It needs some kind of retail packaging (the name of the product, a place to put a UPC sticker, etc) and the end seems pretty pointy, so there's probably a little safety mitigation there, too. Add in the functional piece and you can kill three birds with one plastic tube.
One of the things I like about going to my local agricultural supply store is that they don't seem to have the need for retail packaging. There are large boxes and creates (clearly labeled most the time) that contain each item. No need to individual package each part. Even the big-box hardware stores do this for things like screws. There are many items that can do with much less packaging.
Yeah, there’s a lot that can be done between manufacturers and retailers to reduce packaging waste, but there are also a lot of dependencies, especially for brands that don’t do their own manufacturing.
I can tell you from experience how painful it can be to set up even one alternative line for a hardware product. Most of the time it’s just not worth the effort, unless you’re selling into a giant channel partner.
Yeah, should really just be a smallest cardboard tag if something is really necessary. Can display the barcode and hang it from a peg in the shop. The tube seems like a massive waste.
The tube goes through the hole in the top of the screw and acts as a handle/lever to use when driving it into the ground. It serves a useful and well defined purpose.
Indeed, so it's a screw handle that comes affixed to the screw. OP presents it as dual-use: handle and packaging. But it appears to only have the former use since the latter use is unnecessary.
that's valid, but it's a tradeoff too. living in the wild can be brutal. zoos bring empathy for animals to people who are otherwise shielded from the wild.
with that said, i'd be happy if zoos (and the pens within) were 10x-100x bigger.
How do you know that? Descartes believed that animals couldn't feel pain. We're all shocked by that now, but he could have (in fact probably did) use an argument similar to "that's anthropomorphising".
There's a long history of humans making claims about what animals don't experience, in order to justify how we treat them, only to later discover evidence that overturns the claims. It seems to me that this has to be the default explanation for zoos as well.
Not sure why you are asking this, but there's evidence that plants do feel pain.
At least some can emit chemicals to signal to others of their species that they are infested with harmful insects so other plants can begin producing toxins to protect themselves from infestation. Some also emit a pulse when damaged, which one might think if as kind of like a scream, though it's not anything humans can perceive with our innate senses.
(At least, not most of us. There may be exceptions. Some humans are abnormally good at sensing magnetic north, etc.)
A stimulus reaction isn't the same thing as "feeling pain", which requires a certain level of consciousness. It's debatable if even lobsters for example have the necessary development.
... And what if we are enjoying it? Could that mean there are animals that do, in fact, enjoy living in a zoo? Many animals at my local zoo are rescues, so perhaps living in confinement beats dying to those animals?
