Exactly.
Our societal Model developed, rather than being intelligently designed. As a result, economic gain is a prime motivator - even at the expense of causing lasting harm.
Cognition Bias, Observation Bias, Confirmation Bias and Risk Recognition are all large psychological factors in why it is that we humans seem bent on self-destructive means.
You can see it everywhere, from refusing vaccines that halt disease to climate change. In Computing, you can see Higher Demand for computing vastly outweigh efforts to curb e-waste, over-mining and environmental impact.
For the average person, any efforts to recycle, reuse, go green are admirable but ultimately futile. It does not begin at home.
It begins in Large Scale Production.
The human capacity for greed and consumption; convenience and entitlement by far, vastly outweigh any efforts toward controlling these habits.
It's like using an eyedropper to move a lake.
Because a system learning people how to spend not how to save. Consumption many things without recycling. Ok Japan have very restriction with recycling and another countries. What about many tons electronics what could be repaired but cannot with warranty and no parts to get that. People repairing broken laptops from broken laptops to get from them a parts. Selling again on market.
Two (of many) facts of life:
- Humans proliferate.
- Population, p, is an increasing function of basic resources, rb (food, shelter, clothing, water). A larger rb will always result in a larger p.
Assume,
- Total resources: rt = rm + rb. Where rm are resources used to manufacture nonessentials, n, such as Electricity, TVs, cars.
- Nonessentials, n, are an increasing function of rm and technology, t.
- Technology, t, allows a smaller rb to support a larger p.
There are two ways to reduce n, thereby reining-in wasteful behavior. Through t or through rm.
a. Through technology there is a slight reduction in the efficiency of rb to support the existing p. Since killing people isnât an option, more resources will have to divert from rm to rb to allow the existing p to survive at a lower t.
b. Through rm, that just directly diverts more resources back to rb, which in turn increases p even further.
Given the two facts of life I noted in the beginning, any parsimony will only result in a larger population living on more basic resources. This also wonât increase the per capita skill level. The empirical evidence also supports this. Less developed countries have high fertility rates while it is the opposite in developed countries. Even if one were to rein-in the wastefulness of developed countries, that would simply make more basic resources available to less developed countries to increase their population.
Sorry, not a pretty picture but it is inevitable.
Wow carmar, this message totally fits your avatar.
But what do you mean by fertility, is it associated with birth, population growth or fertility of the land. I once saw this movie called plastic china, where the major plastic and pc/mobile waiste came from the developed country and is being transported/dumped to the Asian regions, which also effects the population and the environment.
By fits my avatar, you mean Iâm a depressing pessimist? 
You got fertility (or fertility rate) correct. It is average # of births per female by country. It also comes up in IQ vs population studies. Since population by itself can correlate with country landmass and population density can correlate with urban centers, that makes fertility a much more reliable indicator of population growth.
And as an aside, you may have guessed already, IQ is also inversely correlated with population. I did my own analysis on ~120 countries and correlation coefficient is -0.8.
PS - you have a good point on the waste impacts on 3rd world population. But I think the drop in fertility from pollution is negligible for those countries. I could be wrong.
Those are nice and perhaps retractable figures/numbers but, I don't trust them so much, sometimes they are just to keep the people happy and docile. The waste effect/impact on the population an environment already shows in the environment, but in the future will have a effect on both. As with global warming, time will tell.
Assuming pollution does have a large negative impact on fertility, mitigation of pollution would lead to population increase and back to the same outcome I outlined earlier.
I strongly agree that one should not just trust othersâ analysis. That is why I do my own studies, to the extent possible, and encourage others to do the same. As you astutely observed, my numbers may be wrong too, I am simply one of the âothersâ.
Besides, questioning othersâ analysis also increases ones own critical thinking which in turn drives IQ. 
Some parents have many children because gived more chance one will survive. Second one from them will later support older mother or father or help them. Some countries have a free social for people. They are have all free. The goverment all paying. In social people we must paying more for food and another things to keep this people who lived all time free to death.
I have one question ssd hard disk are on every market with normal price the resources for building them also not using on graphic card where prices are pain head? The same RAM isn;t using the same resources to build them what gpu? So - where is the point to creating one parts big price to cannot build good computer with good components? Graphic card with a price a car?
Iâm not sure I completely understand the question but I assume it is about how price formation occurs for different products using different inputs. Iâll try to keep it short since I donât know if I got the question right.
Assuming an abundance of raw materials, for a single production line we can focus on labor, capital, technology. Labor is typically cheaper in less developed countries. For high tech products, capital cost will be about the same since the machines used to make them will also be expensive. For a snapshot in time, technology differences can manifest in the form of patents. It is appropriate for a company that invested billions in R&D to recoup those costs - if you disagree we can discuss that separately.
As I see it, the main difference comes when we introduce multiple production lines. If a high tech product is being produced by many producers then the cost goes down. Production in developed countries probably doesnât have a huge labor savings since high tech is also capital intensive rather than labor intensive.
Thereâs also the earlier assumption of an abundance of raw materials. I donât think that always holds.
But basically the main reason for price differentials of high tech products is likely number of producers.
I reading some companies want buying some another companies to be a monopoly on market. I reading that something about chips and processors. Thet can control price on any market what another companies need that product. That means they can control a price on the whole a world. This is more bussiness monopoly. I mean kobalt is using in many parts of live electronic. That's mean example some journalist newspapers Americans sayed don't buying Chinese products because they spying but it could be a war economy bussiness.
Monopolies and oligopolies are a natural part of human behavior. It all starts with âI wantâ. The level of âI wantâ of one person/group doesnât have to match that of another. Different preferences, different markets.
An example of what happens when the government steps in as âeconocopâ. In the energy sector, the government forces utilities to sell their generators to third parties because the government believes the utility is a monopoly that doesnât have the best interest of the end user. The government calls this âderegulationâ - a misnomer. The utility obeys and in a few years the third parties that bought the generation consolidate and become a monopoly or oligopoly. Worse, the utilities are under the governmentâs thumb but the third parties are not. From the frying pan into the fire. This has happened all over the world, not just the US.
As for mistrusting Chinese products, I donât share that sentiment. They make the most goods in the world so obviously people will complain about them more than about someone else. As a counter example, in the RC hobby, I have tested Chinese motors with superior characteristics (power/mass) to German motors (who used to be #1 in RC). I canât ignore evidence like that.
Interesting. Thanks for this insight.
The law of diminishing returns is inescapable, soon the parallel processing wonât provide sufficient gains.
Yes. We can change topic about what is going on in world computer components.
Actually, I was the one wandering off on my rants on economics. 
Sorry about that.
No problem. I reading your post and they are good about economy.