Last month marked the release of the blockbuster, “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax,” which became the top grossing film of 2012 with a draw-in of $122 million in its first weekend. Based on the book by Dr. Seuss, “The Lorax” is set in a city entirely made of plastic, where Truffula trees only exist in the memory of the older residents. A 12 year-old boy named Ted becomes curious about the trees and wants to get one to impress a girl that he likes. He leaves town in search of the Once-ler, who harvested all the Truffula trees to meet the exploding demand for his “Thneed” business. The Once-ler ignores the warnings of the legendary Lorax, making a desolate wasteland with his factories and forcing the animals to leave in search of new pastures.
The film is framed as an attack on capitalism and corporate greed, pitting the blame for environmental ruin upon the market. Even the song “How Bad Can I Be?” casts the Once-ler’s activities in the light of Social Darwinism, with survival of the fittest and maximizing profits as his highest goal. However, “The Lorax” fails to accurately represent issues of the market. Certainly, the aim of business is to maximize profits, but not to the extent of driving yourself out of business.
During the movie, the Lorax says repeatedly, “I speak for the trees.” No one actually owns the Truffula trees and the land, so the words of the Lorax do not carry any weight or authority. For some, this could call to mind a 1968 article by Garrett Hardin entitled Tragedy of the Commons. The basic idea of his argument describes herdsmen who destroy pastures through overgrazing of their animals because the lands are not owned by anyone and are held in common: “The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another…” These principles do not limit themselves solely to business. Think of a staff lounge refrigerator or kitchen, which no one bothers to clean, or even the unsanitary conditions of the Occupy encampments. Hardin emphasizes that “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”
The Once-ler had a profitable business with his Thneeds. There’s no indication that he had any competition, thereby giving him a monopoly. He did not have an incentive to harvest all of the Truffula trees because there were no external pressures from competitors. Therefore the tragedy of the commons argument does not explain the whole story. If it had been merely a question of competition, the Once-ler could have bought the land, closing it off to potential competitors and placing himself in the position to harvest Truffula leaves responsibly.
In the film, the Once-ler’s major fault is that he was not a principled entrepreneur, which is not to be equated with the activities of the market, a series of profit and loss signals. He broke his promise to the Lorax and cut down the trees because of his insecurities stemming from dysfunctional relationships with his family. The most troubling of those is perhaps with his mother, who says she always knew he would be a disappointment. Instead of being an assertive business owner, he allowed his greedy relatives or the workers to start calling the shots.
Don’t misinterpret my views on the environment. I think the environment is a beautiful thing that does need to be cherished, and it can be a source of joy and recreation for everyone. However, it is unfortunate that “Dr. Seuss’ ‘The Lorax” makes such a pointed and erroneous attack on business and capitalism.
