Why is sucking better than blowing?
I use a box fan to help dry the dishes in the dishwasher. Recently I mistakenly pointed the fan away from the dishes instead of toward them. This appears to be faster and more effective than my normal method. Why?
You are viewing a single comment
Unpopular opinion: vacuum cleaners are redundant expensive bloatware that can be replaced by a broom in 90% of cases. You only need a vacuum cleaner if you have a carpet, and carpets are filthy relics of a bygone era.
Or a rug, or cloth furniture like a couch, or drapes/curtains, underneath the fridge and other spots a broom just doesn't fit, inside cupboards, probably more places that aren't coming straight to mind
Oh: keyboards!
Yet there have never been less "drapes", curtains and carpets than in a modern home. And oddly humanity got by just fine without vacuum cleaners until - pure coincidence, no doubt - postwar consumer capitalism instructed us that we "needed" these things.
While vacuum cleaners might feel like a modern invention, their roots can actually be traced back to the 1800s. Specifically, in 1860, Daniel Hess of West Union, Iowa, invented a device he called a “carpet sweeper.” The apparatus used a combination of bellows for suction and a rotating brush for gathering dust. And while yes if all you have is a hard wood floors the need for a vacuum is diminished but is still helpful. And what is useless for one person is helpful to another. Now there is interesting stories on how the Dyson came around to sell such an expensive vacuum.
The carpet sweeper is an excellent example. I've used them and they're great. This is exactly my point: my contention is that carpet sweepers basically solved the problem, whereas vacuum cleaners are largely a product of 20th century consumer capitalism in that they respond to a pseudo-need generated by marketing. I know that's not a popular opinion (indeed I'm being insulted and having my comments removed just for expressing it), but I stand by it.
My dust mite allergy disagrees.