Discussion: Chapter 4, Cradle to Cradle
February 8, 2008 — Josh G.Apparently waste equals food. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be pigeonholed. When the laptop you’re using right now stops working or more likely becomes outdated, what will become of it? Of course, the average consumer doesn’t consider this when buying that new laptop, nor do they consider that the cost of those wasted resources is factored into the price. Why should you pay for materials that you aren’t going to use after the product stops functioning? To create complete sustainability, a product needs to be able to “feed” another product, whether it be the same product or something completely different. These are the basic ideas discussed in Chapter 4. To take this idea one step further, try to think of all the products you might use in one day and where they will end up when they “die,” for example; a cell phone will be used until that fateful day when you drop it one-too-many times, in the toilet, or under a car tire. Suddenly a very useful bunch of plastic, metal, and other “technical nutrients” becomes garbage. In a sustainable system, that same cell phone would be sent back to the manufacturer where it would be completely disassembled, melted down, and reformed into a new cell phone. The plastic and wire from the charger would be separated from each other and, in an act of pure reincarnation, would be reformed into a brand-spanking new charger. The packaging that it came in would be 100% biodegradable, so you could tear it up and use it as fertilizer for your garden. What other products are unnecessarily wasted, and how could that be alleviated? Could there possibly be any unwanted side-effects of sustainable nutrients such as lower quality products, or increased theft of used products? Would people end up throwing stuff away instead of sending it back because of apathy and laziness? What kinds of incentives would need to be offered to prevent that scenario from happening?
February 8, 2008 at 7:36 am
I guess to start the discussion, I’ll use the most obvious example of waste equals food. When a human breathes the air, oxygen is absorbed by the lungs and carbon dioxide is exhaled. That carbon dioxide is then absorbed by plants where it is used for photosynthesis or something… I’m not really sure, but I do know that oxygen is released by the plant so the whole process can be started again. That is probably one of the only cradle-to-cradle processes we naturally participate in. It seems simple and easy enough, so why can’t we imitate nature naturally?
February 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I think that in order for the cradle to cradle system to be initiated and used effectively, companies will have to take a lot of responsibility for the products and the return of precious their materials. Like the book states, this own be an extremely efficient and beneficial way to obtain ‘new’ materials. Companies and consumers both need to think about their full circle instead of the one way track straight to the grave. This whole process is will have to be partnership.
So many of our product and packaging go into the trash, its just is so easy, maybe too easy. And it doesnt matter what it is, put it on the corner every week and its gone. It like a default solution to anything we don’t want anymore. But what if the waste companies refused to take certain thing? Say is was “illegal to throw certain things away and the trash men had the right to refuse to take it. Maybe that would make us think about what we throw away. Having all that neglected trash piling up, would be more of an inconvenience than, to properly dispose of it. Yes, it seem like an ultimatum but its not a bad one, its just making people aware of what they throw away. What are your thoughts, do think it might have an impact?
February 10, 2008 at 11:22 pm
This would be assuming that we have designated places we could take these certain types of ‘trash’ to properly dispose of.
February 11, 2008 at 12:04 am
I think that instead of waste companies refusing to take certain things, we need to figure out a way to phase out the need for waste companies. We need to phase out the existence of “garbage.” Instead of products and packaging that become waste, we need to design products and packaging that become raw materials (again). It’s cyclical thinking in the purest sense.
February 11, 2008 at 6:39 am
I agreed with Wes on how the companies will have responsibilities on cradle to cradle system. Also, we, the consumers have way more responsibilities than companies. Products that are biodegradable or reusable cost more most of the time, and it take longer time to make these products. For companies to make products like that seems like a big risk if their consumers didn’t care about environmental issues. So, It is all depends on us, are we willing to pay more on something that actually do good for this planet, or we just don’t care, and rather save ourself money. Human are easy to persuade, I think if companies that support the cradle to cradle system, they will do enough research to find a way to up sell their products. It’s all about advertisement and showing the advantages of using products that are benefit to environment.
February 12, 2008 at 3:45 am
I partially agree with what Erica has said. While I do think the general consumer is easy to sway, give them some flashy and humorous advertising and your in like Flynn, I believe that we need to think long term for this process of phasing in “cradle-to-cradle” practices. Just having the production companies themselves working on this is only part of the solution. We need everyone in on this process and that includes the producer, the consumer, and the government. While it would be great for the government to step in and declare certain trash illegal it would also require that garbage men analyze trash before they pick it up making their jobs more involved and time consuming. And as soon as anything becomes illegal the first thing anyone inconvenienced thinks of is how to circumvent the law. It wouldn’t be long before garbage men were being paid off to take materials they weren’t supposed to, which already occurs in society.
So while the idea of illegal trash might sound like a solution, it just might be another nail int he coffin for cradle-to-cradle thinking.
February 12, 2008 at 5:07 am
I honestly hate to repeat myself, but I really have to clarify this… The problem isn’t WHAT to do with trash, it’s that there IS trash that needs to be dealt with.
Think of ANY piece of trash you might encounter anywhere. I’ll go with the fairly common fast food garbage. Paper bags, plastic cups, and cardboard containers… The paper bag could be made of highly biodegradable potato starch, which not only wouldn’t hurt the environment but would also act as a fertilizer of sorts. A plastic (or synthetic paper ala the book) cup would be 100% sustainable so that the inks printed on the cups could be washed off and reused (like the ink in the book) and the cup itself could be remade into a book or back into a cup. The cardboard containers would also be made of potato starch.
If all the trash in the world came from fast food, this paragraph would solve the planet’s garbage problem. All you really have to do is apply the same thought process to every other product, completely phasing out the idea of garbage.
February 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The idea of phasing out the harsh chemicals in everyday products is something that is essential. The example they give in the chapter about the fabric for wheelchairs proves that products can be 100% beneficial. There is no reason why everything can’t be that way. I also agree with what Wes said about the manufacturers having to take responsibility. All the examples for improvement in this chapter were great, but basically all of them dealt with how the products are made. I don’t think it would matter if every consumer was concerned about the environment. If manufacturers made all their products safe, people wouldn’t have a choice.
February 12, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I’ll add to Amanda’s thoughts from above by saying that consumers — whether they are concerned about the environment or not — do have a choice today about recycling, reusing, and refusing today. As long as we are given room to throw away reusable materials, we are going to do just that. We are almost dependent on purchasing goods and other products from manufacturers and retailers. Basically we don’t have much of a say on how products are going to be created and distributed (not counting customer surveys, protests, etc.) unless we voice our concerns to the right people.
As those mentioned earlier, what if the government deemed the action illegal for manufacturers to create unreusable materials in their products and packaging? Basically, what if we as consumers are not given the chance to be concerned about “doing the right thing” and just making us use reusable goods — because these items will be the only materials we can purchase. Let’s face it, consumers will buy whatever’s available — whether it’s eco-friendly or not. Let’s say the government ruled it so we remove any “bad” garbage from the cradle to cradle cycle. I wonder if there will be any customer dissatisfaction from purchase goods that are ALL composed of recyclable/reusable materials. Anyone have any thoughts why we would complain about this system of having the government ban all eco-unfriendly materials in products? Would cost be a big factor at first? Eventually there needs to be money to spearhead this campaign/movement, but then once the system is in motion with everyone basically doing nothing (because we are purchasing ALL eco-friendly products) then the cost to enact this program will be lowered. This should lead to smart shopping without giving the consumer a choice.
Yes, I believe in giving everyone a choice — but in this situation would it be bad to ignore the opinions of the populace? By allowing the government to take the lead and ban materials that are toxic and/or can’t be reused? — which this would probably be an example of how “dad knows best” or to be P.C. “parents know best.”
February 13, 2008 at 3:03 am
I certaintly agree with Shawn in the solution involving government regulations and requirements on manufacturers. It seems to me, as with similar pressing issues such as human population control, that the only way to get people to do what is right for the future of the planet and our descendents, is to not give them the choice to do it. Now i know this could lead to more and more control and people will naturally say “well if they can control this, then what will stop them from going further?”, but in my opinion, the survival of our planet is far more important then restricting a small bit of our free choice.
As far as “why we would complain about this system of having the government ban all eco-unfriendly materials in products?”, we would complain because its what people do. People would complain because they feel that their free choice is being restricted, that the man is trying to put more limits on their life. It is a silly argument but you know people will make it. Cost shouldn’t be a prblem. if all companies are required to manufacture things this way, then money shouldnt be lost.
February 13, 2008 at 4:52 am
I think i was using trash in pretty generally. I was talking about anything we don’t want anymore such as an old broken lamp, or cell phone and yes fast food bags too. Focusing more on the manufactured goods, there need to be a way for manufacturers to get back the reusable materials. This would mean people could not just throw away valuable plastics or metals. But i am with Josh on this one because this idea of there still being trash (things we don’t use) should not exist, because we are reusing everything in someway, ideally.
Bethany you are absolutely right about people complaining about something, but its like a little kid whining about not getting a lolly pop or something. And i am with Shawn about the Parent knows best approach, because kids whine about anything and everything, but they soon forget and hopefully one day will realize that lolly pops give you cavities.
February 13, 2008 at 7:53 am
So we being graphic designers (and potential product designers) have a major role to play if we are talking about a cradle to cradle development of manufactured goods. When asked to design we can recommend many options to our clients and even develop our own research on sustainability.
Design can often be a shallow practice, a victim of naive thinking. It is often true we do not know or care enough about other
things besides the manners in which we design (good thing we know better through production class). Designers need to be opened up to the idea of doing some social collaboration. There is so much more potential with a group aiming for a goal rather than an individual.
Kirsten Childs, an interior design partner in the Croxton Collaborative, which is a highly desired green architecture firm. Years ago, Kirsten was curious about the furniture and furnishings she was selecting for designs. So she hired a chemist and together they started asking questions about the fibers, fiber-boards, finishes, and glues she was putting into offices. It’s collective efforts like this that will make the world sustainable and change design into something positive for the planet.
Designers working along side with activists, scientists, environmentalists, venture capitalists, the government, and the list can go on and on. So with a revolution in sustainable design will also accompany a revolution in social design.
February 13, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I think as designers we definitely have the ability to make change. Through what Chris said, the collaborative effort with clients we will work with, we can promote the use of materials that will biodegrade and that are zero-impact. The part in the chapter about the textiles factory is very inspiring, knowing that there is a way to completely reverse a companies way of doing things and making output that can only benefit the environment. Yes, it is a little more work on the research end, but that’s where collaboration comes in, researchers with the same interests in bettering processes have already done much of the legwork. Earlier in the book discussion it had been posed whether or not graphic designers could “change the world” through what we do, and I think after reading this chapter we can definitely do that.
February 13, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I would first off like to say that “we” being America are truly blessed when it comes to trash. We tend to be very naive and think to ourselves, “what are we going to do with all this trash” or we often complain about the smell and the way it makes our country look. I personally am not a big fan of laziness when it comes to trash and laziness of disposing of it. Places other than America are extremely dirty. The places of the world that live on less that $1 a day. “Those” people make up about 1.2 billion of the population and are referred to as being in extreme poverty. There trash fills the street, ditches, buildings, sewer, and everywhere you can imagine.
Becoming designers who are ecologically aware is very good. If we start realizing small ways to help this world we live in and are going about it in a very “cool” way, other people will be close to follow. It is great that Kate has exposed us to sustainability and being ecologically aware of our world. Before cradle to cradle and production all this eco talk was just the going fad and was sometimes annoying. Now when everything is put in perspective, things start to get clearer. Discovering and not being afraid to try and push things that are environment friendly, is also something we as designers can adopt into our mindset. As Whitney said, more work and research will be involved but if we do our part then there is not much more we can do.
February 14, 2008 at 5:08 am
I had heard a few things about sustainability but reading cradle to cradle and being exposed to it more in class has made it real to me, because as an American I know I tend to dismiss the problems of trash and waste products.
Its been encouraging to know as designers we can actually make a real difference. I feel strongly that its going to take a huge group to make those changes and I think starting with designers is one of the strongest groups to start with. When I just think about how much media and advertising is out there it blow my mind. People are very influential and they want to feel good. So…why not use such a powerful tool as advertising to influence people to buy products that are biodegradable or some form of material that we can develop to help out the environment and in return our lives. I think people will not only begin to “feel” good about the things they buy just for possessive purposes, but they would being to have a sincere sense of feeling good because we are actually putting money into something thats of real value. Its challenging to know that as designers we have a huge responsiblility in sustainability but it makes it that much more rewarding when we take part in it and see changes.
February 15, 2008 at 1:29 am
I agree that designers and the communication field have a special opportunity to enlighten the masses to the effects that industry has on the planet’s natural balance. In my experience, people without the luxury of higher education (or who haven’t otherwise seen the hard facts about pollution) feel no real responsibility as individuals for their contribution to the damage we’re all causing.
There finally seems to be a buzz around the issue of environmental consciousness lately, and I think the next big step is to effectively inform the less-aware public to how real the problem is; showing them the benefits we’ll have when we take care of the world outside our living rooms.