Cradle to Cradle

First of all, I'm in love with this book. Both because of the writing style used, and because of its novel design. (Though I'll be the first to admit, it's heavy and weird to hold because of the materials used to make it).

On another note, I think that McDonough and Braungart are certainly on the right track with their writing. Reading this book is not alarming or depressing like many other works we have studied this semester, and I believe this is due to their balanced portrayal of information.

Not only do the authors clearly and concisely lay out the issues for the reader, but they follow up by describing what is being done to combat the problems. Rather than call for action in the form of laying blame and responsibility upon the reader and the general consumer, they detail the ways that THEY are working to change the system. This is a very different, and uplifting approach compared to many other authors who write on the subject of environmental topics.

Also laid out in this book is the recurring idea of getting back to nature; the idea that we should stop brutalizing the earth, and go back to enjoying and respecting it.

I think McDonough and Braungart (though I am unsure which author contributed which parts of the book) do an excellent job inspiring us to reconsider our own lifestyles in a way to makes us happier and more productive members of the planet.

They seem to advocate harmony and happiness through consumption, which makes any reader want to continue to read the book and apply its concepts to life.

Good for them

I'd like you to give your impressions of book we're reading at the moment in the light of other calls for action we've seen this semester. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
I believe William McDonough and Michael Braungart do a great job at trying to reinvigorate the modern environmentalist. They do very well assessing the situation and looking at the current flaws in environmentalism and apply their own skills to the situation, including green architecture. They inform the readers of the potential dangers coming from the multitude of chemicals we use and inhale inadvertently
The idea of I=PAT never seemed so wrong than when reading this book. They are right, human progress shouldn’t be judged in such a negative. I’ve wrote this before, our progress is not a symbol of environmental decay, we just need to figure our options properly.
By focusing on useful green technology like green architecture, understanding local environments and reacting accordingly, and promotion of general awareness of the environment hazards of the modern day, i.e. chemicals and drugs.
The way they are looking at the future today is something that everyone must focus on. Just becoming depressed about global warming doesn’t ruin the ship, actively steering away from the last berg and using technology to rebuild is the strength you have to deal with. More people need to be bold rather than depressed about our losses, showing that environmentalists and humans in general will work with possible solutions

"Cradle to Cradle": Beginning a Trend

I think reading the book “Cradle to Cradle” and watching the video “The Next Industrial Revolution” has made me realize that what William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is vital. We need people like them to begin implementing solutions. Whether or not their vision is overly optimistic, it is still an extremely important realization. We have been talking about changing the infrastructure and design of our world, Mike Maniates talked about creating environments where being environmentally friendly is automatic and this book and film talk about examples of how we can do that. The field of architecture and design is a crucial fundamental aspect of the way our world is structured. Change in this area is going to be necessary in creating a more sustainable environment.

Seeing the examples of what changes in architecture and design can do (in terms of benefitting the environment and lessening harmful human impact) is a powerful call to action. Seeing that these things are not too hard or too expensive makes it harder to ignore our obligation to be sustainable. What William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is definitely revolutionary and they might be overly optimistic about how quickly a switch to building “cradle to cradle” could be. If their idea catches on it will take a while to remake our working and living environments in their proposed style. But I did not find that they were in any was over optimistic, they merely seemed excited and enthusiastic about making what change they could now.

Trinity Of Despair

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

This quote ran through my head a few times while listening to Professor Maniates speak in class on Tuesday. I thought his discussion of the 'trinity of despair' was very interesting and pertinent. I would like to break it down, one piece at a time:

1. Human Nature

This is a huge part of the issue of environmentalism for me. As a self-proclaimed socialist, I have over the years vehemently stuck with my belief that humans are inherently communal beings with good intentions. To be honest, with all the selfish action I see happening every day, especially when you look at the massive failures and despicable manipulations that have occurred within the realm of environmentalism, it can be pretty hard for me to keep believing this assumption at certain times. But honestly, I believe that things like capitalism and a general overemphasis on personal freedom in America have brainwashed people into thinking that self-interest is the bottom line. They have betrayed their inherent instinct to work together towards solving problems and co-existing peacefully. But let's say for argument's sake that humans are self-interested. Well, than you better believe that it is our absolute duty to transcend those natural instincts and become communal creatures. Only then can we possibly overcome a challenge on the magnitude of climate change. So let's either look deep within ourselves to find that community spirit, or suppress those stupid urges that are telling us, 'I don't have to worry about these problems, I won't be around when they really start to mess things up!'

2. Environmental Strategy

Here I took some issues with Mr. Maniates' analysis. Over the last few classes, we've been challenged to think about thinks in a broader sense, to try to realize that these problems are bigger than just turning off our light bulbs. And while I concede that this is true, I think that this sends too much of a disconcerting message to people who are just trying to do their best to act responsibly on their own. For what ever the reason, some people just don't want to get actively involved in the power games at the top level, the policy stuff that will make a bigger difference. It is important to realize that while they are not making a massive different, people's personal choices should not be trivialized as being 'ineffective.' I believe this strikes at the very soul of many environmentalists (like myself) who have found such inspiration and validation in the practice of a grassroots and personal style of environmentalism. I will say that personally, becoming a vegetarian opened the door for me to a wide array of broader environmental issues. And it is for that reason that it was one of the best decisions of my life. I think if we blend the human nature facet with the environmental strategy part for a second, we will realize that if humans are self interested, deep down, even being green is just a self-validation thing. I think this may be a little harsh to deal with at first, to think, 'oh, so you're saying I just do this to make myself feel good?!' But as much as I like to think of myself as a true altruist, I've got to admit, it's probably true that wayyyyyyy deep down there, I am doing this to make myself feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I also truly believe I am doing this for other people. But hell, even if I am doing it for myself, does that trivialize it? No, because you are still doing something good. It's more than that though. My roommate always said that a big part of being vegetarian (or being green, for that matter) is about being an individual and I couldn't agree more. When a friend challenges me and goes, 'yeah, but who are you actually saving by not eating 1 hamburger,' I reply, 'Okay yeah, maybe I'm only saving one cow, but it's about being an individual. It's about not just following the pack because 'it's not gonna make a difference anyway.' Mr. Maniates talked about the importance of consumer power in our consumerist society and it's true. What you buy is unfortunately one of the biggest statements you make about yourself. So why not buy green? Of course it's important to realize that you have to go the extra step if you are really passionate about the environment. Organize! Write your congressman! Change the rules! But also, be an individual and make those lifestyle choices that say, 'I live what I preach.' I find when you start on the personal level, it opens the door to many different possibilities.

3. Social Change

Here's where that Margaret Mead quote fits the best. This was my favorite part of Mr. Maniates speech and really the biggest 'A-ha!' moment for me. It's so easy to get frustrated with how many ignorant people there are in this country, who don't comprehend the magnitude of the problem that we are facing. But I actually made the point in class recently that we live in a political system that allows 51% of the people to write the rules for 100% of the people. We have to use this to our advantage because you are always going to have people who disagree. But if we can get the power in the hands of the concerned people, they can effectively take the steps necessary without having the support of everyone. The people of the future will thank us, big time.

Nature is what you and I think it to be, from the word left to the idea of right

While I wasn’t in class because of being ill, when we discussed Professor Maniates’ view on environmentalists focusing only on “easy” solutions, it made so much sense.
I’ve read a lot of books and articles dedicated to simple steps to being environmental at home. Recycle, install fluorescent light bulbs, consume green products. It was interesting, in direct contrast to environmental theory on the internal concerns of consumption and overproduction, we are often told to buy into that consumption because that’s our “vote”.
Often times, in talking to people who are not environmental scientists or policy makers, in order the words, the people that form public opinion, I hear complaints that “there is nothing we can do”, “this is human nature”, rather than rallies of “we can change the way we live”. So they argue that they might as well stay status quo, because humans won’t change, it’s our nature to kill each other, waste electricity, eat processed food.
But it’s not our nature, we only recently have started eating McDonalds, recently set up power plants in their current configuration, recently started nuking other people. These things have only happened in the last 100 years, are they really set in stone? We live in an age of the internet, where people like me can figure those things out, but we also live in an age of so much information being stuffed down out throat, we end up accepting other peoples’ way of life as well it seems.
Human nature is so hard to discern simply because it’s our very thinking. Our scope of thoughts, going from nothing to oblivion to all to universal to individual to collective and all the relevant and irrelevant in betweens, represent our very nature. If there is some way to behave outside that scope, it doesn’t exist because it was never thought of. Indeed many of us are murderers, but many of us are nonviolent as well. For as many people to think we are selfish, there needs to be a recognizing force that remembers that just as many of us are the opposite and have the potential to turn that way as well.
Consuming green is a recent phenomenon, and in an age where everything is fast food, we need to realize so called easy tv dinner solutions to the environment aren’t the healthiest. More advocates following such a school of thought need to help others delve into that mindset and figure out what needs to be done, lowering energy consumption through efficiency and advanced technology, redefining city infrastructure to reduce consumption pollution, redefining our energy system, and most importantly, redefining our system of thought to make sure the word environment is so ingrained in our system that is reduced to oblivion, the term environmental ethics just becomes ethics.
Maniates’ trinity of despair is a valid one, and too often we have seen humanity try to consume its way to success (buying more pesticide rather than using natural pesticides and predators to reduce pests), I hope his work goes notice, it is part of our nature to want to know, that’s why we as a race exist today, not by some viral accident.

Trinity of Despair

I agree with Professor Maniates' point that the environmental movement is less effective than it needs to be, and I agree with the points the triangle attributes to environmental shortcomings.

For example, the assumption that all humans are selfish prevents the creation of policies that would place responsibility on the public to achieve environmental goals. However, such a responsibility could motivate people to become more involved in issues if they felt their role mattered.

In the future, it will also be vital that we place less pressure on people to do "the easy stuff," and reemphasize the importance of change through political action. If more people conveyed their concerns regarding the environment to their politicians, we would begin to see politicians stepping up to the plate to combat key environmental issues.

The third idea in the triangle has to do with the assumption that it will take the coordination of every human/every nation to make a significant difference in the preservation of our environment. The US for example has refused to seriously involve itself in international agreements without guaranteed involvement from India and China. This has perpetuated a cycle of negotiations that include uninvolved, partially committed countries who will not sign any agreements unless other high-emission countries do so first.

Professor Maniates' presentation of these issues provided me with greater details surrounding these distressing hindrances to environmental development, and yet the insight provided me with some inspiration in terms of reevaluating assumptions that have thus far held back progress.

Discussion Question 10

I really saw truth in all of the three points of Prof. Maniates “trinity of despair.” Some of his points echoed what we had already talked about in class (environmentalist strategy, human nature) but the idea of how we create social change was the most powerful to me. This attitude of having to feel like everyone agrees and being stuck trying to convince or educate people to care about this problem really resonated with me. I feel like that is how a lot of my friends who consider themselves to be environmentalists try to get people on their side. The graph Prof. Maniates really illustrated how there are plenty of people who are concerned about the environment. Yet what I focused on, as well as many people in the class, was the relatively small amount of people who dismiss climate change as a problem. I thought Prof. Maniates point was clear in that if we continue to get bogged down with trying to convince and educate, we are never going to incur the social change that we strive for. Our efforts and energy have a far greater impact if we direct them at structural changes to the mechanisms and institutions of society.
The examples that Prof. Maniates gave like the Civil Rights movement were very illustrative of the kind of social movements that worked without convincing everyone of their validity and worth. This is also true for the Feminist movement and we are seeing it now as well with the Gay Rights movement. Not everyone is convinced and agrees on what should be done, but the agents of the Gay Rights movement are not wasting their time and efforts trying to educate people and get them on their side. They are going right to the system and changing laws and the structure of society without diluting their efforts by trying to convince everyone.

The Lorax

After tossing the seed, the Once-ler looked down
And was surprised to see the boy wearing a frown
What are you waiting for? The Once-ler said
If you wait any longer, the seed might be dead!
But the boy kept frowning, his eyes pleading for help
“But Mr. Once-ler, I can’t do this by myself.”
The seed I can plant, but what of the dirt?
If it is not healthy, this tree will be hurt
And what if the clouds don’t ever bring rain
If there is no water, this tree will feel pain
And if I bring water, what if its bad?
With poisons or smog, it will make the tree sad
And what if the temperature gets to be hot?
If there is no shade, grow, this tree will not
What about other people who want to make thneeds?
From them, how can I possibly protect this seed?
So, Mr. Once-ler, as you can see
This is surely to big a task for only just me
Well, then I shall help you, the Once-ler replied
The boy looked happy but then sat down and sighed
I’m afraid that this task is too big for us two
What we need is for everyone to help and come through
When we unite all our voices, and let the world know
Then we can stop the things that won’t let this plant grow
We can stop the people who will chop down our trees
For you see, Mr. Once-ler, its more than just planting some seeds
If we change what was wrong when the Lorax was first here
The Truffala trees may be back in a few years
So join me and we’ll travel across the land
Searching for people, telling our plan
So that one day the Lorax may return and can see
That nature grows again, wild and free

Alternate Lorax Ending

But “hey” said the kid thinking real quick
“You speak of fresh water and clean smelling air
But all that is here is glumpled gross water
And smoggilous smoke
Thinking I can grow this tree is nothing more than a joke!”
The once-ler was taken aback
“I gave you the seed what more do you need?”
“What I need is a change to this misdeed
So I can plant this truffula seed
So come down right now
For I realize at last
I can’t do this alone
This task is too vast.”
The once-ler came down
And together they sat
For hours on end
Thinking of solutions to combat
Such an issue of water on earth and the air in the sky
That was just much too big for just one simple guy
They went to the town of the Consumigloos
and told everyone of these problems that were so overdue
people were sad
and ashamed of their thneeds
and realized they were all part of bad deeds
that created the smogulous smoke and the gupulty gook.
Before long
they rallied together to the truffula yard
working all day without any pay
working all night without stopping in sight.
They worked for a whole month and a half
to create what they called the purifligaft.
The glumped glu was pushed through through-turns and spins
and wheels and sneels
up pipes and shites
down keels and meels
and rushed out the other side
as the bluest most cleanest
water there was
the children could play in the river all day
and all of a sudden one day that next may
the Once-ler realized
Together, together, we'll watch the weather,
Now, and forever, never say never
A thneed may be what everyone needs
But a healthy world, indeed, is worth far more than greed.