Diogo Costa
Diogo Costa is the president of the FEE. He holds a bachelor's degree in Law from the Catholic University of Petrópolis and a master’s degree in Political Science from Columbia University.
In recent social media posts, some advocates of “degrowth” have suggested a return to washing clothes by hand as a solution to the perceived ills of modern consumerism. Their proposal ignores the hard-won progress of the past century and risks reversing gains in public health, gender equality, and quality of life.
The late Hans Rosling, a renowned public health expert, gave a TED Talk in which he described a childhood memory illustrating the transformative power of household technology:
My mother explained the magic with this machine the very, very first day. She said, “Now, Hans, we have loaded the laundry, the machine will make the work, and now we can go to the library. Because this is the magic: You load the laundry, and what do you get out of the machine? You get books out of the machines. Children’s books.” And Mother got time to read for me. She loved this. I got the ABCs. This is why I started my career as Professor – when Mother had time to read for me. And she also got books for herself. She managed to study English and learn that as a foreign language…
Rosling’s story vividly captures what’s at stake in this debate. The washing machine wasn’t just about clean clothes; it was a gateway to education, personal growth, and expanded horizons for both mother and child. It’s a stark reminder of the opportunity cost of manual labor – time that could be spent on education, civic engagement, or simply rest.
The romanticization of manual laundry overlooks the harsh realities of pre-industrial domestic work. As historian Ruth Schwartz Cowan documents in More Work for Mother, a history of domestic technology, laundry was once a grueling, days-long ordeal that confined women to tedious, backbreaking labor. Water had to be hauled and heated, heavy fabrics scrubbed and wrung by hand. The sheer difficulty meant that, for many, cleanliness was an unattainable luxury.
This is not mere nostalgia for a simpler time, but, as Jason Crawford puts it, a prescription for re-enslaving women to domestic drudgery. It would disproportionately burden lower-income families who lack the resources to outsource such labor. The wealthy would maintain their washing machines or hire help, while others would sacrifice time that could be spent on learning and self-improvement.
Moreover, the public health implications are concerning. Regular washing of clothes and linens was a key factor in controlling disease and improving hygiene in the 20th century. Reverting to less-frequent washing could undo decades of progress in sanitation and health outcomes.
As Rosling concluded his anecdote: “We really loved this machine. And what we said, my mother and me, ‘Thank you, industrialization. Thank you, steel mill. Thank you, power station. And thank you, chemical processing industry, that gave us time to read books!’”
This gratitude wasn’t misplaced. By making hygiene accessible to all and freeing up time for education and personal development, modern laundry methods have been a great equalizer and catalyst for human progress.
Instead of glorifying manual labor, we should focus on harnessing human creativity and innovation to address environmental challenges. Our capacity for problem-solving and technological advancement is far too valuable to waste on routine tasks that machines can do more efficiently.
The path to a more sustainable future doesn’t lie in returning to the drudgery of the past, but in thoughtful innovation that preserves our gains in quality of life while reducing our environmental impact. That’s a future worth working towards – one that doesn’t require us to sacrifice our washing machines or the opportunities they afford us.
Additional Reading:
Capitalism Will Abolish Laundry Day by Sarah Skwire
The Nightmare of Living in the Past by Steven Horwitz
This article was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
