Published in: Morf 4, 2006, p. 10-16.
Older designers often complain that the younger
generation is “not socially engaged anymore.” Times have changed, and therefore
young people show their social responsibility in a different way. We do still need
their contribution, especially now that our attention for the environment seems
to be lapsing. A new perspective is most welcome, and luckily there is one.
In 1972, a group of
concerned scientists – the Club of Rome –
published The Limits to Growth: A
Global Challenge.1 It woke the Western world from its solitary slumber
brought about by economic prosperity and technological triumphs. In no
uncertain terms, the report made clear what the ultimate consequence of
ever-rising prosperity would be: irreversible depletion of natural resources. One
year later, the energy crisis dramatically emphasized our dependence on fossil
fuels.
Now, over thirty years
later, our government tells us we don’t consume enough. The present looming
specter is climate change, which is an actual fact rather than an abstract projection
that we are dumping onto future generations. Although we know that the present
system of production and consumption is unsustainable, our attention for the
environment is fading away. Not enough visible result of our good intentions? Too
much other misery in the world? A bit bored?
Just like anybody else, a
designer might wonder why we consume so much. Or he might wonder why so much is
being produced. And by whom. Why, by him! Although there are extenuating
circumstances – usually, he works for someone else – he is undeniably an
accomplice. So, what to do? Stop designing? No, because a designer is in an
excellent position to fight this failing system from the inside.
So far nothing new. (Which
is not to say that this is always automatically obvious to every new generation
of designers.) Without a doubt, designers want only the best for mankind – I
write this without irony. There is a common thread of idealism throughout the
history of design. It is no coincidence that design emerged at the same time as
socialism: both were a result of the industrial revolution. The elevation of
the masses by ‘good’, affordable industrial products, or (less affordable) handcrafted
products, has counted as one of the highest ideals in design since the end of
the nineteenth century. In the course of time, this particular streak of
idealism has been transformed in accordance with the social concerns of the
moment.
It took the design world 15
years to respond to the Club of Rome’s doomsday scenario. The first proper eco design
wave, at the end of the 1980s, mostly propagated recycling and reuse. The underlying
strategy was to try to inhibit growth and reduce depletion of resources. Less
material use, less energy use, less mobility, less consumption. It was calculated
that twenty times more efficient use of resources would be sufficient to avert our
downfall, and that perhaps this was even feasible if we tried really hard.2
You have to start
somewhere, but this is not the easy way. Such future projections always turn
out to be too optimistic, which is not only unfortunate but also discouraging.
Furthermore, reduction is a negative ideal and people never embrace it, no
matter how many times you say “less is more”.
However, the most serious
disadvantage of reduction is: “Less bad is not good,” as it was bluntly put by
William McDonough and Michael Braungart, the authors of Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things (2002).3
A simple enough statement, but also a necessary reversal of the common approach
of the environmental problem. If only because
“…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 the imagination. From our perspective this is
a depressing vision of our species’ role in the world.”4
Then what is good? What McDonough and Braungart had
in mind is not new, but rather less naive and yet far more radical than what we
were accustomed to in eco design. Instead of negative rules, they formulated positive
rules. They propose to implement the natural principle of ‘waste equals food’
in technology, so that raw materials can continue to be recycled without loss
of quality, and waste no longer exists. As for power generation, only renewable
energy is acceptable. The ultimate challenge is to transform technology so that
it enriches the natural environment,
instead of polluting and damaging it. They give the example of a Swiss textile factory
where the water used during production comes out cleaner than it goes in.
This is a liberating
perspective, especially compared to the dead end street that we are in now, which
would still be a dead end street even if we somehow managed to slow down a
little.
It is clear that a change
in our actions and thinking is urgently needed. To achieve the technological
revolution outlined above, we have to focus all our ingenuity on this one goal.
Besides practical objections there are psychological laws that do not make this
any easier. A former environmental activist likened our response to slow
processes with how frogs respond to boiling water. If you put a frog in a pot of
boiling water, it jumps out immediately. Put it in a pot in which the water is
brought to the boil gradually, it will remain seated and die slowly.5
In psychology, the way
people respond to change is commonly divided into seven phases: shock, denial, awareness, acceptance,
exploration, realization and finally internalization.
Of course, in the case of a complex global phenomenon such as the environmental
problem, it takes a while before you reach the phase of acceptance. Only then,
seeking appropriate action can begin. In that light, the fact that it took more
than 15 years for the eco design movement to get underway is not so surprising.
The first years of eco design
were a period of exploration, and it looks like we have finally arrived at the
stage of realization. That’s a good thing, because today’s idealist is result-oriented.
The current incarnation of social engagement is called ‘practical idealism’.
The basic idea is that you choose achievable goals that make the world a better
place in your view and that you can
achieve on your own, if need be.6
If you should think we are
not going to make much ground that way, consider the example of Richard M. Buckminster
Fuller (1895-1983), whose visionary ideas are still a source of inspiration for
many designers and architects (including McDonough and Braungart). At the age
of 32, after ample self-inspection, Fuller concluded that
“the larger the number for whom
I worked, the more positively effective I became. Thus it became obvious that
if I worked always and only for all humanity, I would be optimally effective.”7
In the end, it all depends
on the scope of your ambitions and the breadth of your visions.
The philosophy of
Buckminster Fuller is similar to today’s practical idealism. This is evident
from his advice to a young letter-writer, which is valid for all designers who
have their heart in the right place:
“The things to do are: the
things that need doing: that you see need to be done and that no one else seems
to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which
needs to be done – that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This
will bring out the real you that often gets buried inside a character that has
acquired a superficial array of behaviors induced or imposed by others on the
individual. Try making experiments of anything you conceive and are intensely
interested in. Don’t be disappointed if something doesn’t work. … You have what
is most important in life – initiative. … You will find the world responding to
your earnest initiative.”8
Notes
1 Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, et al.,
The Limits to Growth: A Global Challenge,
1972. See also: www.clubofrome.org.
2 Ezio Manzini (Domus Academy) launched the slogan ‘Factor
20’ for achieving a sustainable situation in the medium term. This meant that
we would have to be 20 times more efficient with energy and raw materials. The
Wuppertal Institute calculated a factor of 10 as being necessary for a status
quo in the medium term. Meanwhile, the Rocky Mountain Institute propagates a
factor of 4 to maintain our current lifestyle, which is sold with the dubious
slogan “Twice as productive with half the resources.”
3 William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make
Things, New York, 2002.
4 Ibid., p. 67.
5 Mark Lynas, in an interview with Bas Heijne, ‘Kyoto is te
laat en te weinig’ (Kyoto is too late and too little), NRC-Annex M, February, 2006 (In Dutch).
6 Natasja van den Berg and Sophie Course, Praktisch idealisme. Handboek voor de
beginnende wereldverbeteraar (Practical idealism. Handbook for the beginning
do-gooder), Podium, Amsterdam, 2003. (In Dutch).
7 R. Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, New York, 1981, p. 125. See also: www.bfi.org.
8 R. Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, New York, 1981, p. xxxviii.
No comments:
Post a Comment