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

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!

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.

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.

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…

Yes, I did indeed make a typo. Now corrected. Thanks for the catch.

Andy

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.

Don’t buy stuff if you do not need it. Don’t give the FAT CATs anymore $$$

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

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.

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.

So, thanks. =)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

With that said I am one capitalist who believes we should do all we can to limit waste and improve sustainability.

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

If radio production is SO efficient that you use NO workers, and pay NO employees in the line, just some energy, material, and water costs – your radio will be CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP… but simple water (or fill in any number of things essential to life and the sustinence of it long term) becomes expensive to the extreme, and your “efficient” radio has been a local opitmum of no systemic importance. You might have heard the story of the guys at Bell Labs in the 80’s (I think that’s when the story was) – trying to optimize the Unix Kernel, so one has to be careful what one is measuring… Annie is saying “I think we’re not seeing forest from the trees here, folks” — and that’s a good thing.

ARGUMENT:

A. Slave labor is abundant in the world.
B. Labor rights are non-existent in third worlds. It is so corrupt and so dangerous that most people are making an average of 10 cents a day based on a purchasing power of the labor with the American dollar. We extract resources by lobbying with corporations to their political system to have almost complete autonomy over third world economies without regard to civil liberties, property rights, and labor laws. Why? Oppressed societies striving to find rice. (Haiti, Somalia, India, etc) FOOD RIOTS. These are some of the companies staff.
C. The currency power in other countries that are Third World. Go to Thailand and see how much you can get. Its currently 30-1. Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Laos, Brazil, etc have an extremely inequal economy and resorts to sex trade, human trafficking, drug cartels, slavery. They also have millions of people living in Shantytowns and Favelas. What do American Companies do? Support it. They find that all this corruption is in their interests because it makes things so cheap to produce for Americans to consume. We contribute and assist the most corrupt countries in the world to profit off their terrible living conditions for cheaper labor. Indonesia’s working people are SELLING their CHILDREN to the orphanages to pay the bills. This is not a MATH problem, folks.

Americans and the capitalism is a very efficient vaccuum cleaner that creates a black hole. GROWTH = More use of RESOURCES which we do not have enough. This level of coercion with third world nations and consumption is a threat to international security and all life on earth.

“I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but to answer your question in the review about US using 30% of the resource and produces world’s 27% GDP–GDP (Gross Domestic Product)is the total market value of final goods and service produced in a given country–though the term emphases on “prodution”, it’s measured by the yearly “consumption” + “gross investment”+ “government spending” + “export”- “import”, in which “consumtion” definitely plays the biggest part. IN other words, products produced in a given year, but not purchased within that year, does NOT count into the year’s GDP.

It’s true that 27% GDP shows that people in the US have strong market power, yet at the same time, it also illustrates the problem of over-consumption, whereas it really supports very little about the efficiency argument.”

ARGUMENT BELOW:

GOODS AND SERVICES = Hotels, teachers, government officials, retailers, labor, and physical products exported from companies, businesses that also allocate resources from both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC areas of earth to PRODUCE products in the USA.

The argument wasn’t about how much we LABOR and PRODUCTS we OUTPUT… the argument was about how much EARTH can provide in RAW MATERIALS based on how much and how fast Americans CONSUME. There is no “Balancing” act going on here.

So, what got me to look for more information was your mention of not finding information to support her claim about BFR’s on pillows. In my visits to the sources she cited I could not find any reference to the use of that specific flame retardant in pillows. There was one document that mentioned that pillows are a possible product on which some kind of flame retardant might be used, but they could not confirm what kind.

Looks like the factoid was a stretch, though it is within the realm of possibility.

I also read an interview with her and it’s clear that while she has done a ton of research she was simply trying to make her overall point in a way that could reach a broad audience. Consider that she is an activist, not a journalist, so you have to expect that she is going to place a higher value on making an emotional connection than getting everything technically correct. She’s got a message and this video was a good vehicle for it.
–

Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Blog: blog.Attitutor.com

http://www.storyofstuff.com/pdfs/annie_leonard_footnoted_script.pdf

Thanks for raising your concerns, I hope you will check out her sources and critique them in a follow-up to this post.

–

Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Blog: http://blog.Attitutor.com

Sorry andy, my dad’s an architect. The residential work he does has a floor plan with around 3,000 sq. feet. The house size has doubled in the past years. I hate to say annie is right, and i love how you contradict her. I’m doing a project about this and your may be my primary resource. Thanks for the info.

I am sorry, but I also think that Annie has a very valid point here about the 4.99 radio — we usually dont see how manufacturers externalize their cost onto the society,(i.e private cost< social cost) but that’s an easy way to make mass production possible — in the US or other developed countries there is already taxing system to prevent negative externality, however third world countries obviously dont have that, and they have to bear the lose of natural/human resources, while manufacturers gain from minimizing their priavte costs.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but to answer your question in the review about US using 30% of the resource and produces world’s 27% GDP–GDP (Gross Domestic Product)is the total market value of final goods and service produced in a given country–though the term emphases on “prodution”, it’s measured by the yearly “consumption” + “gross investment”+ “government spending” + “export”- “import”, in which “consumtion” definitely plays the biggest part. IN other words, products produced in a given year, but not purchased within that year, does NOT count into the year’s GDP.

It’s true that 27% GDP shows that people in the US have strong market power, yet at the same time, it also illustrates the problem of over-consumption, whereas it really supports very little about the efficiency argument.

I just read your response and I can relate to a lot of what you are saying, except I wanted to respond with something I disagreed with. You say that
“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 closer to the ideals which most people agree upon?”

I think she agrees with your statement. She wants to keep capitalism and maintain most of its benefits for those who invest billions of dollars into research and development that improve our lives. However, she just wants to make it more equitable across space and sustainable across time. She’s not calling on anti-capitalist activism, but rather on tweaking the system. I recently read an article by a Alexandra Hughes (a lecturer in the School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology at Newcastle University), and she suggests that companies come to consider a “triple bottom line”. Whereas traditionally, companies only consider the bottom line (profit), there are growing pressures for them to also consider social equality (paying workers a living wage regardless of nationality), environmental sustainability (usage of green energy and research in development into more green energy), and profit. This is the sort of thing Annie is trying to convey. I believe this to be a strength of the video as opposed to the often extremist anti-capitalist maneuvers of green peace or the sorts demonstrated in the WTO protests in Seattle.

-Christopher

This is INTENTIONAL. We have been convinced by corporations and the government (via the media) that we as a society benefit from our consumerism, and in some ways we do–we have a generally strong economy and that helps everyone in the US. But at what cost? We work more, relax less, spend less time with our families, have higher stress levels…and the gap between wealthy and poor Americans is growing, and growing, and growing…Why do the salaries of CEO’s climb so much faster than those of the people who work for them? Couldn’t their salaries rise, say, at the SAME rate? Or even a little slower, since they make so much more?

As some others have pointed out, there may be some bones to pick with the video. I was similarly struck by the BFR’s piece as well as the emphasis on toxics. But overall, I think Annie’s point is right on and the more we look at the big picture–which is that we’re digging ourselves a really deep hole and we ought to start thinking about how to get out before it collapses–the more accurate it seems.

I will continue to do what I can to help our world, and I thank you for posting your honest, thought out opinions and Annie for taking the time to do this work, but I am left with just one question…

Who the heck is Carla?

Re: house sizes. I think it’s (at least mostly) true. Check out these links:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1nd09TewlokJ:www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf+average+square+footage+house+united+states&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
(That’s an html version of a pdf from census.gov showing a chart from 1973-2006 in various regions.)
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

It might not be a straight doubling (data from the 1960s aren’t there), but house sizes unarguably have mushroomed. My SIL told me, when contemplating a move to an expensive city, that she couldn’t imagine ever going back to 2,000 sq ft — that’s twice the size of our place, which feels quite roomy to us. We each have 3-people families. And our place was built in the 1920s, so presumably it was a mansion then!

I often wonder how long I could live on just the stuff I have accumulated, without shopping for anything more. Unworn-out clothes, uneaten food, unread books — I bet I could last awhile, if I ever could convince myself to try.

The major finding of happiness research with respect to consumption is that our happiness from goods is essentially relative, once you pass a threshold of about $10,000 per year (if you’re so poor that you have trouble buying food, then a little bit more money really does make you a lot happier). Over time, happiness in the US and many other wealthy nations has declined or remained steady, even though our GDP has tripled in the last 60 years (give or take). If you compare countries with per capita GDPs over $10,000, there is not a correlation between income and happiness. However, within any given country there is a slight correlation. This appears to be because we compare ourselves to others. However, notice that this is a zero-sum-game—there is no way for government policy to make people happier on average through increased consumption, because it is all relative. If one person becomes wealthier, she gets happy but someone else gets less happy. Also, we get used to our consumer goods very quickly, which is not the case with things like social interactions, volunteering, and that sort of thing (which research shows do add to our level of happiness long-term). This is called the “hedonic treadmill” and is another good phrase to Google.

As I said, there is a ton of good work out there, and also a lot of new books, most published since 2000. I would strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Happiness Hypothesis” as it does a great job of saying what we really know about happiness right now. Another one more related to this thread is Lane’s “The Decline of Happiness in Market Democracies”. A little more academic, but still quite accessible. Other researchers you might look up are Easterlin (who was the first to notice the disconnect between happiness and income, and has continued to contribute to the field) and Kahneman (who won the nobel in economics a few years back—this is not fringe science). You will find that Annie’s statement is a consensus view in the field, with debate around the edges about the “whys” and “how muches”. I hope that helps!

Risk is unequally distributed based on privilege (class, skin color, gender). It takes a lot of privilege to create the pretense and ideological predisposition to be “skeptical” just because we (laypersons, no less) personally haven’t seen statistics, data and/or fail to be convinced. We are a decreasing global minority of people disproportionately shielded from the effects of our wrongdoing.

The foxes don’t see a problem with them guarding the hen house until all the food is gone. Unfortunately, there is no more “frontier” for our expansionist appetites to devour. We are already at the global level. Some people are holding out for space colonies, which is just ridiculous in itself and also considering how it ignores the more fundamental issue of dealing with what we’ve got in a fair, responsible and respectful manner.

Thanks,

Andy

Many of you all are saying that’s Annie is being manipulative and raising fear through her clip. So how else is someone supposed to raise awareness without going to the extreme? Would anyone listen? I think not. “She exaggerated..blah blah, ” okay…so? That got your attention right? Wait, of course, maybe she did it on purpose? Wait, she just doesn’t know what’s she’s talking about. She’s going to the extreme to cause fear to have an effect of change.

“Toxins Toxins Toxins…its repetitious, what toxins exactly?” do you think the average person would pay attention if it went over every single detail?

I do think it was generalized but if it went into specifics, quoted every person she got her info from, stated where she got her stats etc. and how, NO ONE WOULD LISTEN LONG ENOUGH.

I kind of agree about the BFR and the proof about how it’s being dipped in pillows but oh yeah..she probably made that up too.

You know what…she just made up the whole thing and is definitely not legitamate. Despite her research traveling for 10+ years. Wait, but your 10 minutes of internet research is valid. Because everything on the internet is true. I’m not saying that some criticisms are wrong, but it’s kind of ridiculous to attack it. Stop justifying what she’s trying to make aware and do something. Change your life a little no matter if you agree with everything she says or not.

Because the whole idea of her bit, stop polluting this one earth we have.