837083291960365102 (Tweet source - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Use_of_technology_by_d... )
I don't think there is any point engaging with the part of the population who are anti-washing machines.
Saying you are pro-washing machines is like saying you are anti-child abuse, there is no "In defense" needed. It's a manufactured in your head conversation with Arkham residents who are unfixable.
They are the most accepted tech in the Amish communities - https://x.com/lefineder/status/1837083291960365102 (Tweet source - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Use_of_technology_by_d... )
I don't think there is any point engaging with the part of the population who are anti-washing machines.
Saying you are pro-washing machines is like saying you are anti-child abuse, there is no "In defense" needed. It's a manufactured in your head conversation with Arkham residents who are unfixable.
It's also just a lazy article to write: find someone being crazy on the internet, then load up with words like "but some people" and "a growing number of..." and then vaguely gesture at a government body and say they might be thinking about it.
I could plant this story for about $150 on Fiverr but I've personally better things to do with my time.
I could plant this story for about $150 on Fiverr but I've personally better things to do with my time.
> Only the clinically insane are anti-washing machines.... so HN I guess.
- The article is called "In defense of the washing machine". It is not anti-washing machine.
- I haven't read a single comment that opposes washing machines. The closest comment I've seen is one that says that maybe we wash our clothes more than they need to be washed.
- All the top rated comments at the time I'm writing this comment are asserting the value of washing machines or ridiculing the twitter user who argued for replacing washing machines with communal hand washing.
How are you taking in this information and coming to the conclusion that HN is anti-washing machine?
- The article is called "In defense of the washing machine". It is not anti-washing machine.
- I haven't read a single comment that opposes washing machines. The closest comment I've seen is one that says that maybe we wash our clothes more than they need to be washed.
- All the top rated comments at the time I'm writing this comment are asserting the value of washing machines or ridiculing the twitter user who argued for replacing washing machines with communal hand washing.
How are you taking in this information and coming to the conclusion that HN is anti-washing machine?
The biggest problem we have to solve is how to make the benefits of automation reach everyone. And since the next step in automation seems to be AI, I think that using the washing machine analogy can be great.
As the article says, around 2 billion people have washing machines. That leaves around 6 billion having to wash their clothes by hand. What would the solution be? Would giving a washing machine to every household in the world solve the problem?
It's hard to imagine that it would, since there is still a ton of infrastructure needed to run the washing machine. How many of those 6 billion people live in places with functional water and electricity networks?
In my opinion what many AI companies are doing is basically that, trying to provide everyone (in the Western world at least), with a metaphorical washing machine. But the infrastructure, resources and knowledge to effectively use generative AI aren't available to most of the population or small and medium enterprises.
This will further the gap between rich and poor, and the gap between countries that use AI and countries that refuse or can't afford to use it.
As the article says, around 2 billion people have washing machines. That leaves around 6 billion having to wash their clothes by hand. What would the solution be? Would giving a washing machine to every household in the world solve the problem?
It's hard to imagine that it would, since there is still a ton of infrastructure needed to run the washing machine. How many of those 6 billion people live in places with functional water and electricity networks?
In my opinion what many AI companies are doing is basically that, trying to provide everyone (in the Western world at least), with a metaphorical washing machine. But the infrastructure, resources and knowledge to effectively use generative AI aren't available to most of the population or small and medium enterprises.
This will further the gap between rich and poor, and the gap between countries that use AI and countries that refuse or can't afford to use it.
The difference, in the analogy, is that a washing machine is a solution to a specific problem, that has evolved through time and infrastructure development.
AI (and computer technology) is more like electricity in this case. A raw technology that per se does not solve any specific problem, but only if/when applied within a specific infrastructure around it.
AI (and computer technology) is more like electricity in this case. A raw technology that per se does not solve any specific problem, but only if/when applied within a specific infrastructure around it.
Whenever I am travelling my hands end up completely battered (covered in peeling skin and sores) from all the handwashing I have to do and I can only sit in amazement at the fact a person who is clearly pro Tweet is anti washing machine.
What a weird time to be alive.