How interesting to read Cradle to Cradle during a holiday weekend where we celebrate gratefulness in overeating, then go out and trample one another for the cheapest electronics that will last about a year so we can throw them out and do the same thing over again. Don't get me wrong, I love Thanksgiving, and I even ventured out mid-morning on Black Friday...and bought sock yarn and darning needles so that I can learn to fix holes in my socks. I'm not trying to be condescending or anything; I actually think this holiday weekend that epitomizes the extreme of American consumption is becoming oversaturated. More and more of us see how ridiculous it is, and it is a smaller percentage who are still lining up at 3am to get more stuff. I say this anecdotally, perhaps it's just part of my "downshift moment" as De Young and Princen would call it. Those around me are reaching this moment as well, whether it is in the realization that we don't want or need more "stuff" or in the realization that material goods seem trivial in comparison to focusing efforts on social justice.
So, back to the readings. If I've taken anything from this class, it is that a healthy amount of skepticism must accompany analysis of solutions to environmental problems. We've read specific critiques of McDonough and Braungart's views, but it is still refreshing to see a positive paradigm. The authors address the theme of conflicting ideas around growth; many of our class readings have likened it to cancer. The image of the massive hamster haunts my thoughts. McDonough and Braungart distinguish types of growth. In children and nature, we see growth as beautiful. In industry and areas where growth is for its own sake, we want it limited. Some growth we want and some we do not want. This is agreeable, although they do not address how even the positive framing of growth must eventually come to an end. Children stop growing, and the hamster does not inherit the earth. Perhaps from there the "good growth" comes in ideas and intellectual growth, but the authors do not specify this.
After so many weeks of thinking about impending doom, I am once again cautious of a so-called world of abundance. It is certainly appealing. The authors seem part of a system reforming view, wherein people can thrive if we reshape our culture and paradigms on design and do away with the concept of waste. It would at least feel less stressful. They point out: "When the choice is consistently between the frying pan and the fire, the chooser is apt to feel helpless and frustrated, which is why a more profound approach to redesign is critical." (170). At the same time, it feels like as end users we are being absolved of some responsibility here. If only the choices were 100% good instead of "less bad," we could stop feeling wracked with guilt. But we still want what we want, and will deal with the negative feelings about it or do without. Their arguments resonate somewhat, but do not do away with my general discomfort. I suppose for my community and for myself, I like De Young and Princen's concept of "adaptive muddling" at this point. Not only does it sound like exactly what we are all doing anyway, in an adorably bumbling way, but it gives one the chance to solve problems for ourselves, in a relevant context. Forget being presented with better choices, let's make our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment