Many thanks for sharing an article on sharing material items hence reducing the need to produce more than needed and increasing material efficiency.

Along these lines, I often wondered what the impediments are to go back to communities sharing material items. When I grew up in rural Austria, it was quite common to share tools, even farm machinery, that were rarely used. Over the years, not only did these items get cheaper, but people became more reluctant in sharing. I guess both are related and only possibly because all consumer goods do not have their effects on the environment (externalities) built into the price, at least not yet.

For instance, everybody in our street in the UK owns a lawn mover, a drill, and what not. While the library of things would be one alternative, sharing among neighbours in smaller communities would be an option, too. With neighbours we considered sharing some garden tools, but eventually gave up on the idea because of some kind of contract that would be needed: where is the item stored, what happens if something breaks, is there a reserve for repairs, etc. etc. Perhaps the library of things software could be a platform to set up the legal framework, the modus operandi, for such small communities, without too much faff. The threshold has to be low, as the prices for items is low, too low.