Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Heroes and Giants
So, I was referred over to this website to watch this movie: http://www.storyofstuff.com/ , which was a succinct way of delineating the Problem. However, I already know that I'm part of the choir that it's preaching to - my angst and reluctance of having to go shopping over these few past months for basically everything is one of the reasons why everything has been moving at the rate of molasses. Why on earth would I buy a frypan "just for now", "you can replace it later", when that is part of the Problem? I thought, dear small number of readers, that I would also pass on this movie to you; to challenge you on your consumption patterns, and whether that is truly being a good steward of all the Good Things that have been made by the Good One....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As far as it goes to challenge us on our consumption patterns, this film is useful. Buying stuff to stay trendy or feel accepted is a problem. Buying stuff that you don't need is just as wasteful. There's also temporary things that don't need to be, like disposable cameras and CDs (hello AOL) which they mentioned.
There were other parts of this film I just found ridiculous however. First of all, that 99% of the stuff we buy essentially needs to get rebought within 6 months (or as they say, "trashed") is not very alarming. Checking our monthly expenses, I find maybe 90% of our money goes into stuff like food, gas, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc. Things that run out or are consumed. The most common items to come in through our door are groceries. Since they're talking about Goods (ie: stuff) those things must have been included, and yet they are unavoidable.
Secondly is the pointless political jabs. A) They suggested the government could be represented by a tank, mentioning the large US military budget, which has nothing to do with this subject. B) They claimed that Bush didn't say people should grieve, pray, or to hope in response to 9/11, and only that they should shop. That's patently false. C) The only Presidents they implicated in contributing to the problem were Republicans (Bush and Eisenhower). In both cases, they suggest that these guys somehow made us become consumers by their design, as if we weren't consumers all along and that the war-time rationing of WW2 had no effect on post-war consumption. D) It is not only Corporations that influence the government against the will of the people, but also the multitude of well funded special interest groups! For instance, environmentalists often clash with the Labour Unions, since they benefit from increased development. Why not complain about them, too? Because those people represent the will of workers (aka people), whose interests are harmed by environmentalists! People have different ideas as to who represents "their will".
The points stated on what makes computers obsolete is not accurate. The CPU form factors don't change as often as they state, and there are other more dynamic components that can be upgraded to get more life out of a PC. Most people don't need to change computers for years, and used computers can now be recycled or re-used in schools or in 3rd world countries. Is that considered off-loading our trash, too? I've never thrown a computer into the trash, myself.
Dioxins are not the most toxic man-made substances known. That is fear-mongering. While 80% of the sources for dioxins were from incinerators, after 1987 there were measures put into place that helped reduce dioxin production from incerators by 90%. That makes incineration a minority source for dioxins today. Technology advances, and incineration may end up being a very good solution to landfill problems (which are still local problems, as Ottawa garbage goes to Carpe, not a 3rd world country).
Stating that the purpose of a country's economy is to produce more consumer goods is 100% accurate! Health care, education, safe transportation, sustainability and justice are the responsibility of the *government*, not the economy, except in the case of Communism. Ironically, in Communist systems, most of those needs go unmet because their economies tend to be weak. If someone doesn't like Capitalism on principle, why do they allow themselves to benefit from it?
I think there is substance to the quest for sustainability and reduced waste, but this film is rife with over-simplification, mis-direction and sometimes falsifications, to the extent that it almost completely distracted me from the subject. In the end, it is too alarmist and it won't endear itself to the people it offends either politically or intellectually. It's a feature all too common in some Environmentalists' diatribes.
I do disagree with this point, for several reasons. But, I am too lazy to deal with them right now. I will point out, however, that President Bush's immediate post 9/11 speech, did, in fact, point out to the fact that the American economy would be open on September 12th, as usual, and businesses would continue to operate. Very little about hope or grieving, except at tail end of speech. Talking about the economy at 'such a time as this' was, frankly, crass and demonstrates some of the priorities that people make when in crisis... honestly, who the hell cares in a time as that whether the shopping malls will be open the next day?
Post a Comment