We have got the whole world in our hands.

An ecological footprint measures how many Earths are needed to support the entire world population if they all lived like me. When I took the Ecological Footprint test online, it calculated there would need to be 5.3 Earths to support the world population if everyone followed my practices. Whether in our bedrooms or bathrooms, we tend to have more than we need. Today, it is unheard of that a family of four has only one car. Each eligible driver feels the need and entitlement to have a car these days. While going shopping, we do not shop for clothes anymore. Instead, we shop for brands. Essentially, we live in a world where there is simply too much “stuff”.

This simple concept is explained by Richard Lanham. A graduate of Yale University, Lanham has been a professor and a well-recognized author of several books including

• The Motives of Eloquence
• The Economics of {Attention}

 Currently, he serves as the president of Rhetorica, Inc., which is a Los Angeles consulting and editing firm.

Lanham, in his writings, explains that our surroundings are completely occupied. For example, as students at a large university, we live in a digital age where there are so many distractions that toggle our minds in literally every direction. Our society has become so advanced that we can sit in the same spot and complete multiple tasks.

“Actual physical location threatens to evaporate everywhere we look. Information, we are everywhere taught, has annihilated distance. Surgeons can cut you open from a thousand miles away. Facsimile Las Vegas casinos deliver Rome and New York on the same daily walk. You don’t have to go to the office to go to the office. You can shop in your kitchen and go to school in your living room. And, sadly enough when you actually do go out shopping, one mall seems like another. For what actually matters, physicality doesn’t matter anymore” (Lanham, 2)

Unlike our ancient philosophers or ancestors, we do not have to dig for information. It is available to us through a plethora of sources whether that be the Internet or hard-copy books. After all, “the World Wide Web is now document of billions of pages long. And as if digital overload weren’t enough, printed books still pour from the presses: over 160, 000 new U.S. titles and editions in 2002” (Lanham, 7). As a result, according to Lanham, we do not live in the information economy. Instead we live in the economy of attention. In such an economy, there is a scarcity in human attention, and “it can only be the human attention needed to make sense of information” (Lanham, 7).

The economy of attention consists of mainly two things: stuff and fluff. Stuff is the data or substance that is available to use 24/7. We can access it anytime and from anywhere. On the other hand, fluff, according to Lanham is style. What needs to be done is to convert the stuff into fluff. Data needs to be transformed into information. We need to filter information, and the biggest filter that is necessary is the filter of style. “The utopia of perfect information brings with it a return of stylistic filtration, of, as it has traditionally been called in Western culture, rhetoric” (Lanham, 19).

Contrary to the Greek and Roman philosophers we studied over the past several weeks, Lanham provides a refreshing, more relatable perspective to our discussion of rhetoric. Instead of sticking to the dictionary definition of rhetoric being the art of speaking or persuasion, he brings a unique twist to it. Lanham believes rhetoric to be synonymous to the economy of attention. His belief is “if information is now our basic “stuff,” must not our thinking about human communication be economic thinking?” (Lanham, 21).

Even though Lanham shifts from the more didactic approach taken by the philosophers in our past readings, we continuously see links from Cicero’s De Oratore. Cicero spoke about the art an orator must follow.

That since all the business and art of an orator is divided into five parts, he ought first to find out what he should say; next, to dispose and arrange his matter, not only in a certain order, but with a sort of power and judgment; then to clothe and deck his thoughts with language; then to secure them in his memory; and lastly, to deliver them with dignity and grace. [143] ( XXXI, De Oratare)

A more modified version of this is seen in Lanham’s work as he talks about how the art of rhetoric consists of knowing “how to find arguments and how to arrange them” (24, Chapter 1). He goes into more detail about presentation and communication. He explains how “memory allow(s) you to pretend that you speak spontaneously. Delivery allow(s) you to distribute the message in person” (26, Lanham).  Like Cicero, Lanham, too believes that an orator must be well-learned in order to persuade.

With there being so many distractions around us, we truly do live in an attention economy. Whether we are online or watching television, there is something flashing in our eyes every five minutes craving our attention. With a surfeit of information surrounding is, the question becomes what will force a reader to read a certain book or blog. The writing must contain something unique, such as style, or fluff, that motivates one to either upon a book or click on the blog.

I feel Lanham does a great job relating this looking at the topic of rhetoric from a more economic perspective. Holding a passion for the environment, I was motivated to calculate my ecological footprint, as mentioned above. Speaking in more of a literal sense about “stuff”, we need to realize that the more we have, the more we hurt the Earth. Hardin was absolutely right, we truly do have a “Tragedy of the Commons”, because we do not think about what the subsequent consequences of our actions are going to be.

Due to our carelessness over the years, we constantly face an increasing rate of global warming. Former Vice President, Al Gore, brought this to the attention of the world during his years in office. He continued to support this campaign after serving as vice president. Gore aims to spread awareness through many mediums including his famous documentary the “Inconvenient Truth”.

Instead of trying to change our lifestyles, we continue to follow our practices. Regardless, we must take a stand to prevent and protect the Earth from deteriorating further. Whether or not we all are tree-huggers, we need to step up and take responsibility for this Earth because we only have one and we need to keep it.