{"id":44812,"date":"2026-09-09T19:55:03","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T17:55:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pr-ide.de\/blog\/2026\/09\/borrowed-matter\/"},"modified":"2026-09-09T19:55:03","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T17:55:03","slug":"borrowed-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pr-ide.de\/en\/blog\/2026\/09\/borrowed-matter\/","title":{"rendered":"BORROWED MATTER"},"content":{"rendered":"

What if products only “borrow” their materials?<\/h2>\n

What if materials weren’t consumed, but only used temporarily?<\/p>\n

This question is particularly on my mind right now because it approaches industrial design not from the perspective of the product itself, but from the perspective of the value of the materials that hold a product together only temporarily.<\/p>\n

These are the kinds of questions that give rise to my Design Vision Studies<\/strong>: not product announcements, not predictions about what the world will look like in 2040, but thought experiments about which assumptions we could reexamine in design.<\/p>\n

BORROWED MATTER is one of them.<\/p>\n

\n

Who actually owns the parts of a machine?<\/h2>\n

A company purchases steel, aluminum, copper, or plastic. These materials are used to make a product. The product is then sold, used, and eventually disposed of, dismantled, or recycled. <\/p>\n

This is how industrial production has worked for a very long time.<\/p>\n

But what if we changed one fundamental assumption?<\/p>\n

What if materials weren’t simply permanently incorporated into a product, but instead performed a specific function for a limited time?<\/p>\n

For example, a machine would not have used 800 kilograms of stainless steel.<\/p>\n

She had borrowed 800 kilograms of stainless steel.<\/strong><\/p>\n

After 20 years, the machine’s life may come to an end.<\/p>\n

But not that of steel.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/h2>\n

From Residual Value to Tangible Assets<\/h2>\n

Today, at the end of a product’s life cycle, we often talk about residual value or scrap value.<\/p>\n

These terms alone show just how much we view materials from the perspective of the product.<\/p>\n

As long as the material is part of the machine, it serves a function and has value.<\/p>\n

As soon as the machine is no longer needed, the same high-quality material suddenly becomes \u201cscrap.\u201d<\/p>\n

But you could also look at it another way:<\/p>\n

as tangible assets.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In addition to its technical and economic value, a machine would then have its own material account.<\/p>\n

For example:<\/p>\n

2,840 kg of steel<\/strong>
\n412 kg of aluminum<\/strong>
\n86 kg of copper<\/strong><\/p>\n

In addition, there would be information on:<\/p>\n