Actual Text: "40% of the waterways have become undrinkable"

Response: This is so scary to think about. Not only in the sense of lack of drinking water but what does this do to water life? How can we let 40% become undrinkable when every human being is dependent on water. What is going to happen when this percentage increases? How will we get water to drink? There is no substitute so therefore our waterways should be one of the most protected aspects of the planet!

Actual Text:"The food at the top of the food chain with the highest level of many toxic contaminants human breast milk.That means the smallest members are getting the highest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals from their mothers. Breast feeding is still best and mothers should definitely keep breast feeding"

Response: This caught my ear because umm its like an oxymoron! How can this woman go on and on about the contaminants in breast milk but then say its "still the best". I'm sorry I get her point here but this aspect made no sense to me. She just defeated her own argument. Why would a mother knowing this factoid she just shared with us ever think about breast feeding again? That would be like poisoning your baby and knowing about it.

“The Story of Stuff” Actual Text:
Annie Leonard’s differentiation between planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence was very eye-opening to me. The significant distinction between the two, yet the same underlying goal is an important concept to be aware of as consumers in a materialistic society.

Response to the “The Story of Stuff”
Planned obsolescence is stuff that is intrinsically designed for the dump. The products are made to be useless within a short amount of time so that consumers can throw it out and buy a new product, so as to stimulate the economy. Perceived obsolescence is the notion that people throw away products that are still useful. This occurs because people are tricked into thinking that products are outdated and useless because new models are rapidly coming out, so people are under the impression that they need to buy the latest and greatest product. Annie Leonard also presented the statistic that 1% of most products are still in use, 6 months after they have been purchased. This means that 99% of these products are trashed within 6 months, and the cycle continues. I think that this is a crime to produce products with such low lifecycles, and also to produce so many products that are not intrinsically different from a previous edition. This is deceptive and focuses on the bottom line. A sustainable method of business would focus on people, the planet, and profit.

“The Story of Change” Actual Text
The statistic that 74% of Americans support tougher laws on toxic chemicals in products is an overwhelming amount of people who demand change for the betterment of the planet.

Response to “The Story of Change”
This movie focuses on changing policies that are the sources of the problems. The changes to these policies cannot happen at the supermarket. Rules that work require real change from the source, and often by identifying the heart of the problem. The problem needs to be changed so that the right thing becomes the easiest thing to do. Everyone must work together until the problem is solved. Like leaders before us such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., we must take a big idea and blend it together with our commitment to change, and then take action that is unwavering. This percentage of Americans who want change is very impressive and I am confident that if these people worked together for real, committed change, this problem with sustainability and wastefulness can be overcome.

Actual Text 1: “The US has 5% of worlds population but we are using 35% of natural resources and creating more than 30% of the worlds waste. If everyone consumed like the US did we would need 3-5 planets.”

Response 1: After hearing this part of the clip I immediately went back and had to re-watch it in order to fully absorb the information. These numbers are absolutely mind-boggling. Considering the US populates only 5% of the entire world but are using 35% of natural resources just begins to exemplify how much people consume. The waste here is another issue entirely. We are accountable for much more waste compared to the amount of people that are producing the trash. If we continue to consume the way we do and start consuming that much as well (which is not very likely in third world nations) we would need many more planets than we have available to have the space to put all our “things”. Yet we are told by President Eisenhower in the 1950’s and early 60’s says later in the movie “Our enormously productive economy… demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption… we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at the ever-accelerating rate.” Once again I am perplexed at why we are still being told to consume. How is this valuable advice?

Actual Text 2: “Make things right by just going shopping…!”

Response 2: This part of the clip was right after the transformation of heal size varies from season to season was discussed. This very unnecessary phenomenon is due to marketing techniques of various advertisement agencies trying to get people to feel as if their current heal is “out of season”. The solution that is given to us is to go buy the new collection for the fall season instead of the out of date summer heals. This is ridiculous how marketing has control of so many sectors of our lives; it is honestly scary to think about. The clip discusses how this is a type of perceived obedience where the consumer is convinced to throw away the stuff that is no longer useful, or in other words, old. Commercials now tell us “YOU SUCK!” and make us feel almost ashamed of the “old stuff” and in a way force us to buy the next new thing, which only keeps this constant demand and supply an endless extraneous loop.

1. Running out of resources- we need to deal with it. 200,000 people a day are moving into cities to work factory jobs. Their health and the environment are at risk. The government supports these corporations because they are the ones making the money and improving the economy.

2. Our value is measured by how much we consumer. We are constantly being told to buy and shop more, even though we really don't need products. We are spending more money, but our happiness is not improving. Corporations make us purchase more and items and throw out perfectly good materials because they are looking to make higher profits.

Reactions:

1. In a couple of my classes this year I have been studying the problem of the lack of resources and our overindulgence. Firstly it frightened me because it was something that up until this year I was blissfully unaware of the threat. Within the next 20 years the demand for water will surpass the supply of it. This is an issue that is going to need to be dealt with immediately, and also something that so many people are unaware of. As the demand goes up and supply goes down we are allowing this natural resource to be held as this incredibly powerful weapon. By promoting the use of water in ways that aren't necessary we are taking away the natural use of water for so many individuals in countries with insufficient governments.

2. I never realized this until now, but it seems like the Government is constantly encouraging us consumers to buy more to keep the cash flow up. This does make sense, but by doing so they encourage corporations to take advantage of consumers. Corporation are constantly screwing consumers over for their advantage. Its a scary thought how selfish these groups are. Not only are we spending unnecessary money on unnecessary products, but we are taking advantage of workers rights in other countries. The worst part is that we look to materials to validate ourselves and we allow them to.

Text 1: In our current economic system, we are considered to be "valueless" if we do not own or purchase a lot of stuff. When I heard this quote I immediately thought back to my Catholic Education and remembered how God warned us to not commit idolatry. I am referring here to the worship/infatuation with materialistic items that give us "value" in our current economic system.

Response 1: Well, it seems like we dropped the ball on this one. We fail miserably every day to adhere to one of God's most primitive guidelines for humanity. We are glued to our iPhone, constantly reverberating our ear drums with our headphones, incessantly e-mailing, and then heading home to our LCD televisions and overhead showers. The value has shifted from the now idealistic, intrinsic value that a human has, to the superficiality of the measure of how much "stuff" a human can obtain. And our consumption is only increasing at the video states. Hopefully we hit a roadblock soon that will slow us down and shift the focus back to what it should be.

Text 2: The quote from Victor Lebow disturbed me. Lebow said we have to live to consume at an ever-accelerating rate. Are we really supposed to make consumption our way of life? Have humans evolved into such a transitory species that we have to practice such rituals to live?

Response 2: Unfortunately, our economy has harvested this way of life. Especially living in New York, where I most recently bought a small glass of Lemonade at the Columbus Circle Mall for $4.08. When the cashier told me the total I almost did a double-take. I have seen meals at a diner cost less than $4.08. That's what NYC is today. In order to make it here, you've got to spend it here. The economy has transformed itself into an ever-consuming money pit that needs constant contributions to stimulate itself. It really says something about inflation and the nation's debt when I'm spending over 4 dollars for a SMALL glass of lemonade. I didn't even look at what a large would have costed. All I know is, I'm moving down South where the sun is shining and a small glass of lemonade is affordable.

Video Text

1. I thought that this video had a lot of interesting facts that I didn't know about beforehand. One of the statistics that really stood out to me was "if everyone consumed like the U.S. then there would need to be an additional 3-5 planets." These 3-5 planets would need to be sustainable to live on like Earth.

2. Another statistic I found interesting in the video was that the smallest members of society (babies) are the ones with the most exposure to harmful toxins through breast milk and nursing from their mother.

Responses

1. This statistic is truly mind boggling because the 1 planet is already harmed by toxins and pollution, so I can't even imaging what would happen if there were an additional 3-5. Annie Leonard also mentioned in the video that today we are constantly identified as consumers, not mothers, children, etc. This a scary, but truthful statement because as a society we are in this "work, watch, spend treadmill." We are working harder than ever before, but when the workday is over we like to come home and watch TV and when we are feeling low, we like to shop. However, when we shop we are not thinking about where the material items are going , and therefore the items end up in the trash a few years after purchasing them. Also, I related to Annie Leonard's example of the "fat heel in a skinny heel world" because I am extremely interested in fashion and try to keep up with the latest trends, even if that means wearing an item I probably owned and threw out 5 years ago.


2. I found this statistic shocking because breast feeding a baby is supposed to be not only a maternal gift, but is also supposed to the improve the health of the baby. The fact that newborns are being exposed to such harmful chemicals and toxins through a natural process is saddening. It is is taking a beautiful and natural thing and turning it into something that people look down upon. I think as a society we need to be more conscious about where our materials are going because as the video shows, our trash comes back to haunt us. We cannot expect to just dump our trash in landfills and incinerators without any consequences.

Text 1: "In the past three decades 1/3 of the worlds total natural resources have been consumed."

Response: I was astounded by this statistic. I never knew we have wasted so many of our limited resources, and it's quite scary to think about. To put it in perspective that means out of the thousands of years man has been roaming the Earth and the billions of years that most of these resources have been available, in just the last 30 years, less than 1/3 the lifespan of a human in this day and age, 33% of it is gone. So someone born 30 years could very well see the entire depletion of all the Earth's natural resources in one lifetime. That is incredible and presses the need for research in renewable alternative energy.

Text 2: "Faith is taking the first step even though you do not see the whole staircase."

Response 2: I found this quote to be really powerful and completely true. Faith, by definition, is trusting in something you can't see or are not sure of. Therefore it takes a powerful person to have faith and it's a journey you undertake where the end is completely in the dark.

Text 1: "If you don't buy or own a lot of stuff, you don't have value." This quote stuck out to me because of how true it is in modern day.

Response: It is really sad to think that the world has become a place where anything of value has a price tag on it. It is really sad to think that so many people put faith in material things instead of their families or friends. I think in this day and age to many people forget about the more important things in life. We are too focus on our plans, our silly little plans, where we try to run our lives and the lives of people around us. Just take a step back and look at how integrated your life has become with money. Without it we can barely do anything, and yet with it we also can barely do anything. It is sad to thing that value has become so synonymous to wealth in this day and age. I personally love wealth, and the benefits that come with it. However, i do not believe that wealth is in anyway equal to value. Value is something completely and utterly different. Value is the importance of something to someone. Something of value is something that has ties with you. Something that is worth fighting, and dying for. Something that is worth all your time and effort. And sure this could be money, but it is also a whole lot of other things.

Text 2: “6 months after their date of sale only 1% of products are still in use… 99% of materials are trashed within 6 months.” This quote was not surprising at all, and it made me reflect on my own actions.

Response: Barely surprising, but realizing that you see these qualities in yourself is the real value of this quote. After looking at this quote in depth i realized how much of a wasteful person i am. I throw away good food, decent clothing, and a plethora of other things just because i know i have the money to get me more things. That is utterly disgusting. How can i throw away perfectly good food when other people around the globe are starving. Ignorance. I mean ignorance is bliss right? However, it is blatantly scary how easily it is to forget about the world around you when you are living in your own tiny little bubble. This statistic is saddening and even worse when you realize you waste just as much perfectly good resources as well.

-This video is full of statistics, and has facts about the United States and the world that are very easy to follow. She says things like “The US uses 30% of world resources and only 5% of population,” and that we would need 3 to 5 plants if everyone consumed at the same rate as the United States. Another fact is that “four billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year from the United States.”
-The amount of fact and statistics is something I really liked about this video. It allowed me to see how real everything is by the use of actual numbers. The facts are definitely things I was unaware of, and I liked being able to get this information in such an interesting way. I especially liked the fact about the resources used in the United States and the amount of planets that would be needed. It shows just how much we use, how much more we use than other countries, and that we should probably cut back on the amount we use.
-There is a part where she gives a stat about babies getting the highest dose of toxins from breast-feeding, but then goes on to say that “breast feeding is still best, and we should definitely keep breast-feeding.”
-This quote kind of confuses me. She states that breast-feeding is bad for children and it gives them many toxins. Breast-feeding apparently gives so many that babies have the highest amounts of toxins from their mother. She says it should be safe, which I agree with but I don’t really understand her next point. After stating how bad it is for the babies she still says it is best and should continue. I just don’t understand how that correlates, and how it can be fixed. I know that she believes the government should fix the issue, but I don’t know how since it is such a big change.

Points that stood Out
1) We have created 100,000 new synthetic chemicals that factories have created through production process of materials to make "better" and "safer" goods for us as end consumers.

2) What happens to factory works who are being taken advantage of or who are not fair trade? Will they suffer more when they are in less demand?

My interpretation
1) This fact about 100,000 man made chemicals that have been created through processing materials, chemicals, and toxins is frightening. These are chemicals that have not all been test as safe to the environment and to humans. The thought is that they are put into the air and are diluted. The issue is that there are many chemicals that are not proven to be safe or unsafe. But when these chemicals interact with the other thousands of created chemicals there is a probability that some of them will be dangerous to us. This was one of the most eye opening facts in this video that focused on sustainability of our economic system.

2) Is fair trade the best way? Can everyone at the bottom end of the spectrum survive in this system? Or will some suffer while those in fair trade benefit from better conditions? Some of the arguements will argue along the similar lines of public education and the voucher program, which is famous in DC. The program allows for some students the money to go to a private school who would normally not have the chance. The connection I see to fair trade is that only some benefit while a large amount still suffer from big corporations taking advantage of them (or public school students still have to go to bad public schools). Another relation is that the few in fair trade (and with vouchers) benefit alot but those not classified as fair trade are hurt even worse. There needs to be a way to bring everyone up. That needs to be the goal.

Text 1: "I didn't choose a world in which some people can afford to live green, leaving the rest of us to be irresponsible planet wreckers"

Response: I really enjoyed this video because of the message Annie Leonard got across about consumerism. This part of the video particularly caught my attention when there was a mock picture of "Whole Paycheck". I am a big fan of Whole Foods, and have heard it been called Whole Paycheck many times. I usually took it as a joke, but now it's' interesting to see that society does in fact make it hard for most people to consume responsibly and environmentally conscious. As the nick name implies, stores like Whole Foods are pricey and make it difficult for people to regularly buy from. I like how Annie Leonard highlights how the source of the problem is at the corrupt and failed government policies, and that the solution is through joint effort of citizens petitioning to change government policies.

Text 2: "Big idea + WE (commitment to work together) + Action = Change"

I really love how interactive and creative this video was. Even though Annie Leonard is using this to be apply to making environmental and social changes in the market, I feel like I can apply this to anything. This is the basis of how change works. She used Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as examples of how change may have seen impossible, but with these elements they are very much attainable. Especially in today's world where we can connect so easily with technology, social change, for example promoting more Fair Trade, is possible. I think we can apply these principles to promoting Fair Trade in our country and around the world.

Text 1:

“6 months after their date of sale only 1% of products are still in use… 99% of materials are trashed within 6 months.”

Response 1:

When I heard this I paused the video. That is a disgusting statistic. It made me think that all of this is for nothing. It makes me feel piggish. So we are ruining the world, the atmosphere, the natural resources, land, etc. just so that we can consume and dispose within 6 months? That’s insane. I wonder how much of that statistic involves things that are meant to have a short life span, such as household items like toothpaste, paper towels, etc. compared to things that should never really be thrown out, like clothing, shoes, furniture, etc. If the statistic involves much of the latter, I wonder why. Do that many people really throw out tangible items instead of donating or selling them? To be honest, I am skeptical of the validity of this statistic.

Text 2:
Planned obsolescence: designing and producing products in order for them to be used up (obsolete) within a specific time period. Products may be designed for obsolescence either through function, like a paper coffee cup or a machine with breakable parts, or through “desirability,” like a piece of clothing made for this year’s fashion and then replaced by something totally different next year. Planned obsolescence is also known as “design for the dump.”
Perceived obsolescence: the part of planned obsolescence that refers to “desirability”. In other words, an object may continue to be functional, but it is no longer perceived to be stylish or appropriate, so it is rendered obsolete by perception, rather than by function. Fashion is all about perceived obsolescence, and it could be said that perceived obsolescence is the number one “product” of the advertising industry.
Response 2:

In a way, I appreciate how innovative many companies are. I appreciate that they are able to come up with new and/or improved technologies so quickly. However, much of that appreciation comes from my skewed perception of innovation and improvement. How much are companies actually improving their products compared to how much they are using technology to either make products obsolete after a certain period of time or convince us that they are?

The Story of Stuff

“Planned obsolesce is how fast can you make something break that leaves consumers faithful enough to buy a replacement and perceived obsolesce is when the look of products are changes so that consumers feel the need to buy new to keep up with society.”

When this was mentioned in the video, I began to think about how true this statement was. I have never really thought about how often it becomes necessary to replace the things we have. I feel like the iPhone is the perfect example of a product with perceived obsolesce. A new iPhone is introduced roughly every 6 months to one year. While there are some advances in the technology of a phone, a previous model of an iPhone does not stop working; consumers simply feel the need to keep upgrading to keep up with the new advancements. As crazy as it sounds to buy something new when we currently own essentially the exact same product, many of us can agree that when you are sitting in the Fordham cafeteria with an iPhone 4, you feel a bit out of place. The list of example to prove these two ideas seems endless.

The Story of Broke

“Money from our taxes goes to oil companies and big bank bailouts but not to build a better future”

A majority of this video focused on the issues with our government and how taxes are spent. Like The Story of Stuff, I never thought about any of these issues until they were presented in the video. The government is able to pay for things like bailouts and offer subsidiaries to big corporations but there always seems to be concerns about paying for schools and having enough for social security and medicare. While I would like to think the government is always mindful of the best interests of its people, I think about my high school and wonder why there was such a struggle for resources in a public school. This really made me think, where are all the taxes we pay actually going?

Ethical Objections to Fair Trade

“Pre-announced visit by Fairtrade accountant every 5-6 years is not likely to pick up non-compliance”
“Fairtrade monitors the price paid to exporters. It doesn’t control what happens to the money nor does it monitor how much reaches the farmer.”

I thought this article brought up a point of view that should be considered when thinking about the goals and practices of Fair Trade. If there are people who still have the questions and doubts like the author of this article, how can we prove to them that Fair Trade is doing something good? How can we continue to make Fair Trade more transparent? I think that this article could be used to help improve Fair Trade and make changes to help expand the idea.

The Story of Stuff:
I was extremely surprised by the stats used in the video. I never knew that 40% of the waterways in the US have become undrinkable. That makes me wonder about the states in the midwest and south that are more likely to experience a drought. If 40% of the waterways are undrinkable, then how do people in those areas get water? I was also surprised by the fact that 80% of the planet's forests are gone. 80% is a huge number and with that much of forest being gone, very little is left. Trees are vital for the ecosystem and help to filter out the carbon dioxide in the air. It would help reduce the carbon in the air if they were more trees, even if it was a small percentage. I never would have expected it to be 80% gone because there are countries that value their environment and countries where there are many trees prevalent. I was most startled by breast milk having the most toxins. I knew that what we consume would be transferred on to our babies but I never thought about it being through breast milk. I always thought it would be the purest thing that a baby could consume. But this video has made me realize that even breast milk is harmful.

I agreed with the point in the video: "If you don't buy or own a lot of stuff, you don't have value." In society now, everyone watches what you own when they judge you and determine whether you can fit in with them. It has become all about what material possessions you have and you're cast out if you aren't up to spend with the latest products. The appeal of the products can be blamed for this. The advancement in technology has caused people to want to get the new thing because it's cool and they want to experience the change it has on the world. It's a smart way to get business, on the part of the producer, but a stupid decision on part of the consumer. However, consumers can't be blamed completely because of the ads and media that make these products so appealing. Shopping also takes up our time and is viewed as a wonderful pastime (as how I see it, even though I end up wasting my money), but it only benefits producers which doesn't do consumers any good because they already have millions of dollars. If the money was going to a fair trade entrepreneur I would say that would be a better way to spend money because at least a poor artisan can buy food for their family another day. They have a way to survive.

The Story of Change:
I didn't really see much in this video besides the stats. I never would have expected such a high percentage of Americans want better laws for the environment and energy when they waste so much. I think the best way to help the environment is not to rely on laws, but to rely on yourself to the do the right thing and save what you can when you can. I was amazed to see "83% of Americans want clean energy laws" when they themselves are probably wasting energy. It just seems to me like they're hypocrites. However, this is my own assumption and I'm not speaking from facts when I say they're hypocrites.

I did like the equation for change that was shown.
Big idea + WE + ACTION = Change
Yes it does and will take a long time to achieve change but at least its a start. According to the stats, a lot of people already want change, now all they have to do is come together. I don't think they need to do so physically but they can do it in the sense that they change their daily lives to save energy. Together, that would help greatly.

The Story of Stuff:
I was extremely surprised by the stats used in the video. I never knew that 40% of the waterways in the US have become undrinkable. That makes me wonder about the states in the midwest and south that are more likely to experience a drought. If 40% of the waterways are undrinkable, then how do people in those areas get water? I was also surprised by the fact that 80% of the planet's forests are gone. 80% is a huge number and with that much of forest being gone, very little is left. Trees are vital for the ecosystem and help to filter out the carbon dioxide in the air. It would help reduce the carbon in the air if they were more trees, even if it was a small percentage. I never would have expected it to be 80% gone because there are countries that value their environment and countries where there are many trees prevalent. I was most startled by breast milk having the most toxins. I knew that what we consume would be transferred on to our babies but I never thought about it being through breast milk. I always thought it would be the purest thing that a baby could consume. But this video has made me realize that even breast milk is harmful.

I agreed with the point in the video: "If you don't buy or own a lot of stuff, you don't have value." In society now, everyone watches what you own when they judge you and determine whether you can fit in with them. It has become all about what material possessions you have and you're cast out if you aren't up to spend with the latest products. The appeal of the products can be blamed for this. The advancement in technology has caused people to want to get the new thing because it's cool and they want to experience the change it has on the world. It's a smart way to get business, on the part of the producer, but a stupid decision on part of the consumer. However, consumers can't be blamed completely because of the ads and media that make these products so appealing. Shopping also takes up our time and is viewed as a wonderful pastime (as how I see it, even though I end up wasting my money), but it only benefits producers which doesn't do consumers any good because they already have millions of dollars. If the money was going to a fair trade entrepreneur I would say that would be a better way to spend money because at least a poor artisan can buy food for their family another day. They have a way to survive.

The Story of Change:
I didn't really see much in this video besides the stats. I never would have expected such a high percentage of Americans want better laws for the environment and energy when they waste so much. I think the best way to help the environment is not to rely on laws, but to rely on yourself to the do the right thing and save what you can when you can. I was amazed to see "83% of Americans want clean energy laws" when they themselves are probably wasting energy. It just seems to me like they're hypocrites. However, this is my own assumption and I'm not speaking from facts when I say they're hypocrites.

I did like the equation for change that was shown.
Big idea + WE + ACTION = Change
Yes it does and will take a long time to achieve change but at least its a start. According to the stats, a lot of people already want change, now all they have to do is come together. I don't think they need to do so physically but they can do it in the sense that they change their daily lives to save energy. Together, that would help greatly.