the story of stuff
[Image Description/Credit: Shipbreaking Yards, Chittagong, Bangladesh. Brendan Corr, for Foreign Policy Magazine]
Over at BoingBoing, the fabulous Cory Doctorow points to a 20-minute documentary entitled “The Story of Stuff“– a stinging indictment of consumerist culture that tries desperately– and fails desperately– to marshal the case against consumer capitalist culture. Its a tragedy, really– after all, there are so many real problems that are masked behind the distortions, half-truths and exaggerations. Is going so over the top really worth it?
Firstly, let me point out that, as a rule, I believe that the consumer culture of the West is a huge problem. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that problems all along the linear system of extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal are illustrating the need for a sustainable solution. There are problems of natural resource exploitation, there are problems of pollution at all ends of the spectrum, there is a problem of corporate interests gone awry, and there is a lack of governmental oversight at every stage.
However:
Observe how “The Story of Stuff” vastly oversimplifies a complex problem in its attempt to damn megacorporations as its villains– specifically, I might add, American corporations. Observe how their own fact sheets contradict there claims. (“98% of the forests in North America have been logged” is a significantly different fact than “there are only 5% of our forests left”). Observe how the notion that one can simply replace a processor in order to upgrade a PC to the latest is fantastically– and, I might add, obviously– erroneous. Observe how many of the problems along the lines of the ultimately finite consumerist system occur on an international level. (China, after all, recently passed the United States in CO2 emissions).
The sad part is, there are real problems. The Third World is exploited– but often, not by corporations, but by corrupt governments. Pollution does run rampant, but often in areas of the world where local and international governing agencies fail to adequately enforce set environmental standards. Corporations do attempt to demoralize consumers into buying the latest product due to the fact that it is a fad– but most people don’t obey in sheep-like lockstep. And yet at the same time, though many Third World governments exploit their own people, Wal-Mart exploits a great deal of people in places like China. Many corporations do contribute to the problem of pollution. And many consumers simply want, regardless of ads. The point is: the problem is complex.
And oversimplifying it in the service of a naked political agenda isn’t the answer.
Which is why ex-Vice Presidents are allowed at once to preach at Americans for their shameful CO2 output while creating a carbon footprint triple that of the average American family. Its why millions die in that same Third World due to needlessly restrictive bans on DDT. It is why the modern-day indulgences of “carbon credits” allow corporations and public figures to sanctimoniously pretend like they can buy their environmental salvation.
At the end of the day, the people behind “The Story of Stuff” and people like me want the same thing– a sustainable, clean future. We seem to disagree however, on how to get there.
Your point about the blame being significantly on the corrupt governments is a good one. One also has to turn back on our own government for providing the corruption of the money system that has allowed our consumers to go on rampant spending sprees.
As I’ve spoken on a myriad of blogs and forums, it is the corrupt Federal Reserve that has enticed us to become spenders. Instead of giving us a solid money that ends up being worth more over time (soft increases in the value of money), we have a money system that goes worthless very quickly if you sit on it. This is all due to the FRB, and thanks to the inflationary money system, most people would rather get something for their money today, rather than see it go worthless tomorrow.
Couple that with our wonderful fractional reserve banking system, and you end up with too much credit created out of too few reserves for that money. Easy credit = easy spending = overspending = raping the environment.
I’ve found a nice solution to this problem: stop being a pack rat/clutter freak/toy geek. Fill your home with air and spirit, and invite your friends over to feel the amazing sense of owning little, but having a lot of space. When people visit our (small) home, they always comment on how calm and simple it feels. 4 sets of dishes, 4 sets of bowls, 4 sets of silverware, 4 sets of glasses. No need to tons of storage, or the evil closets (which we mostly tore out and replaced with small wardrobes).
The other thing I think helps is entering an accountability pact with another family that wants to downsize spending: get together with this accountability partner, and be open about your credit card bills each month. Let them castigate you if you spent too much.
In a world where we all seem to want to live in 4000 square foot homes on 6000 square foot properties, is it any wonder that people are depressed, angry, lonely, and unhappy? Change that by changing your home and self first. Good things follow.
Excellent post.
A.B. Dada
December 5, 2007 at 11:13 am
Great article and I agree with most of the points. My only disagrement will have to be on the explotation of people in China by Wal-Mart and such comments. Where I understand that they do not share the standard of living that we, 1st world, have, would it not be worst if corporations were not there to create jobs? Part of the problem is the lack of negotiating that goes on by the corrupt governments not to fight for better wages and what “better wages” really means. In 3rd world countries what is considered a pitance is actually leaps and bounds above not having a job at all. I was born and raised in Guatemala: in many years there I saw that many would have preferred to have a job instead of having it taken away because the government took it away when they kicked out the “yanki” out of there, and then were fed the lies that it was better for them: I think negotiating and diplomacy would have gone a lot further as both sides always intrinsically need each other. Here int he US this is highly evident: my local Wal Mart stores employ people that in many cases may not be hireable above someone else for physical and/or mental disorders. Yes, these people deserve jobs and such, but where is the logic in paying a doctor a WalMarts greeter’s wage? As human nature, and Darwin’s theory poinits to, all the doctors will become greeters as the incentive, survive as best as possible, will be gone: will the greeters be capable of becoming Doctors?
I truly believe that the time for “finger pointing” and trying to subvert nature are over. The best thing to do is to implement ideas and remove the obstacles like corrupt governments and naive people (environmentalists first), and if this takes force then so be it. Peace is not free and it takes all, yet chaos takes only one: so it will probably never be reached.
J Gamboa
December 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm