# The story of Stuff



## CyBeR (Oct 21, 2011)

Ok, I know I may cause a bit of a ruckus with this, but it got me quite wondering: HOW STUPID DO THESE PEOPLE THINK WE ARE?

This is part of a series that rallies against common trends that are ruining the planet, proposing solution for the Average Joe and Jane, all the while denouncing the black voodoo arts of marketing employed against us.
All the while using the same techniques as they are denouncing, attempting to mislead, misinform and downright frighten the average consumer into believing THEIR mantra. 

Anyway, I may be off the ball here, so I'd like to hear some more opinions on this. 






I agree to recycling and I agree with products made to last...but I do not agree with millions of people starving on streets because one company has basically destroyed its competition and itself in actually destroying demand for one object. 
And while toxicity may be high in SOME factories, I have yet to see one that's even a fraction of as bad as she says. I live in frikking Romania, NO MAN's LAND for lots of things, and even factories here have taken all precautions for employee safety. And I don't mean small time factories run by some family, I mean international giants with yearly profits that would make a man go insane at seeing the sum. And even here you can work at least in safe environment, not to even mention how machines are built for such operations. 
And on and on, "I have seen", "I have been" in nice little drawings that offer no real proof for what's shown.

Anyway, I could rant more...but I'm really curious of opinions.


----------



## Metryq (Oct 22, 2011)

There's no doubt that the concerned-for-the-planet greenies mean well, but as you said, there is distortion and misinformation all around. We're forced—by law—to buy those "corkscrew" CFL bulbs to save the environment, yet each one has a drop of mercury in it. Most of them quit in far less time than old style incandescent lamps. (I'm a fan of LEDs, actually. And while they are not entirely free of electronic "toxins," they are much more robust, last a very long time, and use less power than incandescent. I'm sure something even better is coming after that. But CFLs? Don't drop one, or you'll have to call in a hazmat team.)

Don't even get me started on hybrid cars. What the production of those batteries does to the environment more than negates any advantage in mileage. (I see hybrids on TV boasting 50 mpg, yet I have a 2002 gasoline Honda Civic that gets 44 mpg—42 if I use the AC. And that's in mixed driving on a daily commute that is almost half "city.")

Many "green" solutions are feel-good solutions only, sold with a lot of hype. As others have pointed out, nuclear power has multiple advantages, one of which is recycling. Many materials can be "burned down" to raw materials and separated with a nuclear plasma. But it's hard to develop and implement such technology when (especially in the US) many people go into a fact-free, hysterical tailspin when "nook-ya-ler" is mentioned.

The answers may not be easy, or quick, but people need proper information to pick the right answer. The video was devoid of facts, and the only "solution" offered was to "let the brainiacs figure it out." 

Good plan.


----------



## DMZ (Oct 22, 2011)

What MOST green people dont understand is that most if not all of there plans have major drawbacks. Like electric cars for one, bad for the environment and with all the **** thats in them. Pluss if the car brakes down on the road and the battery fails it has a chance of electriuting the occupants (something they dont tell you).


----------



## Metryq (Oct 22, 2011)

DMZ said:


> it has a chance of electriuting the occupants (something they dont tell you).



First responders hate electric cars. They can't just apply the jaws of life or use some other cutter willy-nilly. So the victim sits there bleeding while they try to figure out where they can cut without unleashing an uncontrolled arc welder.


----------

