One of my favorite quotes comes from Confronting Consumption by Princen, Maniates and Conca. They say, "When consumption concerns are raised in mainstream environmental circles, they are too often dismissed on their own terms, readily converted to questions of production and technology." I found that this quote and the entire concept of the article really changed my perspective on the environmental movement. I guess I always knew that consumption was a problem especially here in the U.S. , but I never realized how big of an issue it was. As an environmentalist, my first thoughts in trying to attract community involvement always lead to activities such as recycling and using environmentally friendly products, but I never thought of addressing the issue of consumption. As we saw in the Story of Stuff video clip, consumption is the root of many problems such as displacement of international communities, destruction of ecosystems, pollution, etc. I think that technology and production go hand in hand with consumption for many things and therefore can't be dismissed, but the authors are right in saying that we can't blame only one or the other for all of our problems.

Another quote that really stuck with me and made me think in a new way is from the most recent book Cradle to Cradle. McDonough and Braungart explain that they, "see a world of abundance, not limits." If I was asked what I thought of this quote before class I most likely would have said that they're crazy and there's no way we can continue consuming at current rates and live sustainably. After reading their book, my thought process once again was turned around. I really love this concept of closing the circuit and producing no waste because it's one of the only optimistic and realistic solutions which we've read about. Very rarely do you hear that we dont' have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to change things. While this is a great idea, it will take some time and a lot of planning, but I think it has promise.

These two quotes may seem to be contradictory of one another seeing as one states that we consume too much and the other speaks of a world with "no limits", but I think they can work together. At the moment I don't think that we can continue with current design methods and consumption rates without harming the environment, therefore we need to start by consuming less until we can get a firm hold of a design concept which produces no waste. It's encouraging to hear positive ideas and see the environmental movement gaining attention, but I think we still need to give it a big push to get it in motion.

Interesting Quotes.

A quote from the paper by Bill Joy, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" illustrates a basic point that I feel needs to be kept in mind when discussing technology, people, and the environment. As a note, I do not agree with Kaczynski's methods either, but he has a point in that technology is not a benign force; the quote is, " Kaczynski's dystopian vision describes unintended consequences, a well-known problem with the design and use of technology, and one one that is clearly related to Murphy's law- "Anything that can go wrong, will." (Actually, this is Finagle's Law, which in itself shows that Finagle was right.)." Bill Joy goes on to describe situations where the use of technology has had unintended consequences, like antibiotics resulting in resistant bacteria. I love technology and would hate to live without the Internet, my computer, and electricity, but I also believe that technology will not solve all of the problems with the environment and has probably helped people create a few. Technology can be used to help lessen the impact people have, by being used to create renewable energy sources and things like that. We should not rely solely on technology as it can have unintended consequences. This also goes for things like GMO and things like that, as we do not know what could happen in the near and far future. It could end up being like CFCs where it is more harmful in the future or it could be a boon for humanity. 

Another quote I liked was from Cradle to Cradle:

"As long as human beings are regarded as "bad," zero is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the "be less bad" approach: a failure of imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species' role in the world."

I agree that being less bad is just as bad, but slower. People have to imagine a new world and work toward that vision. This does not mean that we have to follow the vision presented in this book, but that people need to know what kind of world we want to live in. Working piecemeal  on issues as they arise, like the polar bears or other endangered species, will not work as another problem will arise. We need to have a clear vision of what we want the planet to be like so that we can work toward it using all available means, including technology, the economy, industries, education, and the government. Hopefully, that vision of the future will include being good for the planet, but we cannot even start trying unless we know what we want the planet to be like. 

 

Cradle to Cradle is a great book which portrays optimistic and innovative thinking. McDonough and Braungart provided me with a lot of insight and I think their ideas are great. It gives promise to the environmental movement and helps us to see that things don't have to be so bleak. As the authors state, it's not necessary to go back to preindustrial times and live an uncomfortable life. We must simply use our creative thinking to reinvent the design process.

I found it especially interesting to hear the perspective that eco-efficiency is not the best idea. I always thought that the idea of efficient and sustainable buildings was a great idea, until I read about cases where sealed windows actually helped to trap more toxins inside the building and in some cases efficient meant less safe. Designing all products to be incorporated in a closed circuit system where they can be constantly recycled and produce no waste is a great idea! It would work to attract more community involvement and support for the environmental movement because people would not be forced to give up the comforts of life. This is a great book and I would recommend everyone to read it.

cradle to...?

Wow.

These guys GET IT.

I was completely impressed with the philosophy laid down by McDonough and Braungart in "Cradle to Cradle". They take sound science and environmental consciousness and attach them to a firm foundation of economic salience and money sense. Here are environmentalists who have removed themselves from the martyrdom of the movement, and are relishing the chance to get rich by getting green, and help other people do the same thing. These are the environmentalists the world will listen to: the ones who offer cooperative solutions instead of harping condescension and moral imperatives.

Their "Products plus" concept of the customer getting more than they bargained for by buying dangerous and unsustainable manufactured goods is a perfect example of how to use market forces to better environmental ends: it represents a monetization of environmental costs, and works in great concert with a natural services approach to quantify the value of a healthy environment and introduce it to the bottom line.

Their basic premise of design mirroring intent is a solid foundation for sound stewardship, and their ambition for a designed industrial revolution provides a lofty goal, the path to which is marked with incremental and tangible progress.

They sum it up best when they talk about their cooperation with large corporations. "How can you work with them?" their critics ask, and they respond just as they should "How can you not work with them?" The economy is the driving force of our society. Instead of viewing environmentalism as a drag on the economy, let's reinvent it as a way to incorporate perpetual growth and prosperity for our species, to make ourselves "native" to the planet again.

This is all the romanticism of environmentalism's past, wed to the pragmatism of its future. These guys have it right.

The ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle are quite intriguing. The stuff people can make can be just as useful after we are done with it as the stuff a cherry tree makes, to borrow an image used often by McDonough and Braungart. However, I feel that they miss the point when it comes to why nature does what it does. In order to survive in nature, you cannot do simply what you need to survive as, in nature, you compete against others and not simply just to foster future growth. The blossoms from the cherry tree may seem superfluous, but they attract animals who will take the cherry seeds far from the tree so that it can grow, without being out-competed by the parent tree. To connect this to people, its the same way studies have shown that people with a little extra body fat can better survive diseases. It is about survival and propagation of the species. 

That said, I basically agree with what they said. We should change the way we do so many things as the current ways we do things harm us and the planet. Basically, in the long run, we are decreasing our chances for survival and propagation of our species. That is pretty stupid. People are using things that we either know or suspect may be bad for us and then do nothing to prevent these same toxins from affecting future generations. A little, or a lot, of planning and forethought can help change the way people build houses, make soap, and do plenty of other things. Granted, localizing our actions isn't a revolutionary idea as people were doing it for generations. Not that long ago, much of what people did and used was tailored to their specific location and situation. People didn't essentially live the same lives in Miami, Mumbai, and Munich. People couldn't hold the same jobs, live in the same homes, and use the same methods of transport, but you can now. People should not be able to live the same lives in these very different parts of the planet. Trying to ignore the differences that exist on the planet just hurts the planet and everything on it, eventually. If we don't change what we do, there won't be anything left on this planet. Given what people are capable of, in terms of intelligence and imagination, it saddens me to think that ants are better stewards of the planet then we are. Given what people are capable of, we are also capable of being as good for the planets as ants are.