Plain and simple, our society is consuming itself into oblivion. Every single day we figure out how to more with less, but in turn, we end up doing more than we wanted to do in the first place. We never relax, we never back down. I've heard the phrase in architecture so many times before, work hard, play hard. I've wondered what it would be like it we simply did less. "The word vision derives from the Latin videre meaning "to see, to discern and to focus."" In order to break this cycle, we must have a vision to get there.
In simply doing less, we actually require less resources. So instead of taking on a second or third job, just to maintain a certain lifestyle(which you have no time to do anyways, you are too busy!), why not just work the one job and have more free time. Time to spend with friends and family, or even just to spend it doing something that you enjoy. It never ceases to amaze me how our society increasingly finds its self worth in the amount of stuff that we consume. We have a garage full of things for hobbies that we never have time to do. What's the point! According to Limiting Consumption, "The avarice of mankind is insatiable," Aristotle declared 23 centuries ago." I do believe that if this is not corrected, our society will fail.
In Limiting Consumption it stated three factors to determine an economies complete burden on nature, "the size of human population, average consumption level, and technologies." The first thing is human population level. This however, is something that the majority of the public will not touch on. If we have less people we will consume less! The reason all past societies have had such a low impact on the earth is not because of their "primitive technologies", but because there wasn't that many of them. Here is where we must think a little, and use "foresight - the ability to imagine the future." Most people won't think about what will happen if our population of 7 billion grows to 14 billion in a short period of time, which it is heading there. In my lifetime, 2 billion more people have been born than have died. That is 2 billion more to feed, clothe, and house, all of which take natural resources. This is the most pressing issue of our time.
Hi, Josh! It's great to see your thinking evolving beyond population growth. This is, indeed, a multi-dimensional issue. It is difficult for me to provide feedback to you this week on items that could be built into your mid-term paper, because I'm not convinced you have really addressed the items in the blog assignment. If you could share with me some characteristics of your vision of a future (perhaps they are here and are just not explicit) that you are considering building into your paper and the mental modes that may support them, I can provide some support? What were your thoughts on the Thinking Ahead article? How equipped are you for future consciousness?
ReplyDeleteIn my vision, I would advocate conservation. The idea of quality of quantity. Personally, If I had the choice of a 1600 square foot home with all the bells and whistles or a 3000 square foot home that was builder basic, I would take the smaller home. They usually cost the same, and our current generation would 90% of the time take the 3000 square foot home, because "it has so much space!" or "yes, we really do need 5 bedrooms for my 3 person family!"
ReplyDeleteGoing along the lines of conservation, is population control. Why does an average American family need more than 2 children? Yet, many families I know just cannot stop having babies. It is really wasteful. I understand it is our choice, but I am not sure that it is the most responsible thing to do. This is why we need to help 3rd world countries advance their technologies, so they do not have to have families of 12 anymore. Also, they can better utilize their own resources to do more with less.
As far as mental modes, I think gaining a more keen awareness of the world around us. Especially as an American, and our effects on the world around us. When I did a studio project in Puerto Rico, I was shocked to see the poor effects of suburbanization on the tiny tropical island. They have 2 cars for every person on the island! And when I got to visit, it was even more apparent, this concrete jungle effect was simply awful.
A second thing that shapes my view is my visit to New York City. I could not believe how they utilize their resources so well! First off, I would never need a car. I don't need a big place, because the city gives me a reason to leave my home.(which could be a contributing factor as to why suburban homes "need" to be so big, we never leave them) I saw first hand how many people contributing to shared resources can actually be a positive thing, ie central park.
I realize that these two things would be difficult to recreate or to experience by many mid-westerners, and I am not really sure how I could go about it otherwise. Education? Free trips to NYC? I understand that people live here in the mid-west because they don't want NYC, but there has to be a balance somewhere.
I thought the Thinking ahead article was quite interesting. Psychology is of particular interest to me as a designer of the built environment because I have realized how we experience the world is based off of "mental modes", as you have described them. The better I understand how someone perceives the environment, the better I can design for that perception. The article has brought up an interesting thought on how our schools have become so math and science based, rational, and black and white thinking. This is directly related to our focus on math and science, and not on the arts. I think this has a vital role in our future, and the changing of that future. If we can not dream how things can be better, we will most likely never change.
I would like to think my education at OSU, and this class specifically has equipped me to at least begin to be able to have a future consciousness. I have been opened to experiences and knowledge that I would have otherwise been able to attain on my own. Specifically my training in sustainable design prepares me for the future, to be a leader in this area.
Hey, Josh! Thanks so much!! You have identified some characteristics to build on: quality vs. quantity, education, better paced population growth. With the latter, keep in mind that in the US and EU, population is declining. We actually have an aging population which is equally challenging. The population growth is spiking in developing countries -- primarily because we have been able to distribute resources which permit population to flourish. In the hunting and gathering days, population barely grew -- we were transient, looking for food and other resources to survive.
DeleteYou might consider having one of your characteristics of your vision be this psychology of sustainability (or whatever you want to call it), discussing some of Lombardo's "skills" he feels are appropriate to break beyond the black and white, one right answer, type of thinking that is inappropriate to the scale of challenges we face. I think you grasp the concept of mental modes, so continue to develop these instep with the "tenets" of your vision -- in some cases, some of your characteristics may BE the new, improved mental modes.
You are fortunate that you have been able to narrow the gap between your lived experience and the experience of others. I think one of the challenges is that the consequences of some of our behavior here in the US is not entirely visible to us. So, there is this need to close the gap and better understand the connection, perhaps, through stories and other educational tools used to engage. Hope this rattling helps!
Hey Josh, your follow up to Dr. Armstrong helped me gain a better understanding of your direction. I too believe population is at the heart of most environmental issues, but of course its a touchy issue. You mentioned technology to developing nations to stop families of 12 and such, but how do you pose we handle the situation in America? On cities, the biggest issue in the NYC to the Midwest thing is that our cities are so spread out here because we have the room so the cities would literally have to be rebuilt or the spaces filled, which would actually require more resource consumption.
ReplyDeleteHi Josh, I also was wondering about how you propose the issue of stopping families from having 12 or more children. What do you do about the people whose religion it is to have many children or it goes against their religion to "stop" procreating? I agree that this is a very touchy issue, yet I do think it is one that should be addressed. The only real problem with it that I see is how to approach such an issue.
ReplyDelete