Well-made objects are still being produced, in greater numbers than ever before

The argument

The second argument disputes the factual picture rather than the definition. Proponents of this position argue that the claim we no longer make durable goods compares the worst of today's output with the best of the past, and that this comparison only looks convincing because of what did not survive. Proponents argue that the solid furniture, fine glass and good silver which reached us from earlier centuries were expensive items owned by a small minority, and that the cheap, flimsy and makeshift goods the majority actually used have simply vanished. On this account the past did produce disposable things in quantity; they are absent from the antique shop precisely because they were disposable. Comparing them with today's inexpensive goods, proponents argue, shows that the proportion of durable to disposable manufacture may not have changed much at all. They add that durable goods are plainly still being made. Proponents argue that craftspeople, specialist manufacturers and premium producers turn out furniture, instruments, tools, watches, ceramics and textiles built to last and designed to be repaired, and that there are more of them in absolute terms than at any earlier point because the population and the economy are larger. They argue further that durability is not even the deciding factor, since paper, photographs, textiles and books are among the most prized antiques and are among the least robust objects ever produced; what matters is that someone cared enough to keep them. The argument concludes that because well-made objects are still being produced in quantity, and because care rather than toughness is what preserves things, we have not stopped creating antiques.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics answer that the survival of a premium tier is beside the point, because the question is about what a society leaves behind as a whole, and a narrow band of expensive goods cannot supply the ordinary inherited objects that filled earlier households. They add that the survivorship argument has limits, since enough humble material has reached us from earlier centuries, including tools, pottery and everyday paper, to show that ordinary goods of the past were sturdier than their counterparts now. Critics also argue that fragile antiques survived because repair, storage and reuse were normal practices, and that it is those practices rather than the objects which have been lost.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The comparison is with what a society leaves behind as a whole, and a narrow premium tier cannot supply the ordinary inherited objects that filled earlier households. [Rejecting P2] Enough humble material has reached us from earlier periods, including tools, pottery and everyday paper, to show that ordinary goods then were sturdier than their counterparts now. [Rejecting P3] Fragile antiques survived because repair, storage and reuse were normal household practices, so it is those practices rather than the objects that have been lost. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that some antiques of the future are being made, not that we are creating them at anything like the former rate.