Manufacturing Concenpt without Trash

McDonough's premise is the changing the product cycle without trash. Since people start producting goods and services, the premise for manufactuing is cradle to graveyard. And what he suggest is the approarch that produces any trashes in manufacturing process. Creating the process "cladle to cladle", and this is the way to have sustainable environment. He also mentions about wrong definition of "sustainable development" again and again. What he mean was that sustainable development does not mean saving resources, keep staffs using in long term, or being environmental freiendly, rather than it means developmental, growth, and fluid which indicates establishing a recycling based eco system. I was really impressed by his thought and this cladle to cladle concept, and I really like it (we should proud of having a SIS building with his design!).


In my experience, I think I'm still in behind when I observe my ebehavior. As a consumer perspective, I try to buy clothing at second hand shop, or donate my old clothing. Regarding to using energy, I try to save energy by turing lights off, using less air conditioner, but still I know it's not enought to change our environmental situation. I think he gave me a huge impact of the idea of cladle to cladle as consumers for the next decade. Thinking to buy the stuff which is enable to recycle, whether manufacturing process is safe and non-poisoness materials. 2 weeks ago, I had to go to see a doctor because when I was washing dishes, in accident dish detergent get into my eye. It was so painful, and hurts last few days.. And before go to see a docter I checked what kind of things in dish detergent.. Also that was the first time to think what I was using for dish detergent..... I have been using for long long time. Until this happen, I did not know about it at all and even did not care about it. I think this happening taught me about what kind poison I use everyday and how it hurts me and my health from in my daily life. Also I have to face my lack careness and knowledge for environment in daily life. Now, I am going to find a new dish detergent which contains non poisonesss and very close to natural materials!

Cradle to Cradle, And the Babies in Them

Cradle to Cradle breaks down consumption in the most invigorating way of any commodity-chain analysis that I have come to understand throughout the course of this class. The film "Stuff" illustrates our struggles with consumption as a baby-course to "the powers the be" in an non-transparent system. The system is so clearly broken, but the room for changes that McDonough and Braungart suggest in their implementation, and that Lauren has outlined below, do not seem sufficient to me. Power and money stand at such a point in the corporate world, and as evidenced in leadership ties to our American government, that the need to burn structures and find catharsis in redesign and ReNewed construction, so that our future is built out of the ashes of our waste is more urgent than ever before.

On that note, their backgrounds as innovators and designers means that in writing (and controlling the means of production of) their book, McDonough and Braungart are ensuring their continued employment. There is a temptation to continue to produce in order to maintain a consumer market. If we eliminate the sins of over-profit what would people work towards? Without an incentivized system for the scientists making paper out of waste, could their book have been produced? These and other questions arise that make me questions the precepts of growth and designers at the head of that growth. Some of those designers (not the authors discussed, necessarily) are the culprits of the greatest injustices on the Third World's peoples. Education needs redevelopment and constructive recycling as much as any Computer part. I tend to doubt the sincerity of designers out of the first world in their perceived ramifications for the Third World in the development of environmentally sustainable options for the future. I state my bias.

In the next century, the First World is not where we will see the most growth; our populations are declining or staying more level at least. The Third World will still cope with a population increase, a flood of Urban Centers, environmental crises that require environmentally concerned solutions. If the people who live in these areas are not producing their own answers to their problems, there will not be the safewords in place for how far the First World's designers can experiment on them. Technology is a fetish of our consumer culture in the United States. The dangers of exploitation exist in deep, entrenched values that we have already been feeling the backlash from. Education, and innovations for how that education is distributed and allocated, are really the largest priorities for the consumer cultures that are only burgeoning presences on the global markets today. "eco-efficiency," "mono" structuring of any kind, these are products of geo-political entities that are not owned by the people they will most deeply effect. It's time to recognize that design can only answer half of the questions in the commodity chain change. Who will be transforming our trash into Swatches?

Redesigning the cradle to grave lifestyle

This book starts out by alerting the reader to the fact everyday items are full of poisonous materials, but as McDonough and Braungart continue their argument by supporting their initial statements and finding ways to change the design humans have created the reader feels as though they have some power in stopping this unsustainable lifestyle. The introduction explains that this book is not made out of tree pulp; instead it is a synthetic material that mimics paper. This initially raised a few questions in my mind because the authors were just discussing how our modern world hides unhealthy materials in certain products. I wondered how this product is any different, yet in chapter three they discuss how they came to the decision of this “paper”. I’m sure there has not been adequate research on this product yet considering it is a fairly new company, but the authors assure the reader that the creator thoroughly researched the options for a waterproof and paper-free book.

One important take away from this book is the concept of waste. We have created a design that is not sustainable. There are limits on the earth, but they are unknown. The uncertainty of the tipping point will make changing our design difficult. The authors discuss the design problem humans have based on consumerism and capitalism. Other animals have a sustainable life on the earth, yet we are unable to have one due to our structural design. The industrial revolution started the over use of materials and the unsustainable lifestyle Westerns lead and built-in obsolescence has only perpetuated the trend. Only those who consume in vast quantities can curb our use and this may mean limitations, but it is a sacrifice that will allow for our sustainability. This is a valid point, but once again it is hard to convey this concept to the general populous.

The “eco-efficiency” term was coined five years after the Business Council for Sustainable Development. This brings up the main premise of chapter two because this term made people feel like if they were less bad there lifestyle could be sustainable. This is not necessarily true; efficiency does not mean sustainability. Yet, somehow through capitalist measures, efficiency or being less bad is better for the environment. The authors touch on the topic of growth and overgrowth. Traditionally, we think of growth as a positive thing, but now with a growing population and limited resources growth seems like a more negative thing for the earth. Yet, the concept of growth in capitalism is still positive, so we have a conflict of opinions that will make redesigning our infrastructure difficult.

The final premise the authors discuss is the cradle to cradle approach of manufacturing. They use the Ford Company as an example of how changing cradle to grave to cradle to cradle is virtually impossible. The infrastructure is so large it would be hard to change design of the company. The authors lay out a list of five ways to change our infrastructure and they are get “free of” known culprits, follow informed personal preferences, creating a “passive positive” list, activate the positive list, and finally, reinvent. These steps are well explained, but can they be effectively put into reality. The authors failed to take into account the power of these big businesses they are trying to restructure. The only way to create rebirth is to create new. This seems counter-intuitive because creating new things would mean more waste. But, after a little while the redesign would save and conserve resources.

"You want to change your jeans, not your genes."

Instead of products flowing from the cradle to the grave—like historical design has perpetuated—McDonough and Braungart suggest that we can design products to flow from cradle to cradle. McDonough is a progressive architect and Braungart is one of the original environmental chemists. Their unique backgrounds allow for a diversified approach to their proposed central problem: a flawed system of design. Beginning with the origins of the Industrial Revolution, the authors point out the principles that have led to a sole focus on economic growth and ignorance of environmental degradation. One of the main points is that many of the harmful substances present in many everyday objects do not need to be there. The presence of these harmful substances adds a multiplier effect to the damage instead of providing a product that could be safely and efficiently recycled.

The authors’ arguments are very effective due to the wide spectrum of environmental views they are able to present due to their backgrounds. The mini biographies that each author provides are an insight into their deeper motivations and backgrounds. Within each focus of the book, the reader can find a part on the smaller biologic level as well as the total picture of a product. The spectrum that each argument covers provides a fuller argument as compared to a sole focus on policy or science. Also, the authors’ positive report is obvious from their writings together. It is important that independently and collectively the authors’ have been successful in order to relay their experiences and resulting viewpoints.

I am now curious about this overall “mono” effect that is synonymous with environmental degradation and economic progress. As Meyer describes in The End of the Wild, we are entering a world of mono-species. Now, McDonough and Braungart tell us that we are mono-cropping and mono-construction. Why in a world of progress are we losing diversity—something that makes this world so beautiful? I think this should be a major aspect of the new design policy that the authors are proposing. Diversity is a major key to sustainability I believe.

Is Redesigning Products Completely Possible?

The authors promise that economic growth is not inherently bad, and what is needed to remedy the consumption problem is not increased efficiency but rather a complete redesigning of products. According to the authors, if items are designed with their future use in mind, they can be reused and recycled without any downgrading of the material. They say that eventually this can lead to a technical life cycle in which products are returned into the consumption chain fully and waste is eliminated. They also state that it is very possible to design these items to be “nutritious” to the surrounding environment rather than harmful, and without any negative “off-gassing.”
I definitely feel that they are on track. Designing items to be broken down again after use should not seem like an overly-complicated task that is beyond us. Obviously furniture is nowhere near of the same complexity as other items, but that is one example of how things can be built and disassembled. All that needs to be done is to design items in a way so that they are not permanently bounded together. The one thing I am skeptical about, however, is the promise that one day we can design items which are perfectly nutritious to the environment and pose no ill effects. I certainly think it is possible to eliminate many of these questionable chemicals and replace them with benign alternatives. However, it seems to me that a substantial portion of our technology is dependent on too many different components to be able to phase out all the harmful parts. Just a quick look inside a car, an aircraft, or a computer, can show how intricate these machines are. Whether or not it is possible to find a safe replacement for all parts I would doubt.
This is not to say I know a lot about any of these things, because I do not. Perhaps the concepts are beyond me and that their arrival is beyond my lifetime. I cannot be sure of this, but just from my own observations, the complexity of our world means that it will be either impossible to phase out every harmful substance, or it will take an enormous amount of time.

The Science of First Impressions

These two websites both present counter arguments to the climate change debate, but that is where similarities end. Friends of Science seems to be geared towards a third grade audience, which oddly makes it seem more credible, if I had never heard of this before. The level of sophistication in the "Climate skeptic" website makes it seem as subversive as it is. The website is written with a sense of humor and an underlying knowledge of the climate debate. I think the competition comes from an intellectual debate need to one-up the other voices on this subject. Outright, stated bias often occurs, but the more vitriolic critiques take advantage of honesty in order to bring out prejudice in public opinion, on both sides of the debate.

Honestly the entire argument seems so no the point to me, it seems so completely silly to negate climate change and its effects with the information and access to that information available today. I see the competition within the debate on the causes of climate change as helpful to addressing real and lasting resolutions and changes to be made to human behavior on this planet. The need to be flexible to scientific discovery, while maintaining a high standard for ourselves is important too. In Political Ecology of Food and Agriculture, Prof. Nicholson quoted to us, "We need strong ideals, weakly held" as a manner of remaining an academic who is still receptive to new information from the scientific community. Competition sometimes encourages people resist the flow of new information into action because of the feeling that one team needs to beat the other. If you evaluate these websites by drawing out their arguments, following their sources, and generally ever reading the news, it seems like a pretty easy way to make a decision on how you feel about climate change. Maybe reading the news is difficult for some people because of the ubiquitous internet access to the 24-hour news-cycle these days, or because of the multiple sources with completely polar funding agendas. Oh wait, I forgot, those things make it EASIER to access the news. Ohkay. I guess it must just be apathy after all.

Winning the Fight Against Each Other

In one of our earlier class discussion, we talked about the cause of U.S. ineffectiveness towards environmental issues being the fact that we can’t even agree on whether problems exist. This constant disagreement between groups of people is what causes such fierce competition. In the realm of politics, the debate isn’t centered around the most effective progressive solution but rather squabbling between groups to prove their legitimacy. The competition arises so quickly because in our fast-paced world, the goal for these opposing groups is to get their voice the loudest so it is heard by the most people.

I found it difficult to make sense of both the Grist and the Friends of Science (FOS) websites. The homepage of each website is an attempt to bombard the viewer with their individual claims and proof of their integrity. This is, to me, a key problem in the climate change debate. There is a multitude of conflicting information presented to the public. From what I could tell of the websites, all the things being said were “true” facts but were completely opposite. It seems like any author can twist a fact to fit their agenda, but then how can the public decipher for themselves what to believe?

I found the Grist website overall more effective. I appreciated that all of his claims were put up on the homepage with the possibility to explore further. One of my fellow bloggers mentioned that the FOS website appeared too simple. On top of that comment, I would say that the FOS website looked more like an infomercial than an information website. I appreciated the feeling I got that Grist was simply trying to lay out the facts—whether that was reality or his effort to portray that idea.