The ‘true’ Story of Stuff

Great critique of “The Story of Stuff”.

If you don’t know what “The Story of Stuff” is. Well its a video series by Annie Leonard, Greenpeace activist and a critic of excessive consumerism. These videos are a propaganda by her to show how capitalism is destroying the planet. The videos are full of outright lies and misrepresentation of facts and a mere tool for her to further her neo-communist agenda. Sadly however, these videos are being shown in US schools by teachers who thought, with their limited understanding of the facts of the matter under consideration, that these would be a nice way to teach students to be environmentally conscious.

Anyways, watch these videos which debunk her lies. Its pretty awesome.

And do leave comments. I would like to know your views on the matter.


6 thoughts on “The ‘true’ Story of Stuff

  1. “are a propaganda by her to show how capitalism is destroying the planet. The videos are full of outright lies and misrepresentation of facts and a mere tool for her to further her neo-communist agenda”

    When you make an allegation, spruce it up with proper arguments rather than saying big words like communist propaganda – that is an often used way when people cannot counter arguments put forward properly. Next time good luck.

    • For that you should watch the video. Gives enough examples on how she is wrong or lying. I don’t think there is much of a ‘communist propaganda’. Just that, there are still some fools who think communism might work. Scratch a environmentalist of today and you will very likely find a commie of yesteryear šŸ™‚

  2. Pingback: Architectural Technologist – The Story of Stuff
  3. Only watched Part 1, and I have to admit I was fooled by the video at some point too. Sadly, right now I don’t have time to watch the rest, though I’ve found that there are also some claims that the critic does not back up with solid evidence either.

    I discovered your blog through your comments in the Apple article on TechCrunch and I find them very interesting. I also believe that corporations are not good/evil and are only there to make money, and thus ethics and morals are irrelevant.

    I’m writing a research essay on what Apple and Foxconn can do to improve working conditions at Foxconn’s campuses. I’ve read the SACOM article and some comments criticizing its shortsightedness. However, there are some glaring issues that I think are unacceptable, such as not providing workers with proper protection when performing tasks involving harmful chemicals, and not providing workers the overtime hour pay that had been laid out in the official policy, for the reasons that Foxconn has been violated its own rules by doing that. Of course, I understand that the factory managers themselves are probably under more pressure than the frontline workers, and perhaps these problems are not as severe and important than the strict working conditions that these workers are put under. As I said before, I do not believe it is not the role of corporations to value ethics and morals, but there are organizations claiming to campaign on behalf of fair labour (assuming that they aren’t like the FLA, which you’ve mentioned to be quite weak). Do you believe that these organizations are capable of proposing a short term and long term solution that will allow manufacturers to gain an advantage over their competitors without denigrating assembly line workers under current conditions? Would Foxconn gain an advantage over its competitors by overhauling its primitive management?

    I apologize in advance if I’ve shown myself to be naive and ignorant; I believe that there is a way for corporations and the people to establish a balance. I simply want to know what you think about this subject. Thanks!

  4. Well, I think that ethics and morality are important for any corporations but there are no yardsticks to judge either. There are penalties for not abiding by the law but there are no penalties (in most cases) for unethical and immoral conduct.

    I do believe these organizations can play a part in proposing norms to increase worker safety but it is public pressure that will compel organizations to adopt such norms. In that sense, the current criticism of Apple would actually do well. However, the thing is Apple is not the only one, all other companies are doing the same. It is not fair then to put Apple only in the spotlight just because it’s a big target.

    Such measures would have a impact on cost of production for sure and Foxconn with it’s very thin profit margins would have to hike costs. Would the American people who are clamoring for better working conditions in Foxconn be ready for a more expensive iPAd? That remains to be seen

  5. I can see that a lot of (useless) hard-work has gone into creating this critic. A lot of what has been said here (with respect to the forest cover, the price justifications for dwindling resources) does not make sense and shows how the author has frivolously tried to justify all that is going on.

Let me know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s