The Story of Stuff

[MrPopo]

The responses to this thread tells me the video is about environmentalism. In which case I'll head out and and throw away some recyclables to keep the universe in balance. I also offer carbon offset offsets for anyone who gets screwed over by a party that forces you to purchase a carbon offset.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

GS sadly does the same thing as well. Items get price reductions until they're 'pennied out' and the pile up until field destroy day when they are smashed and have their remains either thrown in the dumpster or incinerated.

[trdbglr]

That video wasn't too bad, but the planned obsolescence stuff is simply real. The idea of coming out with a new car model every year? I mean c'mon. So much material waste right there. Cell phones? It's not too bad here in America, but in Korea they are terrible w/ buying cellphones, always has to be a new cell phone. Ipod? Same thing. And in the video Annie Leonard says that you buy these things to show that you are contributing to the consumer cycle? Not quite. It's more like you buy new things to show others that you can, i.e. that you're rich/not poor.

I do take issue with this video, and with most progressives, in that they ultimately don't go far enough. The situation is this, there exists a thoroughly entrenched system, i.e. capitalism, which makes a large segment of the population miserable. Annie Leonard never mentions the system, and instead calls on us to fight the symptoms of the system. It's a losing battle.

The problem with most progressives is that, like most people, they simply aren't intelligent enough. Annie Leonard and her cause have already lost because they're thinking too small. It's like trying to stop a steamroller with a toothpick.

I'll take this oppourtunity to recommend Marx's 1844 Manuscripts for some real analysis.

Good topic.

[Xonticus]

I'll take this oppourtunity to recommend Marx's 1844 Manuscripts for some real analysis.

Good topic.

A very good read, if not at once but in chunks for those lacking time.

[samsonlonghair]

I love ice cream and I love pot.

This is the smartest thing I've read all day. Who doesn't?

[Erik_Twice]

There's so much wrong about this.

Let's start with her idiotic and outdated "OMG CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING THE GOVERMENT WORK FOR THEM INSTEAD OF US" which is so simplistic and makes so less sense that I felt instantly forced to close the window. HOwever I stayed a bit.

Secondly, we are not running out of ALL resources, this is an outright lie, She goes on to say that 30% of the resources have been consumed with no evidence to back it up. What does she consider a "resource"? Because it would be stupid to think we have used 30% of the planet's iron, aluminium, coal, quartz, wood and so on.

Also the extraction of natural resources =/= destroying the planet.

Then she proceeds to say how we steal resources fromt he Third World which is another outdated idea and shows a lack of common knoweldge on her part. The reason they are poor is because there's NOTHING there. The resources can't be used because there aren't even real laws.

Now, being so nice she shows the production stage. Every chemical is represented with a skull because you know, everything chemical is bad.

AFTER THIS SHE GOT ME REALLY ANGRY. She said that most of them weren't tested for use and NONE OF THEM got tested for "synergestic use". This is not just false, it's stupid. This woman is not a chemist and knows nothing about chemistry. She is just lying and talking about things she doesn't know about.+

She agains equates chemicals with toxins. Idiocy on a pure level. She says "Toxin in, toxin out" which is laughable.

Seriously guys, they are putting SODIUM in out food! And Chlorine too! Both are toxic and one explodes in contact with water! We are all going to die!

She starts talking about BFR (Some kind of flame retardants) and says all of them are toxic. Again given how much she knows about chemistry she is wrong.

At this point I stopped watching and I'm seriously considering to challenge her "facts", she is just hindering the progress of good ideas by her cheap propaganda.

And yes, I'm pissed.

And planned obsolescence doesn't apply to stuff that actually evolves like computers or cars, also they don't produce new cars so you dump your old one they produce new cars because you no longuer have a car.

[Ack]

There's so much wrong about this.

Let's start with her idiotic and outdated "OMG CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING THE GOVERMENT WORK FOR THEM INSTEAD OF US" which is so simplistic and makes so less sense that I felt instantly forced to close the window. HOwever I stayed a bit.

Secondly, we are not running out of ALL resources, this is an outright lie, She goes on to say that 30% of the resources have been consumed with no evidence to back it up. What does she consider a "resource"? Because it would be stupid to think we have used 30% of the planet's iron, aluminium, coal, quartz, wood and so on.

Also the extraction of natural resources =/= destroying the planet.

Then she proceeds to say how we steal resources fromt he Third World which is another outdated idea and shows a lack of common knoweldge on her part. The reason they are poor is because there's NOTHING there. The resources can't be used because there aren't even real laws.

Now, being so nice she shows the production stage. Every chemical is represented with a skull because you know, everything chemical is bad.

AFTER THIS SHE GOT ME REALLY ANGRY. She said that most of them weren't tested for use and NONE OF THEM got tested for "synergestic use". This is not just false, it's stupid. This woman is not a chemist and knows nothing about chemistry. She is just lying and talking about things she doesn't know about.+

She agains equates chemicals with toxins. Idiocy on a pure level. She says "Toxin in, toxin out" which is laughable.

Seriously guys, they are putting SODIUM in out food! And Chlorine too! Both are toxic and one explodes in contact with water! We are all going to die!

She starts talking about BFR (Some kind of flame retardants) and says all of them are toxic. Again given how much she knows about chemistry she is wrong.

At this point I stopped watching and I'm seriously considering to challenge her "facts", she is just hindering the progress of good ideas by her cheap propaganda.

And yes, I'm pissed.

And planned obsolescence doesn't apply to stuff that actually evolves like computers or cars, also they don't produce new cars so you dump your old one they produce new cars because you no longuer have a car.

Well damn, dude. It's cool.

[Anubis]

There's so much wrong about this.

Care to state some facts to back up your opinion?


Let's start with her idiotic and outdated "OMG CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING THE GOVERMENT WORK FOR THEM INSTEAD OF US" which is so simplistic and makes so less sense that I felt instantly forced to close the window. HOwever I stayed a bit.

This is a truth, I'm afraid. Money is power, and guess where all the money is?

Secondly, we are not running out of ALL resources, this is an outright lie, She goes on to say that 30% of the resources have been consumed with no evidence to back it up. What does she consider a "resource"? Because it would be stupid to think we have used 30% of the planet's iron, aluminium, coal, quartz, wood and so on.

Y
ou don't see to grasp the concept of a finite resource. Finite as limited, indefinite, definable, nonrenewable. There isn't more. Care to back up your claim that we aren't raping and pillaging the planet?

Here's something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Paci ... bage_Patch

This is a major threat to all oceans, since all the worlds oceans work in the same way. Considering that the Ocean makes up 70% of the earths surface, I'd say that this alone is destroying more then its fair share of the worlds GREATEST resource. That's not including what we've done to the land.

Also the extraction of natural resources =/= destroying the planet.


Would you like me to post more synonyms of finite?

Then she proceeds to say how we steal resources fromt he Third World which is another outdated idea and shows a lack of common knoweldge on her part. The reason they are poor is because there's NOTHING there. The resources can't be used because there aren't even real laws.

Wrong! We do take whatever we want from third world countries. We offer them financial help, loans, etc, and in return we basically do whatever we want to them. We turn them into our bitches. Look at the situation in Jamaica as a prime example. If they don't want our help, we go behind the scenes to get what we want anyway. Panama canal anyone? I will say though, that it would have been more appropriate to use the term "developing nation" as opposed to "third world".

Now, being so nice she shows the production stage. Every chemical is represented with a skull because you know, everything chemical is bad.

AFTER THIS SHE GOT ME REALLY ANGRY. She said that most of them weren't tested for use and NONE OF THEM got tested for "synergestic use". This is not just false, it's stupid. This woman is not a chemist and knows nothing about chemistry. She is just lying and talking about things she doesn't know about.+

She agains equates chemicals with toxins. Idiocy on a pure level. She says "Toxin in, toxin out" which is laughable.

Are you chemist? Do you know what chemicals are or are not good for you. Do you know the effects of Acetaldehyde in the human body? Do you even know what that chemical is? I'll tell you. It's a carcinogen. Here's the kicker though. It's one of the active ingredients in mouthwash.

The general majority of chemicals ARE toxins. Are you going to go drink the drain-o under the sink and prove me wrong?

You have no idea how many of these chemicals you are constantly putting in and around your body. Learn to do some research before you try to shoot down someones claims.


Seriously guys, they are putting SODIUM in out food! And Chlorine too! Both are toxic and one explodes in contact with water! We are all going to die!

She starts talking about BFR (Some kind of flame retardants) and says all of them are toxic. Again given how much she knows about chemistry she is wrong.

Again, you're stating a claim with even less information than her to back it up.

At this point I stopped watching and I'm seriously considering to challenge her "facts", she is just hindering the progress of good ideas by her cheap propaganda.

And yes, I'm pissed.

Great, another pissed person willing to shout their opinions, just what the world needs.

And planned obsolescence doesn't apply to stuff that actually evolves like computers or cars, also they don't produce new cars so you dump your old one they produce new cars because you no longuer have a car.

They produce cars because they want to sell them. Car manufacturers don't give a fuck if you don't have a car, they want you to have six cars. Two for every member of the family. Also, they sit on new technology for as long as they have to.

Hybrid cars have been a possibility since the 80's. How come we never saw them before this green movement? Because car companies knew they could just sit on them. Someday those cars would sell like fucking hotcakes, all they had to do was wait. Planned obsolescence is a product of cars and computers almost entirely. It's something that is constantly being changed with technology, at an ever increasing rate.

Guitars, books, clothes, furniture. All these are fads. It's not even possible to have planned obsolescence with these things.

[trdbglr]

Anubis, you're out of line. We don't attack other people on this forum because we don't like their ideas. You've embarrassed yourself.

[vejita]

...at least she said that recycling isn't contributing squat. The best I can consider recycling would be cell phones and computer parts, and there have been strides in paper recycling... Regardless, anyone who argues about this crap doesn't have much to say if they're a game collector...