'The Story of Stuff'

Tired of being told to "go shopping" whenever a national or international crisis occurs?

Tired of hearing that "recycling" will save us?
  Note: Recycling is a very good idea, just "not enough."

Want to know how our so-called Consumer Society was manufactured?

Want to know why the linear "produce, manufacture, CONSUME" model is so deeply flawed?

Ever wonder how stuff can be so damned cheap? And wonder who is really paying "the freight"?

Want to know more about the pathway to sustainability?

Then you'll be glad to see/hear how Annie Leonard exposes the dark underbelly of our Consumer Society in a little 20 minute educational video titled The Story of Stuff.

Here is a trailer:

More at storyofstuff.com.

PS.. If I'm the last person on the block (the Planet?) to hear about The Story of Stuff—having heard about it over coffee just yesterday—chalk it up to the fact that I'm an old, retired economist living in Utah, just a small step on the far side of nowhere. But damned good scenery!

Comments

[Steve Salmony]

How about limiting per-human consumption of Earth's limited resources as one way of addressing the emergent global challenges looming ominously before the family of humanity?

Let’s assume that all of us agree with the idea of having a discussion that seeks to find a reliable, secure, sensible and sustainable path to a good enough future for our children.

Inasmuch as human beings appear to be members of a species that appears to be inadvertently threatening to outgrow the planet it inhabits, the idea of at least not over-consuming Earth’s dissipating resources could be an idea whose time has come.

Given the relentless plunder and obscene per-capita consumption of Earth’s finite resources we are seeing in our time, choosing not to fecklessly plunder and grotesquely squander might be a bit too much to hope for.

Perhaps a more modest goal will be achieved when human beings agree to do what is humane and necessary by eschewing conspicuous over-consumption and, alternatively, beginning to voluntarily restrain themselves from literally “eating the family of humanity out of house and home.”

By suggesting this alternative, we would be consciously choosing to consume less resources as one reasonable and sensible way of responding ably to the gluttony and morbid obesity rampant in ‘advanced’ societies in our time?

Perhaps our children will soon enough come to understand that the choice to “consume less” is the most efficacious and powerful thing any person in the “overdeveloped” world can do to preserve life as we know it and the integrity of Earth.

If consuming less resources occurred collectively among individuals in the human community who are conspicuously over-consuming, as my generation of notoriously voracious elders is doing now, then a sustainable, “consume less” behavioral repertoire could make a huge difference, one that really makes a difference. It could help the family of humanity save itself from its unhealthy, recklessly increasing and soon to be unsustainable per-capita over-consumption activities.

Just this week a friend of mine said he possesses at least one of everything in the world he wants....and he is only getting started. Life is all about wealth accumulation and consumption, he advises. He is going for all the gusto, he says.

Is this an example of the one ‘right’ way to live or else the dream to which the human community is to aspire?

The Earth can barely sustain several million people behaving like my friend (and me). What can 6.6 billion (soon to be 9 billion) of our brothers and sisters reasonably and sensibly expect “to possess” in the course of their lives?

[Steve Salmony]

Dear Friends,

Please forgive me for saying that I believe my not-so-great generation of elders is literally on the verge of devouring the birthright of its children and mortgaging their future, while not giving so much as a thought to the needs of coming generations. My generation may be remembered most for having ravaged the Earth and irreversibly degraded its environment, leaving our planetary home unfit for life as we know it or for human habitation or both.

Unfortunately, many too many of our brothers and sisters as well as virtually all of political leaders, economic powerbrokers and 'talking heads' in the mass media are not yet acknowledging the distinctly human-induced predicament looming ominously before humanity, even now visible on the far horizon. Because human overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation appear to be occurring synergistically, at least to me it makes sense to see and address them as a whole. Picking the most convenient or most expedient of the three aspects of the human condition could be easier but may not be a good idea. The "big picture" is what we need to see, I suppose. At some point we are going to be forced to gain a "whole system" perspective of what 6.6 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people are doing on Earth. That is to say, the human community needs to widely-share a reasonable and sensible understanding of the colossal impact of unbridled production, unrestained consumption and unregulated propagation activities of the human species on Earth....... and how life utterly depends upon Earth's limited resource base for existence.

If human beings can share an adequate enough grasp of the leviathan-like presence of the human species on Earth, then we can choose individually and collectively to behave differently from the ways we are behaving now, lest my generation could lead everyone to inadvertently precipitate the massive extinction of biodiversity, the irredeemable degradation of environs, the pillage of our planetary home and, perhaps, the endangerment of humanity.

Sincerely,

Steve

[Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.]

Something is happening that many too many people appear not to be seeing, I suppose.

Scientific evidence is springing up everywhere that indicates the massive and pernicious impact of the human species on the limited resources of Earth, its frangible ecosystems and life as we know it.

Guided by mountains of carefully and skillfully developed research regarding climate change, top rank scientists like Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Hans J. Schellnhuber and Dr. Christopher Rapley issued a Climate Code Red emergency declaration this month to leaders of governments and to the family of humanity proclaiming the necessity for open discussion and action by politicians and economic powerbrokers.

From my humble perspective, many leaders of the global political economy are turning a blind eye to human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities that can be seen recklessly dissipating the natural resources and dangerously degrading the environs of our planetary home. The Earth is being ravaged; but it appears many leaders are willfully refusing to acknowledge what is happening.

Because the emerging global challenges that could soon be presented to humanity appear to so many fine scientists as human-induced, leaders have responsibilities to assume and duties to perform, ready or not, like them or not.

Perhaps leadership in our time has too often chosen to ignore whatsoever is somehow real in order to believe whatever is politically convenient, economically expedient, socially agreeable, religiously tolerated and culturally prescribed. When something real directly conflicts with what leaders wish to believe, that reality is denied. It appears that too many leaders are content to hold tightly to widely shared and consensually validated specious thinking when it serves their personal interests.

Is humanity once again finding life as we know it dominated by a modern Tower of Babel called economic globalization? That is, has human thinking, judging and willing become so egregiously impaired by our idolatry of the artificially designed, manmade, global political economy that we cannot speak intelligibly about anything else except economic growth and profits without sounding like blithering idiots?

[Steven Earl Salmony]

A large part of what is worrying me is this: the family of humanity appears not to have more than several more years in which to make necessary changes in its conspicuous over-consumption lifestyles, in the unsustainable overproduction practices of big-business enterprises, and its overpopulation activities. Humankind may not be able to protect life as we know it and the integrity of Earth for even one more decade.

If we project the fully anticipated growth of increasing and unbridled per-capita consumption, of rampantly expanding economic globalization and of propagating 70 to 75 million newborns per annum, will someone please explain to me how our seemingly endless growth civilization proceeds beyond the end of year 2012.

According to my admittedly simple estimations, if humankind keeps doing just as it is doing now, without doing whatsoever is necessary to begin modifying the business-as-usual course of our gigantic, endless-growth-oriented global economy, then the Earth could sustain life as we know it for a time period of about 5 more years.

It appears to me that all the chatter, including that heard in most “normal science” circles, of a benign path to the future by “leap-frogging” through a ‘bottleneck’ to population stabilization, and to good times ahead in 2050, is nothing more than wishful and magical thinking.

Unfortunately, even top rank scientists have not found adequate ways of communicating to humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the reckless dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of Earth’s frangible environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic ‘wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.

[Shana Garrett]

I do not think the issue is that not enough people "see" or "appreciate" the impact we are making on the Earth. The problem is how it relates to the individual. People know that tossing trash out of their car window is pollution and they "see" the immediate result of garbage strewn scenery. When someone jumps into their massive Hummer, drives 22 miles to Best Buy at 80 mph, purchases an MP3 player, a pack of batteries, and yet another cell phone (because the one they have works but is out of style) they do not see a problem with that. They think they look cool, they feel important and cutting edge and they do not see the damage. If sustainability were more relative to the individual, the impact of PSA's and Green efforts would be immense. We live in a society of individuals, not a bohemian commune. Altruistic goals, such as "Save the Polar Bears" or "Create a Cleaner Tomorrow" do not speak to the millions of individualistic consumers who want immediate gratification in a SuperSaver bundle. Tell them how it affects them directly. For instance, If you downsized from a Hummer to a Civic Hybrid, the money you save in maintenance, fuel, payments, and insurance will pay for roundtrip airfare to Aruba for 2 every year! Alas, money and the materials they purchase are symbolic of our accomplishments in life. Just try to go shopping at Whole Foods in your weekend sweatsuit... Yeah they buy organic, but they think in Bling. Personalizing the message of conservation and sustainability is vital to the success of the endeavor.

[Shana Garrett]

I do not think the issue is that not enough people "see" or "appreciate" the impact we are making on the Earth. The problem is how it relates to the individual. People know that tossing trash out of their car window is pollution and they "see" the immediate result of garbage strewn scenery. When someone jumps into their massive Hummer, drives 22 miles to Best Buy at 80 mph, purchases an MP3 player, a pack of batteries, and yet another cell phone (because the one they have works but is out of style) they do not see a problem with that. They think they look cool, they feel important and cutting edge and they do not see the damage. If sustainability were more relative to the individual, the impact of PSA's and Green efforts would be immense. We live in a society of individuals, not a bohemian commune. Altruistic goals, such as "Save the Polar Bears" or "Create a Cleaner Tomorrow" do not speak to the millions of individualistic consumers who want immediate gratification in a SuperSaver bundle. Tell them how it affects them directly. For instance, If you downsized from a Hummer to a Civic Hybrid, the money you save in maintenance, fuel, payments, and insurance will pay for roundtrip airfare to Aruba for 2 every year! Alas, money and the materials they purchase are symbolic of our accomplishments in life. Just try to go shopping at Whole Foods in your weekend sweatsuit... Yeah they buy organic, but they think in Bling. Personalizing the message of conservation and sustainability is vital to the success of the endeavor.