Story Of Stuff Analysis

In the short video, “The Story of Stuff”, the narrator, Annie Leonard, explains the story of material “stuff.” Annie examines how materials are produced and consumed by people, and how this process degrades the natural world and also can have health effects on humans. She first explains how natural resources are exploited by corporations. She also spends a minuets explaining how the government has lost power to huge corporations. Additionally, she notes how one-third of the earths resources have been consumed in the last three decades. She explains how degrading these resources is polluting the air, water, and hurting biodiversity. The next part of the linear system she describes is production of materials— factories. She argues that we are

using over 100,000 synthetic chemicals that haven’t been tested for health effects and warns that this factories are creating toxic materials and polluting the water and air. Then she explains how the “stuff” is sold in stores for low prices. She asserts that the costs of good are externalized, thus they don’t represent the true cost of goods. Moreover, she explains how store workers are usually low paid workers and don’t have benefits. The last two stages in this linear process are consumption and disposal. She explains how consumption is the key to the entire process— she calls it the golden arrow. She asserts that the current increase in consumption in recent decades has been due to new social trends, that have been ingrained in society by corporations. Leonard, explains how products are being produced to be thrown out, this is called planned obsolescence. Additionally, she explains perceived obsolesces, which is when societal norms make certain goods look outdated or obsolete— this is usually done through advertisements. As a results, the typical American will work to make money, buy goods, then realize those goods are obsolete, and so they work more and then buy stuff and it becomes a cycle.Lastly, she explains how we produce about 4.5 pounds of waste a day— and this does not include the industrial waste that is produced to make these products. Waste in landfills can leek into the local environment, and if it is burned can pollute the air. In the end she maintains that the current economic system is not focused on sustaining the earth and its resources, and this system needs to change.
In the second video, “The Story of Solutions” the narrator, Annie Leonard, offers some solutions to the problems described above.

First, she compares the system I described above to a board game and the goal of this game is economic growth—essentially growing the GDP. In order to change the game, one must change the goal of the game, thus she recommends that we change the goal to “better.” By better she means “better education, better health, better stuff, and a more sustainable life style. In order to change the goal, people need to propose game changing solutions, not new solution to the old game. She emphases the role of the citizen in her solution proposal and asserts that an active citizen can help make a big difference. She uses the acronym GOAL standing for: Giving more people more power, open people eyes to true happiness, account for all costs, and lessen the wealth gap. She asserts that cooperatives and recycling programs will help achieve the goal of better. Overall, she encourages communities to find solutions that promote sustainable living, and this sustainable living is better for all of

us.
I found both videos very interesting, and I agree with their analysis of the current economic system.

I agree that world should be worried about exploiting natural resources and pollution; however, I do have critiques of the first video, “The Story of Stuff.” First, the narrator attempts to find somebody to blame. It is obviously she is only focusing on American consumers, because she never blames the consumers, but attacks how government officials have manufactured the way we see the world, yet we a lll know that it is an individuals choice to consume these goods. Essentially, this reasoning gives every American an excuse to continue to buy goods because they have trained to consume stuff. I would assume the narrator’ would say that if education was improved—as she suggest in the second video— then we wouldn’t have been easily deceived by reaction to my opinion would be perceived and planned obsolescence. However, I would ask how she would pay for a better education? In this video I would argue that we forgot how big of a role the economy plays in our life. While, I agree that economic growth isn’t the answer for everything, but it is still a huge part of making a better society. Now I agree that the goal should be making life better, yet she doesn’t explain how society will find money to make things better. Thus, I don’t think we need to change the game we are playing, but rather society can just change the goal. Realistically, capitalism isn’t going away, but it can

be reformed if people begin to speak up and voice their opinion, and then maybe peoples lives and the planet will get better.
Lastly, I wanted to discuses the idea of sustainable living. She mentions how developed countries exploit the resources of other countries, but I would argue that she doesn’t emphasis the fact that people in developing countries are at greater risk of being harmed by pollution and environmental problems. Now, it should also be mentioned that our consumption of cheap goods employes people in developing countries— we should also note how these workers are not paid well and have awful working conditions. Therefore, if her audience, the American people, were to begin to stop buying these goods— because she argues for less consumption and more local business— then, this people won’t have jobs. So even if American follow her solutions, a new problem arises in the developing world. Developing countries would be challenged with environmental concerns—we caused— and the lack of jobs— because their is no demand for goods. Overall, I don’t think she is accounting for the costs that would occur if communities became self-sustainable, because this would slowly hurt the international economic system— unless every great economy adopts this model. In short, the environmental concerns are valid and need to be addressed, but we should also look at how these policies impact people’s livelihood.