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.
No comments:
Post a Comment