Another revolutionary design process has been proposed by Bill Mollison. Unlike
Cradle to Cradle, Mollisonís "Permaculture" targets individual
homes and farms as the root of change. ìPermacultureî is a combination of
the words "Permanent" and "Agriculture." Mollison takes
this approach to creating sustainable systems because he believes that "without
permanent agriculture there is no possibility of a sustainable social order"
(ix).
The primary principle of Permaculture
is to "work with nature rather than against it"(15).
Permaculture design takes into account the forces of nature and the tendencies
of nature, and attempts to assist, rather than impede them. For example, industrial
design provides a pesticide to deal with insect destruction of a crop. Permaculture
takes into account that pests continually build up resistance to pesticides,
or that pesticides also kill beneficial insects, which will help to keep pests
under control.Thus, Permaculture would attempt to cultivate habitat for predators
of harmful insects and decrease pesticide use rather than using chemicals
carelessly to quickly deal with the problem. The consideration of all the
forces in nature and use of them for total benefit in an ecosystem is a classic
Permacultural approach.
Another principle of Permaculture is
to primarily use natural systems to fix natural problems (15).
For example, the flooding of storm water systems is a common occurance in
many cities. These structures were designed to get rid of water as quickly
as possible, rather than capture and use it (Lancaster). When rains come, runoff water is funneled into the sewage
system and thus the waste water treatment plant. When this happens, the waste
water treatment plant also floods, spilling sewage into the nearby streams.
These type of storm water systems are prevalent all across the U.S., even in areas where water is scarce
(for example, Tucson, Arizona). In these areas, water is pumped hundreds
of miles and then used carelessly (Lancaster). Rain water could be collected in
wetlands, funneled towards gardens, wetland habitat or ponds from the streets,
or captured for flushing toilets and washing dishes. This would solve several
problems of contamination of rivers and water scarcity using the problem (rainwater)
as the solution.
This leads into the third principle;
to make small changes for large effects. This is where efficiency enters the
design process. By taking into account the ease and effectiveness of functioning
components, designers do not waste resources. The yields of such changes are
theoretically unlimited. This is echoed by designers who say that waste is
only waste due to our inability to use it in a beneficial way (Reynolds,
1990). In fact, nothing is wasted in a permacultural system that functions
properly. Every component of a community has a use; we only must learn how
to implement it as a beneficial component.
Another key idea in permaculture is
that when one is surrounded by diverse, harmonious relationships, he or she
will feel happier and be more likely to spread the seed of harmony in his
or her relations with other humans. Permaculture is really opposed to industrial-based
systems of economics, politics, and community organization because they encourage
fragmentation of relationships. In ironic agreement, Cradle to Cradle suggests that really
we can incorporate connectivity with nature in industrial working environment
and through considering the environmental effects of our products and industrial
systems. McDonough and Braungart have worked with several companies (Ford,
Hermann Miller, Nike) in designing new factories that incorporate natural
light, green hallways, natural airflow, green roofs and native seed plots
(to lure in native species of birds and plants) to soften the abrupt division
between industry and the natural world. Each of these companies has seen an
increase in applications, fewer sick days from employees, a decrease in regulatory
costs, and an increase in productivity (web page).
Clearly, increasing workers connections with the outside world is beneficial
to industry. Permacultural systems encourage connections between the
components of a system, which in turn make the entire system stronger.
These two systems
of design, although similar in many goals, differ in several fundamental environmentalist
perspectives. One of these topics is consumption. Mollison writes in opposition
to consumption:
"Our consumptive lifestyle has led us to
the very brink of annihilation. We have expanded our right to live on the
earth to an entitlement to conquer the earth, yet 'conquerors' of nature always
lose. To accumulate wealth, power, or land beyond oneís needs in a limited
world is to be truly immoral, be it as an individual, an institution, or a
nation-state" (1).
McDonough and Braungart counter by writing that:
"[t]he environmental message that
'consumers' take from all this can be strident and depressing: Stop being
so bad, so materialistic, so greedy. Do whatever you can, no matter how inconvenient,
to limit your 'consumption.' Buy less, spend less, drive less, have fewer
children-or none. If you are going to help save the planet, you will have
to make some sacrifices, share some resources, perhaps even go without. And
fairly soon you must face a world of limits. Sound like fun? We donít think
so"(7).
In this conflict of views the authors have found an impass.
While McDonough and Braungart speak only to developed countries with money
to implement such a research-based system, Mollisonís can be implemented (perhaps more effectively and at higher
benefit) by those who live in poor, rural settings. The idea of local sustenance teems in
permacultural thought, while McDonough and Braungart do not address the issue.
A farm designed with Permacultural techniques should be (almost) entirely
self-supporting. In many ways, Mollison suggests reverting to agricultural
society, while McDonough and Braungart suggest that industrial society is
good, only the processes associated with current techniques are flawed. Moreover, McDonough and Braungart
link large-scale economic growth to individual happiness, while Mollison denies
any connection between the two.
The
two models also differ in that Cradle to Cradle does not address issues of
food supply and long-term sustainability of consumptive society. Instead,
McDonough and Braungart paint the picture that these will simply result from
economic growth. The authors do not address the energy costs of a new industrial
system, nor do they supply the energy costs and time frame for the implementation
of such a system. Mollisonís techniques can be implemented
practically around the home with little to no fossil fuel energy consumption,
only personal energy consumption. Once again, the differing audience separates
the authors; while Mollison speaks to simple folks, McDonough and Braungart
hail the developed world.
Mollison draws out this difference in
a diagram of the production of a chicken egg through two different systems;
one industrial and the other natural. In the industrial system, fuel, pesticides,
crops, transportation and hormones produce an egg from a chicken whose life
is lived in close proximity to other hens in a stinky, infectious henhouse.
The other egg is produced from the hen scavenging insects, vegetable scraps,
and drinking rainwater in the open air, the only industrial inputs going into
the structures that form the henhouse (25). While
McDonough and Braungartís system may differ from the industrial system that
produces the first egg, it still is certainly more energy consumptive and
unnatural in comparison to Permacultural systems.
If we view these two design structures
as approaching different sectors of our world, we can see that both are doing
good things. While Permaculture may seem to be the most environmentally sustainable
and most natural lifestyle, the idea of "stepping back in progress"
will never jive with the majority of "developed world" constituents.
Cradle to Cradle has received rave
reviews for combining hope for the future and economic growth, an entirely
new proposition in the environmentalist perspective (Janzen).
Indeed, it may take industry-friendly folks like McDonough and Braungart to
persuade consumers in the developed world to consider the effect of their
lives on the environment (or simply change the system in which such people
live). Also, there will always be a need for some part of industry. Those
who do change their lives to create agricultural systems around their own
homes will need plows, rakes, hoes, shovels, clothing, fences, and other products
of industry.
Thus, neither "holistic system
of design" in fact speaks to all realms of our world. There is no system
to implement that will universally fill our needs and the needs of the environment
around us. We must be able to fill in the gaps with personal decisions that
do not harm (but benefit) other organisms. However, making the systems that
we do need for sustenance more environmentally friendly will certainly not
hurt our status. The fact that a system of design is not perfect should not
impede us. However, as we are intelligent, concerned beings, we must continually
evaluate the effects the systems that we depend on have on the natural systems
that will sustain us.
The
authors of Cradle to Cradle and Permaculture are driven
by the idea that we, as humans, need to consider not only our personal actions,
but also the actions that we make as a species by use
of products whose source and processing we (seemingly) have no control over.
These designers suggest that we need to take responsibility for not only personal
actions, but also those of our society. Commonly such systems have been separated
from individual actions because of their historical dominance and large scale.
However, industrial design now defines our species due to the destruction
of nature and the waste we create through its processes. These authors argue
that we are ethically required to consider our system of design and to change
its principles to align with our species' goals.
Conclusion
Both Permaculture and Cradle to Cradle contain important ideas
to move us beyond the industrial design that dominates decisions today. Both
models are similar in ideals, but have entirely different methods to improve
the environment. While one (Cradle to
Cradle) targets large scale changes in industrial product design and methods,
the other begins at home with locally sustainable agriculture. More importantly
than the differences that separate the two systems is thinking more about
the effects humans have on our environment. Both thought processes agree
that we are ethically required to consider how our ideals are expressed through
our design principles and through the systems which provide us with products.
While neither system may be able to totally remedy the impending environmental
collapse, both help us to critically examine our cumulative actions, a dynamic
first step in moving beyond the near-sighted destructive design of the industrial
age. The time has come for us to express our creativity and our ideals in
a way that benefits, rather than taxes the living network that ultimately
sustains us.
Sources:
Chiras, Daniel
(2001). Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable Future. Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Chiras, Daniel (2000). The
Natural House. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Haines,
Andrew, McMichael, Anthony J., Epstein, Paul R., McCally, Michael. Sept. 19,
2000. "Environment and Health 2: Global Climate Change and Health."
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 163, Issue 6.
Janzen, J. Daniel.
Review of Cradle to Cradle. Flak Magazine. http://flakmag.com/books/cradletocradle.html.
November 3, 2003.
Lancaster, Brad.
Lecture. May 2003. Tucson, Arizona.
McDonough, Bill and Michael
Braungart (2002). Cradle to Cradle. New York: North Point Press.
McDonough Braungart Design
Chemistry Home Page. http://www.mbdc.com/profile_clients.htm
November 3, 2003.
Mollison, Bill (1988). Permaculture:
A Designer's Manual. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications.
Reynolds,
Michael (1990). Earthship, Vol. 1. Taos, New
Mexico: Solar
Survival Press.