Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Stuff” review and analysis
Question:
My friend Mark sent me this video link – if you have 20 minutes, check it out….and Andy, I’m especially curious to know what you think about it….
Answer:
Yikes. That’s like handing someone “War and Peace”, and then saying, “tell me what you think of it”.
Where would one begin?
The link points to “The Story of Stuff”, a video by Annie Leonard. This article contains my thoughts and a short review of “The Story of Stuff”. It’ll be most helpful if you’ve seen The Story of Stuff before reading this review.
Overall impressions: I strongly agreed with some points, strongly disagreed with others. It seemed to me that Annie Leonard and The Story of Stuff primarily is a warning against consumerism and global corporations.
This is bad and good at the same time. It’s good because there were some valid points. It’s bad because some parts sounded like extremism, and some were, I believe, simply incorrect.
Here are my impressions on each aspect in The Story of Stuff:
EXTRACTION
“We’re running out of resources.”
True. We do need to focus more on renewable energy, and the political will just isn’t there.
“The USA is 5% of global population, but uses 30% of resources.”
…The USA also produces 27% of the world’s GDP. 30% of resources, 27% of GDP: this seems to be a good measure of our efficiency, not waste. Any economists out there who can explain to me why this is bad?
PRODUCTION
“Toxics, toxics, toxics.” It’s more repetitious than a “HeadOn” commercial. I felt like I was being manipulated through this section because of the focus on telling you that any big company’s PRODUCTION produces TOXICS with zero benefit.
Now, for those who’ve noticed (particularly those with small children), there have been tons of recalls lately about lead-infused children’s toys. This is a justifiable concern – these things are way above acceptable toxicity levels.
Then Annie Leonard raised the freak-out level: We dip our pillows in BFR (brominated flame retardants), a horribly toxic man-made chemical, and we sleep on them!
Not knowing anything about BFRs, I did some research on this. I found two things:
One, BFRs are used primarily in electronics and electronics plastics. Things like computer circuit boards, the plastic casing around a TV set, around the rubber sheaths encasing wires in a computer, that kind of thing. And the BFRs are chemically bonded to those components. That means they’re not flying into the air, we’re not breathing them in.
Two, I was unable to find any evidence of companies dipping pillows or pillowcases in BFRs before selling them. I find this quote interesting:
“There is no federal standard requiring flame resistance of bed clothes, such as sheets, comforters, mattress pads and pillows. Additionally, the industry tends to avoid use of flame retardant chemicals on sheets, pillowcases and blankets because they have direct contact with skin, according to Gordon Damant.”
Here’s another article on BFRs. An important point it keeps making is that studies of the effects and exposure methods of BFRs are conflicting. We just don’t have enough information yet:
“These concentrations are low, but because HBCD has the potential to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment, there is cause for concern. Overall, the available literature on HBCD is incomplete and conflicting, emphasizing the need for more information on developmental effects, endocrine disruption, and longer term effects, including carcinogenesis.”
Now, The Story of Stuff said that women in the USA (and Canada, which the video didn’t mention) have the highest amounts of BFAs in their breast milk, compared to other countries. This, from what I can tell, is true. But remember: We also have lead in our bodies. And arsenic. And a whole bunch of other nasty things we pick up from our environment. This constant collection of toxic bits in our body even has a name: “Body burden“. We all have it. The question is, at what point does it become dangerous? Just because we have detectable amounts of arsenic in our body, for example, does not mean we’re in danger of dying from arsenic poisoning.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with Annie Leonard here, but I do think more research and facts are needed before I can completely agree with what she’s saying.
DISTRIBUTION
A $4.99 radio – how is it so cheap? So many parts and processes to make the radio MUST cost much more than $4.99! What are the true costs of production?
Answer: Mass-production and out-of-country factories. I don’t discount everything she says about the hidden costs of the production itself, but come on now – if all production was in the USA, or if that radio’s components weren’t stamped out on a robotic assembly line with unskilled laborers snapping them together at dozens per minute, that $4.99 radio would be exponentially more expensive.
I think The Story of Stuff didn’t address this aspect because it would draw attention away from the point about hidden costs. I’m not saying I like how everything we buy is the stereotypical “Made in China”, but I certainly think it affects this portion of Annie Leonard’s statement.
A sidenote here, since at this point in the video, we were treated to the Big Fat Corporate Guy with a Dollar Sign on his Chest further abusing the world for his own selfish gains.
That’s true. That’s capitalism. But it’s kept in check, ideally, by market competition and consumer demand (like what this video recommends). One thing that always frustrates me is that some people hate corporations, while still using their benefits. They hate big, nationwide or global-sized businesses. They want everything to be localized down to the mom-and-pop store level. Then they get in their car, use their computer or cellphone and send an email.
Those last things would either not be possible or affordable without big business. Without a corporation paying zillions for research and development, without mass-production, without a large production and distribution infrastructure, we arguably wouldn’t have the Internet. Or affordable cars with easily-repairable parts. Or computers and email. Or forget those “consumer” products, and focus just on healthcare: Who do you think developed that flu shot and other disease inoculations? Or the heart stent procedure that probably saved the lives of multiple people in my family? AIDS and cancer research, the almost-worldwide eradication of polio, or (to use a specific example from someone I know) advances in knee implants, providing knee pain relief, faster recovery and less physical therapy, a wonderful alternative to total knee replacement?
You can’t have it both ways, denouncing a company while using its products to improve your life. I’m not saying corporate evils aren’t there – they are – but I think people miss that big business does a lot of good, too.
The video mentioned planned obsolescence and percieved obsolescence.
Fine. I understand the concepts, and can name ways I see this myself.
But then she started talking about computers. Careful now, that’s my turf.
You know when you’re watching a movie, and when you see the movie, some plot point deals with something you’re experienced at? Computers, science, psychology, medical issues, whatever – and the movie screws it up, either getting the point completely wrong, or dumbing it down into a non-sequitor mess? Well, that’s what happened here.
Computer technology does change fast. And in some cases, yes, this is planned obsolescence. But not in the way Annie Leonard described it:
The “piece that changes” in a computer (the piece the video said triggers the obsolescence) is presumably the CPU. And it’s just a “small corner piece”. Well… no. If you want detail, let me know, and I’m happy to go into it. [As it happens, a reader did ask for detail. Here’s my response.] But for now, I’ll just say, wrong:
1) A CPU replacement is not the way to effectively upgrade your computer performance.
2) There are valid reasons why one CPU can’t simply be exchanged for a faster one.
Then the video brings up the flat screen monitor versus the big, “ugly” CRT monitor issue. Again, she missed some major advantages of the flat screen:
A flat screen monitor is smaller (takes a lot less space on the desk)
It’s lighter (makes my job easier when installing or moving)
And, wait for it – A flat screen monitor USES LESS ENERGY than a CRT. I’m surprised how someone would still think the big CRT is just part of a planned obsolescence program, when the flat screen has so many advantages.
Neither of these issues – the CPU or the monitor – is planned obsolescence. At worst, call this unplanned obsolescence due to technological advances. Perhaps a more understandable comparison would be a car: Annie Leonard is saying that because my car from ten years ago doesn’t have the same performance as a modern car, it must be the fault of planned obsolescence on the part of the car company! I disagree.
She did talk about fashion, about how media ads make us unhappy with what we have, and try to get us to buy, buy, buy. I do have some nitpicks about some of the details (contextual advertising is helpful, in my opinion), but for the most part I agree with what she said.
A couple of other points she made that forced me to raise my eyebrow:
“National happiness is declining”
…Need more info, please. I looked for stats on this after the video ended. Didn’t find them. I have a hard time believing this statement, since we have less disease, people are living longer, et cetera.
“The average house size has doubled since 1970”
I live in a house that was built in 1960. It’s a good size (1250 square feet). But I really doubt the average house size these days is 2500 square feet. It depends on what market and income levels you look at, of course. I’m guessing you can pretty much make the “average” house size be anything you want.
DISPOSAL
Incineration is really bad. I agree.
Recycling helps by reducing disposal costs… Really? Over the cost of a landfill? From a straight money-savings equation, I would think that landfills would be the way to go. I agree that some recycling (aluminum and some metals) is good. But not all.
CONCLUSION
We have, according to The Story of Stuff, a “system in crisis”. Our planet, and what we’re doing to it, sucks. We’re in big trouble.
I know I was rough on my review of The Story of Stuff. But I agree on some points – people are abused in our current system. Waste (of time, resources and money) is encouraged. But the system we have in place – with its horrible problems – also brings with it a lot of good stuff, too.
In my opinion, The Story of Stuff seemed to be to be too biased – ignoring some issues or misrepresenting others. While I think it would be great to have “a system that doesn’t waste resources or people… sustainability, equity, renewable, local living economy…” I think we’d have to give up a lot of things to make that happen. Things that make our life better.
Instead of ditching our current system, here’s an idea: why can’t we try instead to modify our system and improve it, make it more closer to the ideals which most people agree upon?
Annie Leonard said some naysayers would call her ideas “unrealistic, idealistic, they can’t happen”. I wonder if those same people – or Annie Leonard herself – would say the same about mine?
Don Berg:
I agree that this is not a math problem, it is a moral problem. Consider that morality is ultimately about how we create well-being. The moral path is the path that leads to well-being. The assumptions we make about how to best ensure our well-being are the assumptions that will drive our actions in the world. There is an active assumption in many people’s minds that the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest by powerful people and the organizations they lead (meaning corporations and governments) will magically produce well-being for everyone. This is not merely a passing thought in their head, not just a position they chose to take, it is a deeply felt unconscious conviction based on hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of cultural history.
The foundations of this moral view are based on experiences of family life, as is the alternative moral view. In one case the proper organization of society is based on strict obedience to the person who is assumed to know best due to their having earned their position of authority, while the other is based on the mutual obligations of care for each other. There are a number of authors who have discussed variations on this theme. George Lakoff, Riane Eisler, David Korten, Sharif Abdullah, Jonathan Haidt, to name a few.
We are in a situation in which the strict version happens to be in power in many aspects of society. Hopefully, a more nurturant point of view is on the ascent.
On a side note: take a look at this 20 minute presentation that calls into question the division of the world into categories of First and Third: Hans Rosling’s 1st TED Presentation
29 June 2008, 12:29 pmSean Bennett:
Well done. As with all things in life there is truth and fiction in all. What is more important is to understand the bias in which the data is presented. For me, Ms. Leonard proved her bias in the first few minutes when she stated that “it is the job of government to take care of us”. No…it is not. But unfortunately much of our society believes this to be the case.
With that said I am one capitalist who believes we should do all we can to limit waste and improve sustainability.
2 July 2008, 8:47 pmCourtney:
This movie really made me mad. I agree entirely with the idea, but so many of her claims are way off based. There’s a hypocrisy in telling people to think for themselves by doing exactly what I tell you. If you’re going to “enlighten” people, you’d better check your facts first. It doesn’t matter how right you are about the need to change our ways, but don’t take advantage of the country’s laziness to feed them information just as inaccurate as the government you’re so quick to bash.
As an environmentalist, I feel like we’ve taken two steps back with this video. It’s extremist, and simply distances us away from the true middle-of-the-road thinkers who are actually going to check the facts. When they don’t check out, we’re going to look like the crazy extremists who can’t be trusted.
The truth is enough to push people into action. Hyperbole just turns people off.
1 August 2008, 1:19 pmDavid:
Most people look at things like this little story and never check out if the data is correct or not. My first objection is with the socialistic opinion that the government is there “to take care of us”! I could take apart 3/4 of the “story” but it would take up too much space. Example: We do not dump all our garbage in poor little helpless countries. It’s the Liberal view that we do…we, the U.S. is always thought of as the bad guy. Fact: Since 1997, the U.S. IMPORTED 48 million tons MORE waste than we exported. European nations, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico are some of these that export waste to the U.S. etc. etc. I must give credit to Congressman Paul E. Gillmor R-Ohio who has offered legislation to stop foreign waste imports. I enjoyed reading the answers posted here…all very good and fair crits and thinking. Yes, certainly we have to take care of the planet! However, one issue Annie did not address is that all problems come from over population. Until we address this, the world will always have major problems.
2 August 2008, 8:52 amJohn:
“…our stuff simply moves along these stages: extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal. All together, it’s called the materials economy.
Well, I looked into it a little bit more. In fact, I spent 10 years
traveling the world tracking where our stuff comes from and
where it goes.1 And you know what I found out? That is not the
whole story. There’s a lot missing from this explanation.
For one thing, this system looks like it’s fine. No problem. But
the truth is it’s a system in crisis. And the reason it is in crisis is
that it is a linear system and we live on a finite planet and you
can not run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely.2”
Do we live on a finite planet? What about sunlight and …(?)?
Do we live in a finite universe?
19 August 2008, 2:03 pmMathias Hellsten:
Hello.
I am probably rather leftwing, from an American viewpoint I’m probably almost extreme – but I can assure you I’m not that extreme given the environment that I heir from, which is the country of Sweden.
I noticed the same thing with the CPU and monitor issues, but also with the radio. In her example she says resources and work on the radio comes from South Africa, China, Iraq and Mexico. Then she fills it with a random fact about stuff that happens around the Kongo – thousands of miles away from any of those areas – and attributes it to the radio.
What struck me is that even though Annie Lennords might want to provoke us to think for ourselves, she is making the one cardinal error that makes it difficult for all those that wants to change the world to the better.
When she presents her argument, it sounds to many that she is altering facts to fit the point instead of the other way around. That is not only a problem from an academic viewpoint (she is an academic and knows this of course, which is why I believe she is trying to provoke) – it backlashes. It makes me think something like, “Bah, she sounds like a frantic, radical environmentalist”.
And that is why I think that is the main reason that environmentalists can face difficulties in getting wide support for their causes.
Because, what happens when a person who is not convinced sees this? They will find crucial factual errors such as with the CPU, and (contrary to what I did, being an environmentally aware person) they will simply shut off, and decide not to listen to her main point. They will naturally assume that main point is an errorous conclusion based on errorous facts.
And that is the problem with radicals, many of them being good people who wants to make the world a better place. It is the problem for many people who want to make the world a better place, be they left-wingers, feminists, environmentalists or pro-privacy fighters.
2 September 2008, 4:37 pmJoshua Jendryka:
Thanks for giving us your really thoughtful and evenhanded take on Story of Stuff. I agree that the work is a mixed bag of some solid points about the environmental and psychological costs of consumerism, along with unfortunate scapegoating of government and business.
21 September 2008, 9:20 pmJT:
Your Review was a good lesson that I follow on a daily basis…. DOUBT EVERYTHING, all the time, even when you research, doubt that too, ask yourself what those “experts” have to gain. Everyone on the planet has an agenda….. SELF!
23 September 2008, 6:08 pmCH:
I was not sure I could endure the entire presentation. The proposal that we must come together to “create a more sustainable and just world” by reducing the extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal of consumable goods neglected to address the reduction of jobs in this process and the impact on humanity.
There is always room for improvement but I am so sick of the America bashing and cynicism! We have our faults and there is evil, waste, corruption and greed in the entire world (that is why Jesus had to die!) but as bad as America is, people still risk their lives to come to this country. There is a lot of potential with developing technology dealing with waste and we are not ignoring the issue. The “evil” landfill has potential for the production of ethanol. Trees are a renewable resource. They are harvested but replanted 2-1 in many cases.
Not every “green” idea is a winner! Corn ethanol! Government subsidized! Save ten cents at the pump and pay 30% more for food! Brilliant! Light bulbs that we MUST change to that last longer, save energy, BUT are a toxic environmental hazard! Brilliant!
Most people, especially Christians, have always desired to be responsible with the use of our resources but that does include ACTUALLY USING our resources!
With all our faults, what other country does more to provide disaster relief and help the poor in addition to addressing environmental concerns both at home and throughout the world? “Corporate Greed” – yes, there are excesses but corporations do create jobs. Where is the rage over the outrageous incomes of sports figures and entertainers? Health care is expensive throughout the world but although not all Americans purchase health insurance, NO ONE goes without health care in America including ILLEGAL ALIENS! More focus needs to be on all the good in America and build on that.
29 October 2008, 2:45 pmB:
Your review was pretty similar to what I was thinking after watching. One thing I have to say, however, is that for things that are “more complex” (ie a Computer vs a Teddy Bear) faster replacement is a good thing. It allows redefinition for future generations of products that SHOULD be better than previous models. Things like computers must be used a lot to open ideas to new features that can be included to improve on the product. If we had a computer that was built to last 15 years, it may still be USEABLE in 15 years but it would sure be less USEFUL.
Don’t get me wrong, throw-away radios and the like are a waste, but there are many products (like electronics) that improve every iteration. On the other hand, you can’t really improve on tools like the shovel, for example.
3 November 2008, 1:10 amAmanda:
I really appreciate this review. I was looking around online for someone who felt the same way about this short film as I did, and almost every site said Leonard was “enlightening,” or some variation of that. But I feel like she was exaggerating her claims way too much (something your research proves), trying to scare people into believing her… and overall she just sounded too much like she was spewing propoganda to me.
So, thanks. =)
9 November 2008, 3:46 pmKlug:
Thanks for this critique — it says things that I thought.
As a chemist, I find much of the video portion rather laughable. It reminds me of “Captain Planet”, where people were polluting because THEY LOVE TO POLLUTE. Sigh.
6 December 2008, 6:13 pmkay:
Thanks for all the intelligent dialogue with no cartoon illustrations. I disliked this video intensely because it reduces all these complex issues to a simplictic cutsy cartoon and becomes a cathechism of enviromnentalism. I heard a story read to small (3 year olds) at a library story hour about Thanksgiving. The children went to a turkey farm where the turkey farmer, with a very sinsiter smile and a gleaming ax, told the children that he was going to use the ax on all the turkeys. The hero children, of course, sole as many turkeys as they could, putting them under their coats, thereby saving them from the evil turkey farmer. I’m not making this up. It’s a real children’s book. What’s wrong here? Like this video (which is recommended for children), is that it is not the children’s problem. It’s for the adults and we as parents shouldn’t be trying to turn children into crusaders for larger complex problems for which we don’t have even half the answers. Children aren’t supposed to save turkeys. It’s not their job. Let them be children. THe “story of Stuff” is really depressing and not at all the entire picture, as explained in the above comments. If people are getting unhappier that’s an even more complex subject and why doesn’t Annie L. talk about behavior as being related to that? You just can’t cover the entire world of economics, philosophy, etc. in a cartoon.
21 December 2008, 1:17 pmOther irritations: A.L. said early on “It’s the governments job to take care of us.”, which I think is really a messy thing to say. How? By what standard, by whose values? It diminishes the understanding and time it takes to intepret the constitution as worked on for several hundred years. That comes off as indoctrination. I could go on, but enough.
Christine:
Great review. I have to say I totally agree with the comments from Courtney and Mathias. I’m quite stunned there are people commenting that it’s ok to manipulate the facts to get through to people. I do not believe in the end justifying the means, nor that this tactic will even achieve the desired end. I think exaggerating to the point of alarmism paralyses people into inaction. The mainstream uptake of environmentalism in the past few years is proof that an approach like that in ‘the Story of Stuff’ is not necessary. Most of the environmental progress that has been made this decade has been through fact-based education and proposing sensible, achievable steps. Recent campaigns have successfully released environmental action from the ‘treehugger’ stigma. I agree a video like this is a step backward.
Besides which, a big part of the reason such bad consumerist habits have taken hold is the poisonous influence of the underhandedly persuasive techniques of advertising. There is no justification to use the same tactics to recruit people for a cause. In fact I think such tactics in the past helped create a backlash against environmental causes. A more successful approach has been employed lately. Let’s stick to it. Just because the essence of Annie Leonard’s message is right, does not mean the way she delivers it is right. I can’t give her much credit for what she is trying to say when she could have – and should have – said it much more honestly. And when they are many others who endeavour to do so. They deserve our applause instead.
22 February 2009, 11:17 pmFergus Ray Murray:
Hey, thanks for this – you picked up on most of the same points that bugged me about the film; I still think it’s about 75% really good, but the stupid stuff lets it down terribly. I hope she’ll eventually patch them up…
On a related but different theme, I wonder if you’ve see ‘Wake Up, Freak Out – then Get a Grip’? Perhaps not so much in your field of expertise, but I’d be interested to hear your take on it… http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html
4 March 2009, 10:49 amBob:
Don’t buy stuff if you do not need it. Don’t give the FAT CATs anymore $$$
6 April 2009, 9:49 pmBruce Olsen:
@ the people who claim it isn’t the government’s job to take care of citizens:
Corporations are not designed to safeguard any of the rights expressed in the US Constitution or in any universally-recognized list of human rights. Corporations maximize shareholder value. The current economic crisis provides plenty of evidence that corporations are not concerned with the public good. Perhaps they should be, but that’s a discussion for elsewhere.
So who safeguards our “inalienable rights?” Certainly not the corporation, so in that sense government is required to “take care” of its citizens.
14 April 2009, 1:09 pmMiles Odonnol:
Dear Andy,
30 April 2009, 3:09 amWhen you said “Fat Corporate Guy with a Dollar Sign on his Chest further abusing the word…” did you mean “further abusing the world”?
Andy Kaiser:
Miles,
Yes, I did indeed make a typo. Now corrected. Thanks for the catch.
Andy
Barnett:
Pretty cool that she starts the movie by going on about how we spend too much on the military. But DARPA created, in essence, the Internet. And without the Internet, does she think that the environmental movement could have ever gotten where it is now?
As always, trying to produce the “simple overview” about such an expansive topic produces waaaay too many generalizations and glosses over waaay too many details…
11 May 2009, 11:52 pmBarnett:
Also, as an economist, what “refute” says about GDP is actually incorrect. When a product is produced — whether it is purchased or not — it goes into GDP. “Consumption” GDP is what people actually purchase, and when a product is not purchased but is instead inventoried, it is diverted into “investment”, still a part of GDP, as producing a product no one buys and then shelving it is considered investment by a corporation in its own products for inventory. Though this may sound unintuitive to non-economists, it is a basic aspect of macroeconomics and measuring GDP. In this way, every $ of economic activity is counted.
THEREFORE — to conclude — if we use 30% of the world’s resources but produce 27% of the world’s products in dollar value, there IS something to be said for that.
12 May 2009, 12:00 amjkjkhardcore:
Lol someone said big corporations aren’t trying to trick us into buying their crap.
2 July 2009, 7:02 pmThink for a second;
How much do they pay to advertise their logos’ on shows like Ally McBeal or Sex in the City or whatever show (I don’t watch tv) or even NBA logos icons. How much do they pay for athletes to drink gatorade or powerade or wear shoes. How many times have you seen people say oh they got new “Jordans” or “whatever product” out and they begin to describe the specs as if your old one was out of date and not worthy of being used.
How much do advertisers pay to use psycology to sell a product?
Do you know that the reason McDonalds is red and yellow is because it makes people hungry?
I’m sorry but as for big corporations not pulling EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK to get you to buy their product, I believe that is entirely false. they will trick you, they will do anything as you are their paycheck and without you their branch is closed and they lose their jobs.
jkjkhardcore:
ok TO The Writer of this article:
I’m glad you did do a review on this piece though You seem to lack most of the knowledge it’s understandable considering (i’m just assuming) your not an expert.
We’re Running Out Of Resources! That is bad;
“The USA also produces 27% of the world’s GDP. 30% of resources, 27% of GDP: this seems to be a good measure of our efficiency, not waste. Any economists out there who can explain to me why this is bad?”
The reason that this is bad is because more and more countries are becoming developed (not the ones we go to war with obviously) but as things progress more and more people are eating up the world’s resources think 5% using 30% of the resources and other countries that are catching up will be doing the same we’ll need more resources yet we live in a finite amount of resources planet. An economist would tell you that we are doing good because while we are doing good it won’t be that way forever as we’ll run out of resources. I don’t see how you can’t put that together lmao.
As For flame retardent chemicals and other chemicals she even stated that we have no idea what the effect is on humans if it’s positive or negative, though she did say “toxic” and implied that putting our heads on toxins was a practice that happens daily.. I do agree though she does have a point there are many toxins that we put into our consumer products. Lead being one of them. While people hate china for having “Excessive” amounts of lead we also do put lead in our paint as well, the important aspect of this part is that there are many chemicals that can .. when combined with other chemicals cause us harm and there is rarely enough done (studies ect) by our big corporations to make sure that it’s safe even when mixed with the already existant chemicals that we have.
You also noted that many of us have lead arsenic ect and things we picked up from our environment, how can this be good? Lol, that’s the whole point of “toxic toxic toxic” it’s because these chemicals are getting into our body. Also let’s take note that the “rate of cancer” has increased exponentially over the past few decades (thought it could be just that we are able to test for cancer better than ever) Even if our mortality ratings are lower and we live longer.
I’m just gonna end here as I don’t really feel like continuing lol already spent over an hour on a 20 minute video.
2 July 2009, 7:19 pmstan:
I was sent this video, and after watching decided to find out more about it, because some of it seemed biased to me. I enjoyed your critique, because you discussed the positives and negatives. You confirmed my suspicion that it is at least somewhat biased, as well as overblown and simplistic.
25 July 2009, 4:13 pmDidn’t have time to read the comments, so I’m not sure if anyone commented about the house size. The better way to say it is that the average size of new construction has doubled over the past couple of decades. The average size of new homes is about 2,500 square feet. Can’t remember what it was in 1970 or 1980, but in 1950 it was about 800 square feet. It has been increasing steadily for the past 50 or 60 years. With households getting smaller — and so many of us getting older — we expect to see that trend start to reverse, especially with the increase in New Urbanist, mixed use development. With her Master’s degree in Planning, Ms. Leonard should know that.
Anita:
When it comes down to it all RESPONSIBLITY is the name of the game. Are we to be responsible for the horrible problems of the world? Responsiblity ends where one can not control the situation.
So what can we control? Many can recycle. Many can write letters to those with higher levels of responsiblity – whether they be corporations (that we purchase articles) or representatives of our State.
These are just some basic concepts – America is known for her inventiveness! So, be inventive!
In other words: Doing SOMETHING in a positive way is better than doing NOTHING. I am very happy that Ms. Leonard is doing something – even if it entertains or angers me. Actually, she’s done more than I will probably do in my life time on ecology but she isn’t responsible for me – she is only responsible for herself! Only I can be responsible for me. When I look in my mirror I don’t see Ms. Leonard I see myself. I need to answer for all that I do to Mother Earth that is in my control.
I’m glad Ms. Leonard reminded me of the “toxins” that are everywhere because too much of a concentrated toxin can be deadly. (The plant watered by floride, the plant ate by the cow, the cow’s milk drank by MY child and same cow’s meat ate by MY child which is now super floridated and at a deadly toxic level.) No, Ms. Leonard didn’t give this example but simply stated “toxins.” Need I discuss hormones and antibiotics induced in chickens and their “toxic” effects on my child?
Again, I need to be as informed a parent as I possibly can be because my child trusts that I already am a responsible person. I hope that I really am!
5 September 2009, 8:21 pmstan dailey:
i agree that it was part good part bad. the portrayal of entrepenuers as evil soured me. that to want to live as well as you can is somehow selfish did too. it could have been more positive without casting such a dark light on so many good people.
22 September 2009, 5:05 pmHugh Jonefs:
We watched “Story of Stuff” tonight and must admit, as expected, that it is the biggest bunch of bull we have ever seen. Just another sign of what our kids are seeing, and being taught, in the govt. schools. It goes right along with the way obama feels about our country. He is doing his best to destroy our country and stuff like “Story of Stuff” is helping him. I would say God help our country but I think it is too late. Aren’t you and your ilk happy about that.
22 September 2009, 8:06 pmHugh Jones:
Correcting the spelling of last name.
22 September 2009, 8:07 pmsteve:
I cannot believe they are showing this politically biased crap in schools. They make capitalism seem so terrible. And I quote “it is the Governments job to take care of us” NO IT IS NOT!!!! It is your job to take care of you, Its the Governments job to grant us life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness. THATS IT NO MORE NO LESS!!!! My daughter told me she saw this at her school and after hearing what she said I had to see it for myself then had to totally point out all the lies and she said well then that was a waste of time even watching it, I said thats right it sure was.
23 September 2009, 1:37 amDaune Russell:
Are you sure your facts are right? Why is this being show in public school? Do you have the parents permission to show this?
23 September 2009, 1:05 pmAndy Kaiser:
Hi everyone,
I think this is the time to close the thread. We moved beyond the original topic and have dropped down to political bashing of individuals and institutions, which I have no interest in doing for this particular conversation. The topic is “The Story of Stuff” and the ideas it presented. Thanks to everyone for their comments and intellect – your time spent on this thread was appreciated!
Andy
Andy Kaiser:
Hi everyone,
One last comment: For those interested, here’s a brief followup post about my current feelings about “The Story of Stuff”.
Andy