This week we'll be giving our impressions of the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by revolutionary green architect William McDonough and green chemist Michael Braungart. We will be analyzing the book's message in light of the other calls to action we've seen over the course of this semester. What do we make of McDonough and Braungart's vision of a closed loop economy? Are they on the right track? Is their optimism misplaced?
This is a really fascinating discussion, so click "comments" below to read or join in!
Quote of the Week:
"Waste equals food, whether it's food for the Earth, or for a closed industrial cycle. We manufacture products that go from cradle to grave. We want to manufacture them from cradle to cradle."
- William McDonough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was very impressed with the book cradle to cradle, both as a product and as a piece of literature presenting concepts. I mean it was a plus that this book can be read in the shower, especially considering human's or at least Americans polychronic, multitasking nature. I liked that the both first described and introduced us to the relationship between McDonough and Braungart. This setting made it seem as if you do not have to start out knowing the answers, but can find it along the way and still do soemthign about it. McDonough realized he did not like the traditional design and so set out to do somethign about it. This can be used to support arguments for others to do the same.
ReplyDeleteI found the concepts of having a closed economy and loop similar to Anne Leonard's conclusion point in the story of stuff. I felt however, that Braugart and McDonough develop their concepts more and put it into practice. Prime example one, their book, which is not going to just evaporate into the air or dissolve into the soil, but is made easier to deconstruct.
I think that the principles McDonough present abotu change design is a solid idea. I do not believe it is unrealistic and in fact, in the case of the textile companies it is attainable and practical. Of course, there was the question of changing first the relationships between producer and consumer, but if they see an example that works I believe it will be easier to transition. As for their more concrete concepts of using the solar income we already have, food equals waste and respect diversity. I think these are also realistic points and it seems as if they are so simple that it is silly they have not been mentioned previously. I mean honestly, we would we use up a stored supply of energy when there is a live feed occurring?
As for the, "being 'less bad' is no good" concept I think they are a little too harsh here and optimistic to think people are going to stop and encourage the small steps. If anything I think they should use this and the idea that people are trying to be eco-efficient and gradually build off of it until they see they can live sustainable and comfortable under a new design. I think that these men are on the right track, especially considering the creativity they hold. I think that even if others did not agree with some of the proposed concepts, that they would have to at least appreciate the "out-side of the box thinking" that is taking place, because it is people like McDonough and Braungart who are going to find a way to break through to others who are on the fence, through practical and realistic design.
"Cradle to cradle" was the first piece of literature that I've read this semester that made me feel as if perhaps humans can change our ways. The authors lay out a plan of action in what seems like a very plausible and almost quiet way. Huge companies have already started what could be a real green revolution. Despite opposition Ford revamped its Rouge factory, Nike is developing safer, kinder shoes, and that textile company has created a bed spread that can be the fertilizer for next years garden. It's truly creative stuff. It's not only creative and sustainable, but also profitable. I think that is where the author's proposed solution is so different and feasible from the other suggestions (I=PAT for example). Yes, it will cost money to close the loop but these starter companies are showing that once the initial costs have been bore revenue quickly comes with saved energy. Not to mention the enormous opportunity benefits to humanity and earth. Their closed loop proposition in which products will be created to "die” naturally and in an unharmful way or be continuously upcycled is a brilliant idea. But once again it's more than just an idea because they have proved through small examples like the creation of the book itself that it is possible without much more effort or cost. Humans are amazing, innovative creatures, the authors illuminate the vast potential we have to live a more sustainable life while still enjoying comfortable lifestyles that don't drastically differ from the ones we live now (although behind the scenes the entire mechanisms of production will be altered to be contained with the closed loop). It's a smart book; I’ll be passing it on for sure.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the book. I'll be honest, when I started reading it I though "Here we go again..." because it definitely started out like most of the other pieces we have read. But, I like the way that the authors emphasize the need to re-structure our thinking in regards to manufacturing and the way we produce. I never realized just how capable our society is in regards to exploring new ways to produce. William McDonough and Michael Braungart opened my eyes to the fact that we CAN make products whose inputs' value and usability does not decrease by 70% once it's put into a production process. I also enjoyed how the two authors do not automatically criticize the concept of growth, but rather, WHAT KIND of growth we want. Whenever you change the way you do something or learn something new,this implies growth. So far, mankind's growth has been the easy kind of growth. In fact, I would argue that in a sense we''re not even truly growing anymore; we're just extrapolating all of the things we already have. We need to make a different kidn of growth. What thta is I'm not sure yet
ReplyDeleteCradle to Cradle is really unique among the texts we have been reading this class, and appropriately saved for last. Certainly more than any other authors, McDonough and Braungart are full of optimism for the future. Like everyone we've read, they begin by detailing what the great shortcomings of our society are, but that is where the similarities end. The rest of the book outlines potential solutions that all seem entirely feasible within our lifetimes. What it lacks, however, are the social, political, and economic mechanisms to see these through to fruition. Clearly both McDonough and Braungart both classify as geniuses. Whether this can be held against them considering their backgrounds, however, is questionable.
ReplyDeleteMcDonough is an architect, while Braungart is trained as a chemist. Beyond excellent writing skills and considerable public speaking abilities, neither individual is a politician, economist, or sociologist. I think any criticisms against the book based on what it lacks can be attributed to that simple fact. They merely provide a framework through which our society can be improved, it is up to others, trained in other disciplines, to realize just how they can be made a reality. The science is there, it just needs to be connected with policy.
Therein lies what is likely the progenitus of our entire problem - the science and the communication lie on such separate ends of the spectrum. Although it never states it explicitly, one of the hidden messages of the book (hidden between the lines, one might say) is that these two things must come much closer together for there to be any positive change. Scientists must be better communicators and communicators must have a better understanding of science.
Of course, McDonough and Braungart do not fall into the trap that so many scientists fall into. Cradle to Cradle is anything but esoteric, and can be understood by anyone with even a limited educaton. Concepts such as waste equals food, closed loop systems, and biological and technical nutrients are not entirely lofty concepts, and they're explained in clear, simple language. Moreover, they are just so elegant that it's hard not to like them immediately.
When these ideas are placed under more intense scrutiny, that is where the criticisms may begin. However I repeat that those who might criticise the lack of prescriptions for how these ideas might be implemented into reality should focus their efforts more on promoting this text to those who might be able to figure that out. The authors' optimism is certainly not misplaced - it is entirely possible for our society to move to such a wasteless system. As Albert Einstein said, the same mechanisms that created the system cannot be the same ones to change it. McDonough and Braungart represent that second category of mechanisms.
It might not be fast, and it won't be easy, but making these concepts salient to the general public is possible. It will take the intervention of policymakers, as the free market alone did not create our current system, and alone it cannot break from it either.
My favorite quote from the book was the one about the ants. Braungart wrote (to paraphrase), that ants have been industriously building for millions of years, and have never once endangered their natural systems. Humanity has been similarly industrious for only two centuries, and wreaked absolute havoc. Therefore the problem does not lie with the natural world, it lies with people. Instead of merely condemning humanity, McDonough and Braungart look to refocus the industrious energies of people into a more sustainable system. Hopefully this system, or something like it, will become a reality before it is too late to change.