story of stuff

[Delirium]

A good synopsis of our economic system from an environmental and health pov. Pretty disappointing that she doesn't just lay out that socialism is the answer at the end but still a good video. Before i get attacked for posting this let me just say, use your critical thinking skills to asses the information.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[mykittyhasaboner]

I saw this a while ago, I thought it was cool because of how illustrative it was. I agree though, that she didn't suggest socialism as an alternative.

[Vanguard1917]

Lol, are we supposed to be taking that vid seriously?

Sensationalist eco-propaganda of the more vulgar variety presented as factual information...

Also, her patronising tone of voice and her cartoons are extremely annoying.

[Vanguard1917]

I saw this a while ago, I thought it was cool because of how illustrative it was. I agree though, that she didn't suggest socialism as an alternative.

Why would she mention socialism as an alternative? It is after all a system which seeks to make humanity far richer through mass, colossal economic development. In other words, an environmentalist's worst nightmare.

Environmentalist objectives are antithetical to those of socialism.

[Delirium]

Why would she mention socialism as an alternative? It is after all a system which seeks to make humanity far richer through mass, colossal economic development. In other words, an environmentalist's worst nightmare.

Environmentalist objectives are antithetical to those of socialism.


Sure a goal of socialism is to eliminate poverty world wide through economic development and redistribution. Another goal of socialism is to have sane long term planning for humanity. Reproducing or continuing or current infrastructure, energy use patterns, and physical economic systems now or after a socialist revolution is not in the long term interests of humanity.

As i interpreted it all the video was saying was that the way we produce, consume, and dispose of goods is ineffecient, harmful to our health, exploitative, and unsustainable. It seems to me that those are something that a socialist would be concerned with.

[Vanguard1917]

As i interpreted it all the video was saying was that the way we produce, consume, and dispose of goods is ineffecient, harmful to our health, exploitative, and unsustainable. It seems to me that those are something that a socialist would be concerned with.

The video is basically saying that people in America are too rich and are consuming too much. For examle, in one part of the video, the woman complains that the average American is now consuming twice what Americans consumed in the '50s and that they no longer 'value' things like 'thrift'. She also moans that houses in America are bigger today than they were in the past. In other words, people in America are too wealthy. And, if those in the developing world wanted such living standards, we would, according to her, need multiple planets.

Also, if you check out the website which accompanies the video, you will see that it's focused on lowering consumption levels. It also advocates US economic nationalism in order to 'promote sustainability' -- e.g. 'buying local' and not traveling abroad.

[butterfly]

Since this is science and environment I'm quite interested to see the data that disputes her concern, rather than the repetative labelling of 'sensationalist eco-propaganda'.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why would she mention socialism as an alternative? It is after all a system which seeks to make humanity far richer through mass, colossal economic development. In other words, an environmentalist's worst nightmare.

Environmentalist objectives are antithetical to those of socialism.
I understand this, and that was the point of mentioning that she did not critique the current system from a socialist point of view, rather an environmentalist one. However despite her environmentalist approach and her vague nationalism, the video wasn't THAT bad of a critique of the current system. She rightly mentioned how the production and distribution of all this stuff is ineffective and wasteful, If anything I like it because it uses illustrations to help people think about capitalism and what needs to be changed; but instead of using her shitty alternative we can use a proper one that espouses further economic development, instead of reactionary anti-consumption crap.


Since this is science and environment I'm quite interested to see the data that disputes her concern, rather than the repetative labelling of 'sensationalist eco-propaganda'.The only alternatives she is really presenting is your average environmentalist method of "going green". She constantly complains that were using "too much stuff" and that were "running out of stuff," and that the answer to all of these problems is to produce and consume less. I'd say that sounds just like any other 'sensationalist eco-propaganda'.

[Hit The North]

Lol, are we supposed to be taking that vid seriously?

Sensationalist eco-propaganda of the more vulgar variety presented as factual information...

Yes, how dare she attack the poverty wages and poisonous conditions faced by third world (and some first world) workers. Doesn't she know she's arguing against the progressive growth of capitalist accumulation?

:rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

The only alternatives she is really presenting is your average environmentalist method of "going green". She constantly complains that were using "too much stuff" and that were "running out of stuff," and that the answer to all of these problems is to produce and consume less. I'd say that sounds just like any other 'sensationalist eco-propaganda'.

Actually she calls for "a system which does not waste resources and people".
She might not know it, but that sounds something like socialism to me.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Actually she calls for "a system which does not waste resources and people".
She might not know it, but that sounds something like socialism to me.

Sure, but shes way off when it comes to how to get to this "system which does not waste resources and people."

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, how dare she attack the poverty wages and poisonous conditions faced by third world (and some first world) workers. Doesn't she know she's arguing against the progressive growth of capitalist accumulation?

:rolleyes:

What's the conclusion that she draws? It's that we were better off when we were poorer (in the 1950's when average consumption was 'half' what it is today and when our 'grandmothers' were forced into 'thriftiness' as a result of serious material scarcity) and that the 'third world' should not even think about trying to raise living standards to the extremely modest levels of the US median because, for that, we would need 'five planets'.

What exactly is there to defend about this anti-working class, pro-austerity, anti-development diatribe?

[Vanguard1917]

Actually she calls for "a system which does not waste resources and people".
She might not know it, but that sounds something like socialism to me.

No, socialism is a system which aims to massively advance the productive capabilities of human society in order to raise productive output to a level which today's middle class Western eco-miserabilists probably see in their worst nightmares.

There is nothing whatsoever in common between socialism and the political objectives of the bulk of the environmental movement.

[DesertShark]

I thought the video was a good explanation for people who don't know how consumerism took hold and how the products we use get here.


What's the conclusion that she draws? It's that we were better off when we were poorer (in the 1950's when average consumption was 'half' what it is today and when our 'grandmothers' were forced into 'thriftiness' as a result of serious material scarcity) and that the 'third world' should not even think about trying to raise living standards to the extremely modest levels of the US median because, for that, we would need 'five planets'.
I thought of it more as we should consume less so that the 3rd world could raise their standard of living.


What exactly is there to defend about this anti-working class, pro-austerity, anti-development diatribe?
How is anti-consumerism anti-development? And how is anti-mass consumption anti-working class?

[Vanguard1917]

I thought of it more as we should consume less so that the 3rd world could raise their standard of living.

How did you get that? And even if it was true, how would workers in the West consuming less result in workers in the developing world consuming more?



How is anti-consumerism anti-development? And how is anti-mass consumption anti-working class?


Because if you oppose general rises in mass consumption, it's the masses that you're targetting.