Have you guys seen this?
I am thinking of leading a discussion group on the video at my church and was wondering if you folks have any background, scuttlebutt, or opinions about the video or the people who made it.
If you have time, take a look and share what your impressions are.
THANKS!
I think Cecil would have a stroke trying to fight all that ignorance…
We tried to get Annie at our annual meeting and she is booked solid. That’s good news! I have not led any discussions on it in a formal setting, but I talk about various aspects of the cycle of “stuff” all the time to interest groups, corporate types and anyone who will listen. Leading discussion groups like you are suggesting is a fantastic way too get the message out there, and a wonderful way to spend spare time. Not all of us can fight the good fight all the time, so it takes lots and lots of “one-man-shows” to make a difference. Good on you newscrasher for bringing this to the forefront.
I think since I’m not a third-grader, I don’t appreciate being spoken to as though I were one.
I also like my propaganda more stuble, and less red and rectangular.
I also think that if that woman were any more patronizing, the world as we know it might cease to exist.
And really, if we’re going to grossly oversimplify things with diagrams, can’t we at least do so without pretending that what we’re doing is explaining the true story behind concepts that have been grossly oversimplified with diagrams? That’s an irritatingly circular construct she’s working, there.
This is not to say I necessarily disagree with her underlying message, but I find her method of getting it across incredibly grating.
Great! That is the kind of feedback I am looking for. Anything specific strike you?
Opinion: I watched about five minutes. It bored me. I don’t have time for this kind of boredom.
Also, why does everybody make their computer-generated cartoons twitch? This is very annoying. I’m sure the idea is to make it look like, oh, somebody drew this on a bunch of cards and is flipping the cards…yeah, that’s it, that’ll be cool. But the computer generation is supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT on the old flipping card things. Hey, we’re digital now, get used to it.
I am hoping it will be more of a conversation starter and not an in-depth thesis on the subject. Maybe just give people some ideas of how to live more responsibly.
I was wondering if there was any political agenda or other baggage anyone may have been aware of.
I think the underlying message is very necessary, but there were soooo many times I wanted to yell CITE! I didn’t mind the childish tone so much, but I think a higher commitment to factual accuracy would have been nice. I would get examples but I’m tired haha. Overall I think it would be a great beginning for a group discussion.
The $4.99 little green radio example seems to ignore all the economic forces that allow a business to sell a product at that price. I don’t know enough about economics to argue about this, but I know we aren’t getting the whole scoop on this topic. Mass production and inferior materials could easily allow for a cheap product like this.
She claims that a corrupt relationship between big business and government is the driving force behind this whole cycle. I’d argue that businesses are bound by the forces of economics, and the government enforces polices to keep that system in check. Corruption does exist, but it is the exception, not the rule.
She wants to severe the capitalistic tie between business and politics, claiming that the government’s role is to protect individuals, not companies. That sounds a bit like communism, if you ask me.
I couldn’t watch it to the end, but she ignores the massive environmental efforts of the last decade, like recycling, energy conservation, emission standards, eco-friendly packaging, open space preservation, etc. Our wasteful habits won’t be eliminated all at once, but she seems to think the US hasn’t done anything to improve the condition of the environment.
Her computer description is horribly inaccurate. She claims that one little piece of a computer determines it’s effectiveness, and that piece is changed every year, thus making upgrading impossible, and rendering year old computers obsolete… I can only assume she is talking about the CPU, which generally can not be upgraded economically (although it can be upgraded). Hard Drives, memory, and video cards often have a bigger impact on performance, and these components can be upgraded easily, and can often be reused, because of their compatibility. Even without an upgrade, a computer can fulfill the needs of an average user for many years.
Overall, I think her message is important, but her dumb-it-down method of delivery is ineffective. The Story of Stuff would have a great overall impact if it presented factual information and an accurate criticism of our wasteful tendencies, then just telling us “trash is bad, mmkay?”
For anyone looking for cites, the “Recommended Reading” section of that website has a bibliography.
As for the dumb-down approach. Written material in newspapers and online is scaled to the fourth grade level on purpose, and has been for a long time. This is designed so everyone can understand it; from your 9 year old to the corporate executive.
This may well be the case, but she projects a really, really patronizing attitude (or at least that’s the way I felt about it). I am exponentially less likely to pay attention to the message of someone who’s offended me within the first 30 seconds of their presentation by making me feel like they think I’m the mental and intellectual equivalent of a fourth grader. I get the feeling the OP wanted a sort of grade for the effectiveness of this as a tool to start a dialogue and for me at least it’s an epic fail. I don’t even disagree with the underlying message. I just find the manner of presentation sufficiently obnoxious that I’d have a hard time discussing the issues. I think that this video is more likely to alienate people who support the view than to sway the undecided, frankly. I know it alienated me pretty thoroughly - and killed any urge I had to discuss environmental issues deader than disco. And I thrive on debate.
I also get the strong feeling she’s doing a lot of cherry-picking to support her quite obvious personal bias. Which, in turn, makes me doubt all of her factual claims. As CoG888 pointed out, she pretty much ignored all of the environmental effort that’s been made in the last couple of decades - a great deal of which was encouraged, if not spearheaded, by various levels of governmental agency, from federal to local. I’ll point out that the federal government has been quite active in promoting and funding (either directly or indirectly via various incentives and tax relief measures) various environmental initiatives - I personally think they could do a lot more, but I can’t honestly say they’re not making an effort, either.
Working int he field I see all manner of approach to Environmental awareness. Annie’s approach is a little Elementary School but perhaps her audience is not academics, but people who will listen to this kind of approach. A church group, where you do not know everyones expertise or level of understanding would be a fine place to show this. A collegiate classroom? Not so much - but it does have it’s place in society as a teaching tool.
The green, sustainable, environmental movement that is sweeping across the globe needs to reach everyone, not just the uber smart SDMB clientele. 
Her message is loud and clear for some circles, but for others, it is a little elementary, and could use some augmenting.
Do you seriously feel offended by this? I really don’t think the creators of this little video had any opinion of your intellectual abilities. I’m having trouble understanding why anyone would take the simplicity of the presentation so personally.
I only made it about 1:20. Boooo-rrring. The concepts I can read about on the website (bad design!) seem to be the same old arguments, perhaps with a little more aggressive “buy less!” attitude.
My guess on the graphics, from what little I watched: she wants to give an almost handmade, “little guy” appearance to her presentation. Nice, modern graphics would look too flashy, hip, and corporate; they take some level of professionalism to look nice. Wiggly line, monochrome graphics give the appearance of something quickly sketched on a napkin, far away from any high-tech stuff.
This might be a question for a different topic, but maybe our society should change the way we present information to people? If newspapers, magazines, and other media like this video were presented in a more academic manner, it might just improve the audience’s knowledge.
If Cecil has taught has only one thing these 35 years, its that we need to think for ourselves, and be skeptical of the information we read and hear. The national media’s 4th-grader-approach contradicts the Straight Dope’s fight against ignorance. Maybe it’s time for the media to graduate to junior high.
Offended is probably the wrong word, but did I feel like she was patronizing me? Hell, yeah. It was a combination of a lot of things - her tone, her word choice, the use of the Schoolhouse Rock-esqe graphics, the level of oversimplification - a lot of little things.
While I fully admit I’m totally not her target audience (since I do have an academic background in biology, chemistry and environmental studies), I forwarded that link to a couple of my friends who do not have that academic background (just the link with a note reading only “what do you think of this?”) and they had the same response I did. One of them was a philosphy and literature major and the other one has an AA in Theology.
If her intended audience were actually fourth-graders, that would be one thing. I’d still have some issues with it (mostly the ones I mentioned before), but it would at least be age-appropriate. I don’t think that presenting a viewpoint in an elementary school way is an effective way to communicate your view to adults. It irks a lot of adults. The thought pattern being “I might not know all the technical details, but I’m not a freaking idiot, either”.
My SO just came home from work and had this recommended to him by a couple customers. I brought up youtubeon the Wii and we watched it on the TV. After about 90 seconds I got really irritated at the hyperbole being presented as facts. Then it got worse while the woman whined and lectured on about her idealistic world view which at some points were contrary to her view on how “it should be”. The “facts” seemed dubious at best because the woman’s intentions and bias were quite clear. We made it to the end but by then I was arguing with the TV as if Palin were back on it.
Presenting falsities like they are fact that any reasonable person should accept is annoying and deceitful.
I have to agree with this; I couldn’t stand more than 2 or 3 minutes.