The Story of Stuff

[WIP]

This short 20 minute video provides a good overview about why things are such a mess today, and why we will need more than cosmetic changes to our way of life to survive the fast-approaching limits to continuous growth that is being applied by a finite planet:

[bush_cheney2004]

Watch you wallet folks....

http://www.tides.org/

[Michael Hardner]

This short 20 minute video provides a good overview about why things are such a mess today, and why we will need more than cosmetic changes to our way of life to survive the fast-approaching limits to continuous growth that is being applied by a finite planet:

I checked out after a few minutes - too many simplifications there and misleading/obscure claims too. It comes across as a political ad, which means it only changes the minds of the clueless.

[WIP]

Watch you wallet folks....

http://www.tides.org/

I expected some Glenn Beck fan to be first in line to attack the source, but I could care less what the Tides Foundation does or does not do, because everything in mainstream media...whether it calls itself liberal or conservative...follows the same mantra of continuous growth and buying new shit! It's important to have at least one outpost of reason...even if it's only available on a Youtube channel, that makes the common sense point that our world does not, nor cannot grow larger to accommodate more people who want more new products every year.

[Michael Hardner]

I expected some Glenn Beck fan to be first in line to attack the source, but I could care less what the Tides Foundation does or does not do, because everything in mainstream media...whether it calls itself liberal or conservative...follows the same mantra of continuous growth and buying new shit! It's important to have at least one outpost of reason...even if it's only available on a Youtube channel, that makes the common sense point that our world does not, nor cannot grow larger to accommodate more people who want more new products every year.

No one has submitted a viable alternative to economic growth. ( Keep in mind that economic growth also requires that we adapt to scarcity and find new ways to do more with less. )

As I have posted here (lately, in response to a poster who posted something from Fox) video arguments are usually inferior, especially when they don't explicitly source their statistics. I have seen some great video arguments made, but they are very well sourced. This one isn't.

The world's population isn't expected to grow forever, by the way. The population is expected to level off at 9 billion.

[Moonlight Graham]

I checked out after a few minutes - too many simplifications there and misleading/obscure claims too. It comes across as a political ad, which means it only changes the minds of the clueless.

The overarching message of this video is true and of prime importance. However, your criticisms are valid. Some of the details are misleading, not sourced, and very much oversimplified & dumbed down to the point of insulting my intelligence & talking to me like i'm a baby. This video was made for the mass-consumption of an Oprah audience, ironic considering its message.

But again, the overarching themes the video presents are very true. But i think most people, even the uninformed, know this all is happening, but we seem to be stuck like zombies continuing to turn the machine without much will to change the system. It is sad we are stuck in this cycle of self-destruction for the benefit of the wealthy who control/own the means of production...and that's really what it's all about.

One quote i like:

"We have more stuff, but less time for the things that really make us happy."

[Michael Hardner]

Can we find a video that agrees with this, but is better?

[Bonam]

"We have more stuff, but less time for the things that really make us happy."

That is purely a choice people make on an individual basis. Whether or not to spend more time working harder to earn money to buy "more stuff", or whether to spend more of their time on other things. I feel no particular compulsion to purchase material goods that I don't need.

[Moonlight Graham]

Watch you wallet folks....

http://www.tides.org/

Never heard of this organization, but after clicking your link i noticed that Tides works with this "Story of Stuff" group. I don't understand the meaning of your post, so could you clarify what point you intended to make?

is there some nefarious agenda by Tides or the video creators that i'm missing?

[bush_cheney2004]

Never heard of this organization, but after clicking your link i noticed that Tides works with this "Story of Stuff" group. I don't understand the meaning of your post, so could you clarify what point you intended to make?

If you examine the history of the organization and links for nonprofit fund raising, my intention is clear. Ironically, these folks are more than happy to take my money for their cause(s) instead of me buying more stuff.

[Sir Bandelot]

everything in mainstream media...whether it calls itself liberal or conservative...follows the same mantra of continuous growth and buying new shit! our world does not, nor cannot grow larger to accommodate more people who want more new products every year.

Ahh, the seed of conservatism sprouts. Like a mustard seed...

[August1991]

I watched about three minutes of this video and then stopped.

First of all, the narrator said that she spent 10 years studying this issue. So, the world gave her alot of "stuff" for 10 years and then she complains that the world has too much "stuff". That's like environmentalists flying around the world to various conferences to complain about people with large carbon footprints.

The narrator removed her ipod at the beginning. So I draw the conclusion that she doesn't object to stuff, just certain stuff.

Secondly, she presents "data" implying that corporations are bigger than governments. By what basis? According to which metric? We don't know. My relationships with Walmart and Shell Oil are voluntary. I know some people who will have nothing to do with either. My relationship with the Canadian government is different - in particular given the upcoming 30 April.

This video is alot better:

Edited April 17, 2011 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

That is purely a choice people make on an individual basis. Whether or not to spend more time working harder to earn money to buy "more stuff", or whether to spend more of their time on other things. I feel no particular compulsion to purchase material goods that I don't need.

Yes and no. You can make a choice not to work extra overtime or have a second job, or start your own business & work on it for mega-hours. But on the other hand, we live in an every-more globalizing economy where competition is fiercer with revenues and corporations getting bigger, and it seems more and more that companies in certain sectors are demanding more hours from employees. If an employee doesn't want to work the extra hours or want to be on-call for a company, the company will simply replace them with someone who does. It's also harder these days for a family to live off a single income with a parent staying home to raise the kids.

I suppose one can still choose a career/job that doesn't require long hours if that's a priority. They can also consume less and save enough money to retire earlier.

Overall, it seems odd that we continue to reap increasing benefits from the production of the industrial revolution, but none of that is translating into us having more leisure time. We are just obsessed with buying more & better stuff, so much so that many people rack up debt to pay for the crap. A 4-day work week isn't very practical for some professions, but people could be retiring a lot earlier if they didn't spend money on so many unnecessary things.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The narrator removed her ipod at the beginning. So I draw the conclusion that she doesn't object to stuff, just certain stuff.

Indeed...no mention of too much art, literature, or cinema. Are we to assume that eschewing an iPod means that music has been singled from these?

This video is alot better:

Yes...far more focused...far more passion...far more originality. Rest in peace George, you angry old bastard.

[Michael Hardner]

My relationships with Walmart and Shell Oil are voluntary.

I suppose so, if you define your relationship as buying stuff from them.

But if you define your relationship as whether they effect your larger economic choices, your community, your environment then it's not voluntary. You have some influence on them, but not likely very much.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Overall, it seems odd that we continue to reap increasing benefits from the production of the industrial revolution, but none of that is translating into us having more leisure time.

Maybe not for you, but it certainly has for me and like minded "professionals". Work and play have converged in the cloud on the very devices decried as "stuff". I can G-Talk with somebody in India while banging out virtual widgets.

We are just obsessed with buying more & better stuff, so much so that many people rack up debt to pay for the crap. A 4-day work week isn't very practical for some professions, but people could be retiring a lot earlier if they didn't spend money on so many unnecessary things.

Retiring to do what? To replace "stuff" with knitting? No thanks.

[August1991]

It's also harder these days for a family to live off a single income with a parent staying home to raise the kids.

WTF? If you don't want stuff, don't work long hours and don't buy it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hell, even the Unabomber had stuff!

[Moonlight Graham]

Secondly, she presents "data" implying that corporations are bigger than governments. By what basis? According to which metric? We don't know. My relationships with Walmart and Shell Oil are voluntary. I know some people who will have nothing to do with either. My relationship with the Canadian government is different - in particular given the upcoming 30 April.

C'mon man. Our vote only matters one day every few years. Corporations and interest groups lobby the government every day. Who do you think the government listens to more on a daily basis: an individual citizen sending a letter to an MP/PM, or a big corporation or lobby sector (tobacco, agriculture etc.) pressuring them on policies? The same people who fund their campaigns (despite our laws) and can quickly mobilize support for their members (in the case of interest groups) to vote for a particular party/candidate that is most in tune with their policy demands.

Corporations, interest groups, and the wealthy in general certainly control the U.S. government, more so than the Canadian government because our finance laws are stricter and the nature of our political system (ie: MP's vote based much more on party lines compared to US Congress). I'm not saying anything new here. The lady in the video is referring to the US government, and she's right. Oil/energy, labour unions, the NRA, tobacco, AIPAC, argi-business, big pharma, insurance companies/banks/Wallstreet, and the defense industry (re: the military-industrial complex) etc. run US government policy. The US is a not a democracy, it is a plutocracy and everyone in Washington knows it.

Here's Ralph Nader explaining it well. This is the best video in this thread:

Edited April 17, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[WIP]

No one has submitted a viable alternative to economic growth.

How about the fact that we live on a finite world! It's not like there is an alternative to zero growth, or reduced consumption, it is going to happen with our cooperation, or without it. And the latter choice will have even more devastating consequences for future generations.

( Keep in mind that economic growth also requires that we adapt to scarcity and find new ways to do more with less. )

Aside from a handful of examples...such as the reduction in paper production made possible by the decline in newspapers, books, snail mail, and written records, economic growth has by necessity meant using more energy and natural resources to produce more products.

As I have posted here (lately, in response to a poster who posted something from Fox) video arguments are usually inferior, especially when they don't explicitly source their statistics. I have seen some great video arguments made, but they are very well sourced. This one isn't.

Their website is easy to find, and I figured anyone who honestly was interested in more in depth information would be able to find their way to the resources page.

The world's population isn't expected to grow forever, by the way. The population is expected to level off at 9 billion.

We've been over this before, and you didn't take more than a superficial look at the problem of overpopulation the last time either! Your source article in USA Today says the population of Earth is going to stabilize at about 9 billion in the year 2300. This U.N.-sponsored study is worth nothing, since it narrowly focuses on population and demographic trends, instead of making an attempt to incorporate other factors, such as the problems of soil depletion, declining availability of oil-based fertilizers and pesticides, declining availability of fresh water, and stresses caused by climate change. Most of the experts who study agricultural production believe that the population is not going to reach that 9 billion number in the first place, because food production yields are already in decline, and will continue to erode because so many major grain producing nations are losing arable land and water resources.

The reality that no one hardly seems to want to face today is that there are already too many people on Earth to support in a sustainable system, and population numbers are going to fall either through gradual reduction or a crash that accompanies mass migrations, genocides, epidemics, famines, and a possible unleashing of remaining nuclear warheads. That way of lurching from one disaster to another could lead to extinction of the human race within the next 200 years. Most of human history has been to solve major crises by cobbling together last minute fixes. Survival of the human race will require making short term sacrifices for long term future needs.....something we have not been able to get a cooperative effort for until now.

[WIP]

The overarching message of this video is true and of prime importance. However, your criticisms are valid. Some of the details are misleading, not sourced, and very much oversimplified & dumbed down to the point of insulting my intelligence & talking to me like i'm a baby. This video was made for the mass-consumption of an Oprah audience, ironic considering its message.

But again, the overarching themes the video presents are very true. But i think most people, even the uninformed, know this all is happening, but we seem to be stuck like zombies continuing to turn the machine without much will to change the system. It is sad we are stuck in this cycle of self-destruction for the benefit of the wealthy who control/own the means of production...and that's really what it's all about.

It's not as if these themes are new! It's just that discussion of consumerism and limits to growth have been off the table of mainstream media since about the mid 70's. I can vouch for the fact that built in or planned obsolescence is part of product design. Part of the reason comes from the desire to reduce overall costs. Quality control may lead to certain components being improved to a greater degree than others. If the completed product has an average lifespan of five years, then its a waste of money to improve the quality of components that last for 10 or 20 years. It's more optimal if the whole thing is breaking down at about the same point in the product life. The net effect is that most products built today are not made to last. And, shrewd marketing strategies lead people to throw away usable products because of "perceived obsolescence." This is especially evident when it comes to clothes. Fashion trends keep many people buying new clothes because what they have now has suddenly fallen out of fashion.

[WIP]

The narrator removed her ipod at the beginning. So I draw the conclusion that she doesn't object to stuff, just certain stuff.

So 'narrator has an Ipod' means that problems of resource depletion, and pollution from waste byproducts don't really exist.

Secondly, she presents "data" implying that corporations are bigger than governments. By what basis? According to which metric? We don't know.

Really! Many of the world's largest corporations have annual budgets greater than many nations on the planet...so that makes them bigger than a lot of governments.

My relationships with Walmart and Shell Oil are voluntary. I know some people who will have nothing to do with either. My relationship with the Canadian government is different - in particular given the upcoming 30 April.

But not as voluntary as it used to be, since Walmart and other big box stores have driven smaller retailers out of business. Eventually, that Walmart may be the only game in town.

[WIP]

That is purely a choice people make on an individual basis. Whether or not to spend more time working harder to earn money to buy "more stuff", or whether to spend more of their time on other things. I feel no particular compulsion to purchase material goods that I don't need.

How about if we have the choice to limit the amount of commercial advertising (especially to children). And, you may think you're buying just what you need, but marketers gather every new, useful fact and strategy they can put together from psychology and sociology. They are aware that much of what we buy (especially younger consumers) is based on status needs and little else. When I lived in the suburbs, there were a lot of things I thought I no longer feel the need to buy.

[TimG]

Most of the experts who study agricultural production believe that the population is not going to reach that 9 billion number in the first place, because food production yields are already in decline, and will continue to erode because so many major grain producing nations are losing arable land and water resources.

Reality check: more stuff equals fewer babies. If you care about overpopulation you should want to see the world develop as quickly as possible.

That way of lurching from one disaster to another could lead to extinction of the human race within the next 200 years. Most of human history has been to solve major crises by cobbling together last minute fixes.

It is worked pretty well so far. I don't see the problem except risk adverse worry warts like yourself can't stand the uncertainity and want the big bad government to legislate something that gives you the illusion that something is "being done".

Survival of the human race will require making short term sacrifices for long term future needs.....something we have not been able to get a cooperative effort for until now.

An unsupported assertion on your part. In a free market economy scarcity leads to price increases and a change in consumption patterns. As resources deplete this will naturally lead to many of the changes that you seek but the changes will occur without any special government intervetion or moralizing. Edited April 18, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

How about the fact that we live on a finite world! It's not like there is an alternative to zero growth, or reduced consumption, it is going to happen with our cooperation, or without it. And the latter choice will have even more devastating consequences for future generations.

That's not an alternative, that's a problem. And economics is about overcoming problems.

Aside from a handful of examples...such as the reduction in paper production made possible by the decline in newspapers, books, snail mail, and written records, economic growth has by necessity meant using more energy and natural resources to produce more products.

It's more than a handful of examples. Humans have been finding more efficient ways to do things, and ways around expensive materials and practices since civilization began.

Their website is easy to find, and I figured anyone who honestly was interested in more in depth information would be able to find their way to the resources page.

No - you posted the video so I watched the video. I will check it out though.

We've been over this before, and you didn't take more than a superficial look at the problem of overpopulation the last time either! Your source article in USA Today says the population of Earth is going to stabilize at about 9 billion in the year 2300. This U.N.-sponsored study is worth nothing, since it narrowly focuses on population and demographic trends, instead of making an attempt to incorporate other factors, such as the problems of soil depletion, declining availability of oil-based fertilizers and pesticides, declining availability of fresh water, and stresses caused by climate change. Most of the experts who study agricultural production believe that the population is not going to reach that 9 billion number in the first place, because food production yields are already in decline, and will continue to erode because so many major grain producing nations are losing arable land and water resources.

You're focusing on today's problems as if they won't ever be solved. Again, look at history.

As for population growth, there's no reason to think that it won't be curbed.

The reality that no one hardly seems to want to face today is that there are already too many people on Earth to support in a sustainable system, and population numbers are going to fall either through gradual reduction or a crash that accompanies mass migrations, genocides, epidemics, famines, and a possible unleashing of remaining nuclear warheads. That way of lurching from one disaster to another could lead to extinction of the human race within the next 200 years. Most of human history has been to solve major crises by cobbling together last minute fixes. Survival of the human race will require making short term sacrifices for long term future needs.....something we have not been able to get a cooperative effort for until now.

Again - doom and gloom. We've been hearing it for 40 years now, yet the percentage of the world that is hungry continues to fall, the number of countries that have opened themselves to trade, and improved standard of living for its citizens increases.