The story of stuff

I watched a bit of the video and read the thread...much better discussion here than in the video, which is to be expected.

I honestly went in with high hopes. Her initial comments (the government is our mommy/daddy bit) and her overall tone, which I found to be condescending, drove me off. Sad as that may be, you'll never get far in an argument by delivering grossly overstated facts as if you were talking to a group of four year olds. Her arguments may have been well intentioned, but I felt as if she was insulting her listeners' intelligence with the way she presented them.

Also, her delivery is all off - she presents her view, her conclusion, then sprinkes a couple statistics and moves on. If you're that convinced of your argument, present the facts FIRST and let them speak for themselves.

I prefer the style of Capt. Charles Moore to this wacko. This is a great example (IMO) of a well-delivered talk that presents more facts than bias, and ultimately allows the viewer to draw a conclusion. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic.html

Same message in both, but with a bit of humor, some good facts and a distnict absence of holier-than-thou pontification.

How does "the government is supposed to protect us from large corporations" get turned into the government is our mommy/daddy?

Peoples brains are truly just wired differently. The liberals run around saying "the sky is falling" and the conservatives run around saying "youre doing a heckuva job brownie!"

The video had a good message, but it was pretty poorly written, and half the viewers are just going to turn it off because it attacks their values.

So now we're both paraphrasing.

Here's the direct quote: It’s the government’s job is to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their job.

I take that as an overstatement of what government is for. In the annotated version of the script, she points to quotes such as "promote the general welfare" as justification for her comment. My argument is that she's overstating that by saying it's the government's job to take care of us (implying average citizens are incapable of doing it themselves). Yes, the government should promote general welfare - it should create an environment in which its citizens can thrive...I don't think this is what she's saying.

Either way, I agree with your final statement. I was looking forward to information, but some of her statistics are so far exaggerated it makes her entire argument moot. A previous poster mentioned Michael Moore, and I think that's accurate.

She did succeed in generating discussion, though.

Has anyone here read Cradle to Cradle, by William Mcdonough and Michael Braungart? there they talk about, and show, how industry can thrive without harming the environment. the idea is not to just stop buying so much stuff, or get the government to watch out for us more, but to simply produce things in a way that is so healthy that the government doesn't NEED to watch industry, and we are free to buy as much as we possibly can or want. Whats more, in most cases, effective solutions can usually be put in place for less than what we're paying for our systems today.

One of the projects us car folk might be interested in that Mcdonough worked on was the renovation of Ford's River Rouge plant about ten years ago. He helped them install 454,000 sq.ft. of green roofs on their factory that retain stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife, absorb harmful chemicals, insulate the factory better, and COST $35 MILLION LESS than the traditional roof they were going to install. Regulation on things like stormwater runoff also pretty much goes away, which saves everyone here money because it no longer needs to be regulated by the EPA.

Whether you care about the saving the planet or not, or even if it needs saving or not, systems that are good for the environment and good for the economic bottom line are a win-win. Read about what Mcdonough is doing, he can articulate it all much better than i can, but the point is that there are real solutions out there that are good for people, the planet, and profit all at the same time. this is the future, not complaining about the way things are but actually SHOWING how they can be better.

Ugh, i really should be studying or something right now.

speedblind wrote: Yes, the government should promote general welfare - it should create an environment in which its citizens can thrive...I don't think this is what she's saying.

but.. the majority of americans do think that is what she is saying...

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/34857/The-Price-is-Right-Losing-Horns <--- I'm really going to start using these horns more.. They're awesome.

Jamesc2123 wrote: Has anyone here read Cradle to Cradle, by William Mcdonough and Michael Braungart?

read many books like this and they're great. The big issue is you need business to have some sort of carrot to get better production methods rolling. Efficency gains in their system, while energy costs are low, generally do not themselves justify the cost of the implementation of the new technology. With rising energy costs...... Hmm...

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/34857/The-Price-is-Right-Losing-Horns <--- I'm really going to start using these horns more.. They're awesome.

This is something I can agree on 100%. I'm thinking I need to walk around with an old sample-capable casio, fitted with a 6 X 9 speaker, of course.

I got to thinking about how much stuff I had, after a work mate sold his house and moved into a motorhome/RV. At the same time he was dealing with his mother's estate, and clearing out the little things that his mother had held onto; photos, postcards, ornaments, etc. I went into my garage and started cleaning out the accumulated stuff such as kids bikes, CD rack, old magazines, car parts etc. Created a little more space, but it felt so liberating letting that stuff go!

James May has a good article on stuff: http://www.topgear.com/uk/james-may/james-may-stuff-and-nonsense-2008-09-01

Stuff and nonsense

I’ve said before in Top Gear magazine that the price of fuel is actually an irrelevance. By the time you’ve bought a car, insured it, taxed it and put some aside for repairs, the cost of filling it up amounts to little more than a hill of beans.

Yes, occasionally the price of petrol goes up a bit, and we all moan about it, but then we continue to pay up and drive on. Same with beer. Same with smokes. Same with stamp duty. None of it really matters in the grand scheme of things.

But I’m now wrong, because all of a sudden, the price of fuel does matter, the sodding stuff is so expensive. Since you’re reading this magazine, your car is probably very important to you. And, chances are, you’re as depressed as I am by the fact that fuel is suddenly so disproportionately pricey. But don’t worry, because I have some great advice for you.

So far, most advice we’ve had on tackling the fuel price crises has been pretty hopeless. As we demonstrated on the programme a few weeks ago, there’s no point chopping in your car for something more frugal, because the amount of money you lose on the sale will far outweigh the savings you make through driving around in a diesel hatchback feeling miserable.

Neither can you realistically change the way you drive, because economical driving is defeatist and boring and unbecoming of anyone who enjoys cars. So it looks as though you’ve been right royally stuffed on this one, but you haven’t. There is an answer. What you need to do is change the way you live.

This thought came to me in, of all places, my kitchen, when I was rooting through its drawers and cupboards looking for something. I came across a device for forming mashed potato into balls, which was popular in the Seventies. I’ve never used it.

Neither have I used the spirit-fired sauce-warming device, the big flat thing for fish, or the rotisserie attachment for the cooker. I even own a small food mixer, but I can tell by looking at it that the last time it was used was for mixing paint.

So if you’re about to set up home or become a student, I would suggest this. All you really need in the kitchen is a medium-sized sharp knife, a big pan, a small pan, a frying pan, a pie dish, a cheese grater, a kettle and a toaster. You will never need the Nigella casserole, the Ken Hom wok or the Gordon Ramsey apron. You definitely do not need the thing for making parmesan shavings. This will probably save you a couple of grand over a lifetime, all of which can be spent on petrol.

I moved on to the wardrobe, where I discovered 1,001 shirts that haven’t been worn for a decade. All you really need are two smart shirts, a couple of T-shirts, two pairs of jeans and a suit for weddings and funerals. All the cash you were going to waste at Abercrombie and Fitch can now be diverted to the petrol station.

Same with shoes. You can only wear one pair at a time, so you need a black pair (for the funeral),a brown pair and something floppy for holidays. Put the rest of your shoe budget in the tank, and make the shoes you have last longer.

This is the great irony of the current fuel crisis. Here we are begrudging the cost of a mere consumable, but spending far too much money on material things that we don’t really need and that are just landfill-in-waiting. Even the greenies can’t argue with this one. Driving around will do less environmental damage than filling the world with junk, all of which has to be manufactured and distributed. And what do you get at the end of it? A trendy table lamp that your grandchildren will take to the dump when you peg it. You could have gone for a nice drive.

The trouble is that this doesn’t become clear until middle age, which is where I am now, and which is why I’m trying to warn you. Looking around my home, I can honestly say that, barring food, I need never buy anything again. Anything. Even if I live for another 50 years, I will never wear out all my shoes and shirts. I have too much furniture. There are at least 50 books on the shelf I haven’t read, and I am never going to make a coddled egg. I doubt I will even use up all the ballpoint pens in the drawer of my desk.

In fact, I’m beginning to wonder what I’m going to spend my money on. Beer and petrol, by the looks of it.

LoneWolf wrote: In fact, I’m beginning to wonder what I’m going to spend my money on. Beer and petrol, by the looks of it.

Finally, I'm ahead of the curve- I've been doing that for years.

speedblind wrote: I prefer the style of Capt. Charles Moore to this wacko. This is a great example (IMO) of a well-delivered talk that presents more facts than bias, and ultimately allows the viewer to draw a conclusion. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic.html

That was actually a fairly enlightening video. It also highlighted something that I wonder about whenever I do an oil change: what the heck is the best thing to do with these stupid bottles? I can't recycle them because they have several different chemicals that can't really be separated and can't be melted together safely. Throwing them away has obvious problems. And I don't have any purpose I could put them all to if I decide to reuse them. Sure, I could turn one or two into funnels, but that's it.

Is there a better way to do this? I don't want to spend the money to have a bigger idiot than me mess up my oil change. But I suppose I could go out of my way to find the oil I want in the big jugs so that I'm generating less waste material.

It's frustrating because, being a car guy it's nice to be able to pride myself on keeping waste out of a landfill, but I'm just hurting things less than the people around me, and I'm sure I could do something better.

The parts places around here will collect empty oil bottles. So do the various counties around here: Charleston, Berkeley (yeah, I know!!!), Dorchester etc. I generally take mine to the recycle center about 2 miles from my house.