Discussion: Chp 3 Cradle to Cradle
February 1, 2008 — sh4wn3noj4doThis chapter brought up several issues on how we can utilize our environment to live and exist as efficiently as possible. The community of ants is a powerful model on how we can improve our habits in consumption and production. Ants are able to effectively handle their wastes without harming themselves and other natural habitats, as well as to grow their own food while nurturing the ecosystem — these points being only a few from the mentioned in the chapter. Is it realistic as a technological and “curious” species for us to adapt the practices of ants? Is it reasonable for a good number of corporations and factories that produce the majority of the world’s pollution to change their production practices in order to produce less waste and to find innovative ways to produce using less, e.g. buildings that produce more energy than they consume? As people, are our daily “needs” dependent on an excessive practice that ultimately uses more energy than it consumes, creates more pollution, and kills our ecosystems?
Should one believe that with the science and technology with which we are equipped, that we can find alternative ways to drive cars that don’t kill the air, that use resources for packaging and books other than trees, that use other/new materials that can be returned to nature when “thrown away” and be inexpensive to make? Basically, are we smart enough to have the foresight to drastically change how we consume and produce — similarly to how ants consume what they need without harming their surroundings while also replenishing the land and its resources?
February 3, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I think it is absolutely reasonable and realistic for us to hold companies and ourselves accountable for using the technology we have developed to create a friendlier smaller footprint upon the world, and ant sized footprint. It seems to me that with as many ways technologically we have found to make our lives easier, create shortcuts, and progress our ability to make human life more comfortable and business more profitable, we should not have a problem finding alternative lifestyles and production processes to decrease our negative impact on the ecosystem.
I think the problem here isn’t that we cant do it, but that we don’t seem to see the immediate benefit in it for us. Humans have always been beings of immediate satisfaction, and if it doesn’t help us immediately we tend to forget about it. We haven’t made these eco-friendly cars, buildings, and factories because the people in charge don’t see it as profitable and the people who feed the economy (the consumers) don’t see the benefit to themselves either.
In other words, its less a matter of developing this technology as it is developing a mindset, thinking in terms of the earth’s health and our children’s future. Long term planning, not immediate satisfaction. Once consumers are enlightened and change what they want from the big businesses, then science will shift its focus to sustainability and eco-efficiency, instead of just profitability.
February 3, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You’re absolutely right! We don’t think about the immediate benefit of changing our lifestyles, therefore we don’t. We’re comfortable doing what works now. As a whole we are not willing to make changes now in order for our future generations to reap the benefits. If so, we’d all go out of our way to cut back on “excess” and rethink our practices.
Another question we could think as well is — do we really care about the welfare of our planet and how our children will live? Not many do — I don’t think about it most times to be honest — therefore I’m not “active” in really saving the world. Shame on me.
February 5, 2008 at 4:41 am
It’s interesting that Shawn presented the idea that our society might need be dependant on the practice of consuming more energy than we can produce and also putting out tons of pollution just to meet our daily “needs”. However, Chris and I both just finished watching a documentary entitled “Kilowatt Ours” that showed several ways on cutting back on costs effective for commercial and residential setting. What struck me as most interesting though was that by revamping out light fixtures to use green lightbulbs and replacing old appliances with energystar approved version and the addition of solar panels onto your house, which can be done easily and for minimal cost by volunteering with your energy supplier, that residential houses could actually generate enough power and send power back to the company for it to use elsewhere. It doesn’t seem that hard to me to get a few communities to revamp their houses to send a message to the public of these houses generating enough energy to help cut back on energy costs in other settings, such as businesses using this excess energy to help them lower costs and reliance on coal and nuclear power. Other examples presented included geothermal heating and cooling in residential settings and in schools to help cut costs. I forgot which city it was in Alabama that redid all the schools in the area for 24 million dollars but overall the community SAVES 1 million dollars per year on their energy bills. So while the up cost to start might be tough, I think in the end it is quite feasible to say that we could make a drastic improvement in buildings across America. The idea of the daylighting building with open windows and a green courtyard and roof sounds like a picture perfect place to work at. And if we can’t put turf up on the roof of the building, some solar panels wouldn’t hurt and could cut back on some energy use. Rather than do nothing we should advocate trying to do something. Any help is some help. Though we can’t forget what the book is trying to tell us: we can’t expect to just do some minor changes and everything will be better. These small solutions are only solutions for the here and now.
February 5, 2008 at 4:44 am
Ah yes, before I forget, the movie Chris and I saw “Kilowatt Ours” was presented by a new and upcoming group that is trying to become a formalized organization at ECU. The group is on facebook and though information is limited we are holding a meeting next Thursday at 7 in the rec center. Check it out on facebook the group is called “ECO-Pirates”. Though in retrospect, it sounds like we are trying to steal from the ecosystem rather than help it by promoting recycling and energy efficiency here on campus.
February 5, 2008 at 5:02 am
“Any help is some help.”
Like James just mentioned, I do recommend you check out the documentary Kilowatt Ours to learn some good suggestions about energy conservation. It is a documentary done in the South East US including NC, so it is very relevant to us.
I like the analogy of ant model. The ants don’t let anything go to waste. They inhabit as diverse a range of environments just like we do. But ants are able to hunt, scavenge, and grow their own food, build their homes, effectively handle their wastes, and create powerful medicines, all the while contributing to the health of the natural world.
I believe the tools and the research facilities do exist in order to create and develop sustainable cultures. Looking to nature(like looking at the ants) to solve issues is exactly what is happening and what needs to be developed on a larger scale. This form of study is called Biomimicry. For instance, MIT researchers are attempting to grow batteries like abalone shells grow and carbon nanotubes have been used to create self-assembling electronics. Other researchers are learning how to get from nanoscale materials to macro-scale products. As these nanotech and biotech capabilities improve, it will become easier and easier to grow things rather than build them. Hopefully with pollution regulations and growing awareness of resource scarcity people will become motivated to find non-toxic answers in chemistry.
February 5, 2008 at 5:25 am
I agree that we definitely have the technology to change our impact on the environment. I also agree with Bethany that our society is one that demands immediate results, which is part of the problem. I do believe that people care about the lives of their children and future generations. However, most people seem to pretend the damage isn’t really that bad. It’s easier for them to not face the negative truth and ignore what’s happening around them. The kinds of innovation mentioned in this chapter would involve re-designing everything around us. I think this fact is also why immediate results are not always visible. Think about all the buildings, cars, products, etc. that have been created over time. To fully embrace the “ant-like” approach, the everyday lives of each individual and everything they consume need to change. Something of this magnitude cannot happen overnight, but it is possible. I think if the majority, especially the corporations, start initiating the changes the rest of the world will follow.
February 5, 2008 at 5:52 am
People to tend to act on an issue when an event hits close to home or becomes personal. A lot of these things we talk about are personal issues for everyone, but I don’t think they are really portrayed this way to the public eye. Book and films such as Cradle to Cradle and Kilowatt Ours are trying to make the facts about global warming sink in and become relevant, but not everyone will have the ability or opportunity to view media such as the above. Maybe the content of environmental rhetoric needs to become up close and personal.
February 5, 2008 at 7:34 am
That’s great that “Kilowatt Ours” brought up these important and relevant issues about our energy resources. It sounds like it’s encouraging us to do our part by cutting back on energy costs, etc., which I hope does spur people to actually take action by taking the necessary steps to revamp houses, etc. I’m curious though if the film really made an impact on you two (after just viewing the film) to actually do something. I really want to see this movie and to see what I can do as well. I am in no way saying I’m doing all I can now, which makes me wonder if there are others (just like me) who say they’d like to conserve and cut back on energy costs but aren’t doing much at the moment. What will make people like me get up and do something today? It’s this lack of collective action (and immediate concern) that makes me think we’ll never change our ways.
February 5, 2008 at 3:08 pm
The point of making these issues relevant to people in their homes and ways of life seems to be one of the more effective ways to inspire change. The thought Shawn mentioned about what the world we’re leaving for our children is one of the ways to do this. It doesn’t have to be specifically our children, but anyone to come behind us. We should be living today to keep the world stable if not better. These movies that come out set in the “future” (based on our habits today) such as “Children of Men”, with it’s cold environment and poor health conditions due to the wasteful ways from these current times (i know it’s not super relevant, but it is one way to world could end up), provide an idea of what things might be like for those generations after us. That is not the way I want to leave anything for anyone to live after me.
The way of going about it will be different for everybody, but certainly seeing what the world could be like at the rate we’re going was effective for me to want change, and some other “up close and personal” form of communication will effect others.
February 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm
My assumption as to why not many people are active in saving this world is simply that they do not know what will happen. One will tend to think nothing will change, everything will be the same. Not everyone are informed on the facts. So for educated movies to appear and to spread these facts and information are a fine way to assure many to be active. These movies just need to be well directed and well convinced to go worldwide. Independent films (which i noticed that most are) will not do, as to not many will know or have access to them.
February 5, 2008 at 7:55 pm
We’ve seen media such as An Inconvenient Truth, receive mainstream attention in theaters nationally. The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regard to the climate. Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film regularly in science curriculum’s as well. Although, with praise also comes scrutiny. Many believe Al Gore misrepresented many facts about global warming while trying to promote himself on a glorified pedestal.
February 5, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Whitney brings up another movie that I need to see. I think all of you have brought up excellent reasons for us to initiate change in our lives. As you put it, we need more films and other media to spread among the populace in order to educate and awaken ourselves to act now.
I saw An Inconvenient Truth and I thought it was well organized and well presented. Whether or not Gore misinterpreted facts, I still think the message is clear that we have to work together now to stop further pollution, wasting, and overspending.
February 6, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’m glad the discussion has focused its attention on mass media/entertainment as a way of communication and awareness. Its one of the most effective yet unforceful ways getting a message out.
I too have seen An Inconvenient Truth and thought it was very enlightening and purely factual. Sure it is Al Gore but he left politics aside for this film. The film states that global warming has been Al Gore’s passion and interest since college and he has been involved with the records and data collection ever since. This to me is a perfect example of the type of mass communication needed to make an impact. I know people who thought the film was very well done and felt the need to ‘join the fight’ and others that thought it was a bunch of Al’s bullshit. But fact is a lot of people watched it and it reached a wide variety of people. That type of communication and exposure is pretty rare and hard to get. Sure there are books like Cradle to Cradle and films like Kilowatt Our, but that media reaches people like us, who are already convinced and concerned about being eco-friendly. Thats good, keep em coming more the better, but as far as national effectiveness, I just don’t see it. Who we should be after is hardest audience of all… the stubborn, closed mined, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, me, me, gimme, gimme, GENERAL PUBLIC!
Its a challenge, and not the fairest fight because a lot of good useful knowledge is unseen, but all you need it their attention for a few sec, but that’s probably all you’re going to get.
February 6, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You gave a great example of how there’s important and educational info for the masses, Wes; and unfortunately there’s no national effectiveness like you said. Maybe after viewing films like this, there should be people with sign-up sheets for you to give your contact info for those who want to help in local/national/worldly causes. People with similar passions towards certain awareness programs can form groups and actually help do something. But then again, people might take this as unsolicited listservs, junkmail, etc., that we all tend to hate. Of course, we don’t want those people knocking on our doors at home. We would absolutely hate that. As far as unsolicited phone calls — no way. But then again, aren’t these people at least trying something? — to round up interest in the general public? I mean, how many of us really logged on to a website or wrote to an address that was shown at the end of a film like An Inconvenient Truth?
Of course, not me.
February 7, 2008 at 1:41 am
I think that this is a very interesting discussion. It is good that we are brainstorming and discussing ways to get something done. These days people just sit back and wait for someone else to do it. This is very true but sad. Our generation needs people to step up.
Mass media as a way to get an idea or imposed action across is very wise. Media such as myspace, facebook, youtube, etc. are very relevant and effective measures that if taken and executed correctly can make an impact. Sometimes it can be good and bad. This is where the general public comes in. I think that determining what is good and bad in “general public” eyes is all about what they know. They are very comfortable in only seeing the media they know. Such as our generation rarely reads the newspaper. Not saying that it is a bad thing because everything is going electronic, it is just a testament to each generations differences. I wish someone could figure out one big massive way to communication with the world. One day, one man/woman will conquer this. I think for all generations to help the situation at hand, they will have to be accepting of older and newer generations and how they go about trying to solving their problems. When all generations step up and unite as one, that is when things seem to start to gain guidance.
Just my thoughts…
February 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Your thoughts are important and we need more people to voice their opinion — if not then we all fall by the wayside with potential solutions unheard.
When you mentioned all generations uniting as one in order to step up in action, what are some other avenues where we as a generation can relate to older generations? What are some other differences that you can think of where we can sort of bridge a gap? Also, when you talked about how most forms of communication is going electronic, what are the good and bad things about this? Yes, it’s fast, more convenient, but because of this rapid, almost instant transmission do we tend to underappreciate our intentions?
Great input from all, keep it rollin’.
February 8, 2008 at 10:05 am
I’m sure its a little late to be discussing this chapter, but I have a pretty good question… The book references the harmony of nature, but it fails to mention some of the destructive and non-regenerative tendencies, such as locusts and the cane toad in Australia (I’m not sure if that would count since humans introduced them to the region) found in nature. Are these species just as destructive to the cycle as we are? Most of the examples I can think of involve human interaction somehow, but there has to be something else on this planet that would destroy without giving back. It just seems to me like if ANY species had the chance to gain the upper hand without endangering its environment (and thereby itself), it would take the opportunity. Maybe our ability of abstract thought is allowing us to trick ourselves into believing that we’re achieving that paradoxical scenario.
February 8, 2008 at 6:58 pm
It’s never too late to blog about Chapter 3! Anyways — whether humans introduced these elements that you write of like locusts and the cane toad in Australia, they do cause destruction in nature — but this could also be thought as nature’s way to achieve balance. Again, with anything that involves human intervention, there is always the possibility of doubt regarding our intentions as well as our chance to gain an upper hand. As far as certain species of animals that do cause destruction without any people to interfere, I wouldn’t consider this anything truly “destructive.” As most if not all things in nature, the land with its flora and fauna have a beautiful way of achieving balance by keeping the supply and demand in constant check without the help of people. Yes, it could be considered “destructive” in the immediate sense as opposed to the big picture. Of course, if anybody has any good examples supporting or refuting this, please share.
As far as any particular species grabbing the opportunity to gain an upper hand without endangering its environment, I doubt that animals have the ability to analyze and judge with a cause-and-result capability, like we do. Then again, how exactly can humans know for sure what animals think? I do agree that we do trick ourselves into believing what we want — whether we think we’re helping the world or pursuing a balance to nature that nature itself couldn’t handle alone. Maybe this is why we inhabit the earth? Maybe nature needs the complexity of human thought and emotion to find solutions to our terrestrial concerns.
Please share more. Chapter 3 loves you.