the story of stuff

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2008-01-28 01:29am

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

A video presentation on how we are raping the world of resources, poisoning our selves in the process, filling the world up with landfills and consumerism is to blame.

Made me rethink having all the stuff and my want for a HDTV (my TV still works pretty well and I might turn it on once a month).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-28 01:32am

What people won't admit, however, is that the only solution to this problem is government regulation. Too many people seem to think that if you just preach enough, people will change their fundamentally short-sighted nature. Not gonna happen.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2008-01-28 01:57am

This will easily fall into the thought of it's another person's problem. Programs like this make a person concerned but greed will overshadow for many people. Programs like these make the people who are doing something feel a bit better, and convert those who are nearly there. The rest just pat those who are doing something on the head and go their merry way.

Government regulation is one of the best ways of making *someone else's problem* yours, and thus the average person starts to care.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2008-01-28 02:01am

Will the US regulate it's way out of this mess? I don't see that it can with out a significant change in government, currently the government seems to be "owned" by big business.

My job depends on consumerism (tech support for consumer goods) but I do see the need for change. I also fear should all this consumerism stop we're going to have a big glut of people with out jobs. What then?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2008-01-28 02:06am

Lisa wrote:Will the US regulate it's way out of this mess? I don't see that it can with out a significant change in government, currently the government seems to be "owned" by big business.

That's why I didn't say US government

. But this level of action requires something of an all encompassing agency. So it's comes down to those who rule us to regulate this and not just let the people find out they are fucking themselves over.

My job depends on consumerism (tech support for consumer goods) but I do see the need for change. I also fear should all this consumerism stop we're going to have a big glut of people with out jobs. What then?

It's not that consumer consumption is going to stop, it's that it needs to stop being rampant. Therein lies the difference of what can happen in a job market.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-01-28 02:16am

I don't dispute the crux of her argument but she could do a better job of communicating her messaging without using politically charged words, otherwise she's automatically shutting out a significant percentage of possible viewership.

Physics professor Albert Bartlett gave a lecture once about how the greatest shortcoming of people is that people don't understand the exponential function. If people simply understood mathematics and science, our ability to make the necessary changes would be much more effective. When people hear 5, 6, 7% anything per year, it should be like giant cymbals being smashed together. As others have said, the only way to reduce the current rates is by having the government step in and force these numbers to shrink.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2008-01-28 04:37am

Fire Fly wrote:I don't dispute the crux of her argument but she could do a better job of communicating her messaging without using politically charged words, otherwise she's automatically shutting out a significant percentage of possible viewership.

Pretty much. The "US hippy presentation for dumbasses" style got to me within the first 5 minutes and I just couldn't watch the rest of it. It meanders about making stupid little side points that are politically charged (the government representation icon for example) while its real message is by far too simplistic in its approach to things, not to mention a bit too eco-nutty (at least the part I got to). And this is coming from someone who is in general agreement with her stances. I guess this could potentially be a good presentation for a clueless Yank, but for most intelligent people its just boring and takes way too much time to convey its ideas.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2008-01-28 04:45am

Ghetto edit: let me amend that "her stances" bit since I didn't stomach watching the entire presentation. "Her perceived stances" would be more accurate - the entire conservation, recycling, non-designed to fall apart consumer products bit.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2008-01-29 06:26am

I got to about 6:00. The part where breastmilk is toxic, without any citations or way to verify it. It's nothing I haven't seen before without the incredibly annoying attitude and the constant appeals to emotion.

'Toxic in, toxic out'. Yeah, nice catchy slogan. Tell that to high school chemistry kids mixing sodium hydroxide drain cleaner with hydrochloric acid.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-01-29 10:35am

The general idea is correct, but as many people here noted, the presentation of them is lacking... Sadly a bad representation of a correct idea can do more damage than good.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2008-01-29 01:55pm

I wouldn't feel to bad about buying your HDTV. If you don't buy it, you'll save yourself about $2000 which you'll likely deposit in your bank. That $2000 deposit will allow your bank to lend out $20,000 allowing 10 HDTV's to be bought.

So, in some respects, buying your tv is saving 9 tvs worth of resources. The main question for yourself is what is the best use of that $2000 for your personally?