Humans and locusts are the only creatures that completely decimate the environment they exist in but unlike locusts we do not have the ability to survive dormant in eggs once said environment is no longer able to sustain us. How is it that we the “most” intelligent creatures on he planet cannot manage to be better than insects? Yep that’s right we humans in all our infinite wisdom have far less ecological sense than an ant. It is due in large part due to our ability to design. Our ability to design allows us to inhabit environments that would not normally sustain us without adapting. This ability has fostered the idea that we can design ourselves out of every problem. Other species, that don’t have this option, have either evolved to their environment or migrate between environments that can support them and where they fit into the environmental schema in some way. Even those that cannot, will not or do not die off and their remains provide a service to the eco system that they could not be a part of. Herds of Wildebeest eat the grass of the Serengeti, their waste fertilizes the soil, nourishes the insects, they themselves nourish the predators which prevents over grazing and so on. In essence they help propagate the life cycle. Other creatures are forced to evolve physically and mentally by their environments, we have not adapted physically to our environment rather we have evolved mentally in a direction that allows us to believe we can force our environment to conform to our needs. Look where our arrogance has gotten us.
What is “Green” design? Green design has honest, good intentioned origins but then again “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. “Green”, like “Organic”, has become a marketing buzzword. People are capitalizing on an ever so slightly raised awareness to sell more products. By “slightly raised awareness” I mean aware enough of the issue to know that it is an issue but not educated on the subject. So they buy organic and green products because “we need to help the environment” without having a deeper understanding of what the costs and benefits are. Cooling a house in Arizona from 100 to 70 degrees, a change of 30, has less environmental impact than heating a house in New England from 0 to 70 degrees, a change of 70. Most people would think that because the cooling requires an air conditioner, which they know is bad for the environment, is worse for the environment than using natural gas, electricity or a fireplace to heat your house. I believe the zero impact concepts are both unattainable and impractical. Obviously business cannot continue as usual, so what are we to do? I think the “waste = food” idea proposed by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book Cradle to cradle is the future we need to achieve. We need to attain a net positive impact. Yes we should recycle the waste we already have but we should be pushing VERY hard to develop products, systems, materials and lifestyles that can coexist with nature.
The governments of the world need to take a hand in “green” design/living. They need to establish mandates and regulations that determine what is “green” as they did with “organic” moving it to organic. Also environmental studies need to be a required part of school curriculums. Educating our population about the environment is paramount to our survival as a species. Reading books like Design like you give a damn and Cradle to cradle should required reading. Raising the collective knowledge level from “aware” to “educated” is an absolute necessity. Maybe given the monumental election we just had some changes will start happening. Here’s to hoping. Our generation has been left with a great burden and a vague, but expanding, consciousness of the environmental catastrophe and how to “solve” it.
We the next generation of designers need to educate ourselves so that we may put forth considered products that use materials in an appropriate, thoughtful manner. Imagine a product made of plastic that was designed and fabricated to last twenty years (or more). Would this product, which by design and/or necessity made use of the non-degrading nature of plastics, be less “green” than a product made up of all recycled materials that was designed with today’s one to five year product life policy? As most materials are recycled they lose some of there integrity thus after a few times they are totally useless. What of products made of recycled polymers that use over molds that prevent them from being recycled again? Some products may require the use of certain materials some may not. Cradle to cradle is the epitome of a “green” product. The physical book, as a product, is made from fully recyclable polymers instead of paper making it longer lasting and less susceptible to damage i.e. becoming waste. The ink used has less environmental impact than traditional inks and can be easily removed thus making it infinitely more recyclable. The tenets put forth within the pages educate the “user” and seem like more realistic ideas. We can’t get rid of consumerism, but we can alter how and what we consume. Designers need to look to natural systems to help design positive impact products. If the designers and the consumers gain a deeper baseline understanding they can be mutually more demanding of each other. I don’t believe that we as designers can force understanding or change upon the consumer but we can do our part and push for others to do theirs. Our ability to design has brought us to the brink; hopefully as a species designing together we can pull ourselves back from the precipice. Reading Cradle to cradle inspired me, read it, hopefully it will inspire you.If we open our own eyes perhaps we can help others understand what they are seeing when they open theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment