We all have stuff. In fact, our lives are filled with and often revolve around stuff. Funny, though, it seems rare that people take much consideration of the life cycle of the stuff that they interact with. The things that we bring into our homes and our lives are too often there due to someone else’s compromise. The economic system that we have North America largely exists due to exploitation, and much of the stuff that we produce and dispose of has a negative impact on the environment and our health.
This short video is a very well informed look into the life cycle of stuff. It is fast paced, articulate, and is well worth the 20 minutes that it will take you to watch it.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 am and is filed under environment, humanity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This story makes me so angry and sad, I actually felt tears coming to my eyes as the video ended. At first I thought she said “1% of purchased items in U.S.A. remain in use after 6 months”, but after a review, I realized she was saying “1% of total materials flow through this system is still in productive use after six months”. This is something we can handle.
So 99% of resources harvested and processed is trash within six months. We are living in a trash-generating system. To consume means to generate waste. So there are several sides to this coin.
1) Consumption as a value in and of itself needs to be taken down from its’ high pedestal. We need to find other motors to drive our economy. Although in a perfect, no-waste, cyclical system, consumption in and of itself is not necessarily bad. Still, people would do good to rediscover community building and family time as prime happiness-generating activities.
2) Consumers need to be made aware of the total impact (and real consequences) on peoples and environments of the items they buy.
3) We need to move from trash-generation to resource-re-harvesting. The end of a product must mean the beginning of a new. Either that, or we must decimate the global population by 75% and go back to a simpler way of life.
This story makes me so angry and sad, I actually felt tears coming to my eyes as the video ended. At first I thought she said “1% of purchased items in U.S.A. remain in use after 6 months”, but after a review, I realized she was saying “1% of total materials flow through this system is still in productive use after six months”. This is something we can handle.
So 99% of resources harvested and processed is trash within six months. We are living in a trash-generating system. To consume means to generate waste. So there are several sides to this coin.
1) Consumption as a value in and of itself needs to be taken down from its’ high pedestal. We need to find other motors to drive our economy. Although in a perfect, no-waste, cyclical system, consumption in and of itself is not necessarily bad. Still, people would do good to rediscover community building and family time as prime happiness-generating activities.
2) Consumers need to be made aware of the total impact (and real consequences) on peoples and environments of the items they buy.
3) We need to move from trash-generation to resource-re-harvesting. The end of a product must mean the beginning of a new. Either that, or we must decimate the global population by 75% and go back to a simpler way of life.
April 9th, 2008
4:23 pm
That is definitely not a three sided coin that we want to flip. All three of those points (great points, btw) are really necessities for us to move forward.
RE: #1. I agree that in a perfect closed system consumption could be something that could be valued for strong economies, but there is no way to jump directly into that system. William McDonough is often suggesting that we will see a future where growth can prosper and exist with a healthy earth. The transition to that period, though, is seemingly impossible without lowering the levels of consumption. There are too many changes to take place, and I don’t believe that the consumption rate that we are experiencing will give us enough time to cross that bridge.
So I guess that brings us directly to number 2 being ever important…
That is definitely not a three sided coin that we want to flip. All three of those points (great points, btw) are really necessities for us to move forward.
RE: #1. I agree that in a perfect closed system consumption could be something that could be valued for strong economies, but there is no way to jump directly into that system. William McDonough is often suggesting that we will see a future where growth can prosper and exist with a healthy earth. The transition to that period, though, is seemingly impossible without lowering the levels of consumption. There are too many changes to take place, and I don’t believe that the consumption rate that we are experiencing will give us enough time to cross that bridge.
So I guess that brings us directly to number 2 being ever important…
April 10th, 2008
12:31 am
Annie Leonard states, and I quote …”food at the top of the foodchain with the highest level of many toxic contaminants, human breastmilk. Human babies are getting the hightest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals when breastfeeding.” This statement is incredibly shocking and cause for great concern, it also requires more in depth discussion. Upon doing a little research, what I found is that the statement appears to be grossly exaggerated.
First of all, breastfeeding can counteract any adverse developmental effects caused in the womb, despite current PCB levels in breastmilk. Breastmilk contains antioxidants, which seem to compensate for the toxic effects of the environment.
Secondly, Breastmilk also helps babies develop stronger immune systems. The most harmful effects of toxins are from exposure to said toxins while in the in the womb, not from breastfeeding. As well, babies are exposed to dioxins in the air they breathe at a far higher level than in the breastmilk they are drinking.
And finally, according to the WHO, a breastfed infant’s estimated daily intake of dioxins and PCBs is higher than the recommended daily intake, however, by taking a few simple steps, such as avoiding harsh household chemicals, eating organically and limiting the amount of meat that a mother eats, the dioxins can be reduced greatly. Accoring to he Food Standards Agency (in the United States) levels of PCBs and dioxins present in the environment and entering food chain, have been falling consistently since the mid-1980s.
My point? Well, the trouble with this short animated tale of “stuff” is that it is so condensed it cannot possibly address a point such as the breastmilk issue in the detail that it neccessitates. As well, by watching such a video we are bombarded with a stream of “facts” that we must assume to be true, when really, they may have very few grounds for truth. That is not to say that what Annie speaks is or isn’t true, its just that we must be careful about what we take to be the “truth”, and always, even when something is appealing in its simplicity, take time to seek out what is true to us.
I cannot possibly attempt to claim that I am, by any means, an authority on the level of toxins in breastmilk, and the research I did was basically a few articles based on a Google search. However, this was enought to remind me of what is really important, not only “The Story of Stuff”, but also “The Stuff of Life”.
If anybody is interested in references, I’d be happy to give them.
Annie Leonard states, and I quote …”food at the top of the foodchain with the highest level of many toxic contaminants, human breastmilk. Human babies are getting the hightest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals when breastfeeding.” This statement is incredibly shocking and cause for great concern, it also requires more in depth discussion. Upon doing a little research, what I found is that the statement appears to be grossly exaggerated.
First of all, breastfeeding can counteract any adverse developmental effects caused in the womb, despite current PCB levels in breastmilk. Breastmilk contains antioxidants, which seem to compensate for the toxic effects of the environment.
Secondly, Breastmilk also helps babies develop stronger immune systems. The most harmful effects of toxins are from exposure to said toxins while in the in the womb, not from breastfeeding. As well, babies are exposed to dioxins in the air they breathe at a far higher level than in the breastmilk they are drinking.
And finally, according to the WHO, a breastfed infant’s estimated daily intake of dioxins and PCBs is higher than the recommended daily intake, however, by taking a few simple steps, such as avoiding harsh household chemicals, eating organically and limiting the amount of meat that a mother eats, the dioxins can be reduced greatly. Accoring to he Food Standards Agency (in the United States) levels of PCBs and dioxins present in the environment and entering food chain, have been falling consistently since the mid-1980s.
My point? Well, the trouble with this short animated tale of “stuff” is that it is so condensed it cannot possibly address a point such as the breastmilk issue in the detail that it neccessitates. As well, by watching such a video we are bombarded with a stream of “facts” that we must assume to be true, when really, they may have very few grounds for truth. That is not to say that what Annie speaks is or isn’t true, its just that we must be careful about what we take to be the “truth”, and always, even when something is appealing in its simplicity, take time to seek out what is true to us.
I cannot possibly attempt to claim that I am, by any means, an authority on the level of toxins in breastmilk, and the research I did was basically a few articles based on a Google search. However, this was enought to remind me of what is really important, not only “The Story of Stuff”, but also “The Stuff of Life”.
If anybody is interested in references, I’d be happy to give them.
April 14th, 2008
2:50 am
The trouble with simplicity lies in the intent.
Simple communication has been proven to be the most effective means to reach large audiences by mass media empires of the 20th century. They did so by skipping facts, generalizing, and providing an accessible message. The intent of these empires has communicated a message that is very detrimental to sustaining life on earth, and it has been very well received by tremendous audiences.
The fundamental message or intent of this video was not to quit feeding your newborns breast milk, but the strength of that statement provokes one to further inquiry. I understand that there may be gaps in the information that Annie Leonard presents, but in my opinion, the intent of this video is simply communicating a very important message.
I also think that a problem that this video is not addressing at all, but is contributing to our current situation is the lack of critical thinking. That problem, though, requires not only a lifestyle change for individuals but a change in many current systems that are very well rooted our way of life.
The trouble with simplicity lies in the intent.
Simple communication has been proven to be the most effective means to reach large audiences by mass media empires of the 20th century. They did so by skipping facts, generalizing, and providing an accessible message. The intent of these empires has communicated a message that is very detrimental to sustaining life on earth, and it has been very well received by tremendous audiences.
The fundamental message or intent of this video was not to quit feeding your newborns breast milk, but the strength of that statement provokes one to further inquiry. I understand that there may be gaps in the information that Annie Leonard presents, but in my opinion, the intent of this video is simply communicating a very important message.
I also think that a problem that this video is not addressing at all, but is contributing to our current situation is the lack of critical thinking. That problem, though, requires not only a lifestyle change for individuals but a change in many current systems that are very well rooted our way of life.
April 14th, 2008
4:31 am