Prioritizing Progress

Humans are an emotional bunch. We are volatile because we feel things very deeply and very intensely. When it comes down to it, though, I believe we all want the same thing: Peace and harmony. The question is, and always has been, how do we attain it?

            There are many ideas and many opinions surrounding what the primary priority should be for the future of humanity. Businessmen say we must focus entirely on the economy to ensure we have a future to look forward to. Environmentalists say we must take action to stop and reverse global warming. Social justice warriors say that we must focus most intensely on social issues and encourage people to treat each other with love, respect, and dignity, in order to move forward progressively. All of these ideas and opinions have merit—some more than others.

            Some of the most educated and intelligent people of our time will insist that climate change must be our first priority. After all, if we do not have an environment to live in, what kind of future are we propelling towards? Many organizations exist in the names of sustainability and reversing the damage already done by humans, such as 350.org (https://350.org/) and Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/). Evidence of climate change can be seen in the Arctic, where sea ice melts more every day, starving more polar bears. The climate change has bees dying in numbers large enough to seriously threaten the ecosystem—along with our pollution. Climate change is only one issue environmentalists face. Pollution causes far more damage than just heating up the atmosphere or killing off a species or two; pollution can be seen in the millions of disposable plastic items filling our coastlines and waters, choking and suffocating increasingly more aquatic life and polluting the bloodstreams of entire food chains. How will humans survive climate change if the ecosystem is destroyed by our thoughtlessness and apathy?

            Others believe we must focus on economic well-being. Without a good economy, they say, there is no point in having a good environment. People who view economic interests as a higher priority than environmental concerns believe that environmentalists and actions people encourage others to take to help the environment only encourage people to move backwards—to live simpler lives and to stop doing things. Corporatists and economists believe that environmentalists want to return humanity to a prehistoric era of caveman-esque living, such as hunting and gathering and essentially acting as any other mammal on Earth. Most economists believe that the environment is worth fighting for and saving, as they recognize that this is our one and only Earth and if we want to survive, we must treat it well. However, views as to which environmental aspects should be prioritized vary greatly among economists, as can be seen by the above graphic.

            Still others believe that social issues are of the utmost importance and must be addressed immediately. Gallup.com (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) conducted a number of surveys to determine what Americans see has the most important issues facing the country. Such topics as the environment, politics, and the legal system were covered. Social justice warriors view social issues and political issues as the highest priority facing humanity because they think that there is no point in having a good environment if humans continue treating each other poorly—with excessive cruelty and abuse. If we cannot unite as a race, social justice warriors may argue, how will we ever come together to save the environment or anything else? Social justice warriors recognize the importance of facts and research. They do not deny the importance of environmental issues or economic issues. Instead, they choose to focus on that which they feel is closest to home and of the utmost importance: Society.

            All this can seem confusing for someone who sees the merit in every point of view. With so many issues needing solutions, how should we choose our priorities and act on them? How can we band together and create fast, sustainable, positive change? Those who have asked this question have come up with multiple solutions, though today’s most evident seem to be memes. It is important to be informed on all subjects when considering how to take action or what action to take. Personally, I side with the environmentalists, but as someone who recognizes the importance of every issue, I think that environmentalism can be marketed to all demographics. I believe that we, as a race—as a species on planet Earth—can unite as a whole behind the right cause and I believe the right cause is finding a way to live with nature in a sustainable way. I do not believe we need to eliminate much, if any, of what we currently do as a species; instead, I think we should change the way we do things so that we are more efficient. The greenhouse gasses we emit into the air can be captured and reused and put into the Earth as nutrients. Our buildings can be made to act like organisms and maximize the efficiency of energy and water usage. Using science, we have united the people of America before with images of our planet from space—unprecedented images that showed us without a doubt that our borders are imaginary and we are one of many life forms inhabiting Earth. We need another event such as what we had at the height of the Space Age to bring people together behind the causes that affect us all.

            It is easy for a Christian to demonize a Muslim due to lack of understanding. It is easy for white people to disregard the struggles of people of color by thinking, “It doesn’t affect me.” People imagine borders between countries as real things of great importance that protect their ways of life and their well-being and consider interlopers to be threats to their safety. It is easy to forget to be kind when others in your life have shown you nothing but cruelty. In order to reach the hearts of others, we must put ourselves in their position and look through their eyes. See where they’re coming from and meet them on their side of the fence. It is not easy, but it is worth it. Not every mind will be changed. Not everyone appreciates politeness, courtesy, or information. But it cannot be denied that more hearts are reached through kindness and consideration than through bull-headedness and rudeness.

Rethinking Overpopulation

My studies have taken me on many trains of thought as I’ve read about sustainability, architecture, agriculture, and more. One of my major assignments, due soon, is a presentation based on a book. The book I’ve chosen is Biomimicry. It has given me more ideas than any other book up to it that I’ve read for class. This blog entry is about using biomimicry, including the Cradle to Cradle design, something I’ve just learned about today that is a holistic, biomimetic approach to human life, to put it simply.

            I have often told my friends that humans are overpopulating the Earth. I have touted sources, pointed at population numbers, indicated pollution levels and natural decimation by human hands and I have advocated the use of eugenics to help fix the human problem. Today, however, I found myself digesting the words of a piece of text titled “Life Upcycles.” I don’t know where it’s from or who the author is; it was passed out in class for everyone to read. I’m glad for it because it has brought up some highly interesting points.

            Frequently, I think to compare humans to other animals on Earth. I compare us to octopi, who demonstrate great amounts of intelligence yet die before passing it on to the next generation. I compare us to cattle, who live lazily in comparison to the hustle and bustle of humanity. In all of this comparison, however, I never thought to look at such creatures as ants or even sheep in order to learn from them. My comparisons were always aimed at persuading my listener that humans are a shitty species and we have to do something to change it. I’ve never had suggestions for how to change it, as I have hoped to come across someone with ideas of their own. Finally, I have found the kind of ideas I have sought for so long and it seems kind of fitting that the answer was in text rather than in a social interaction.

            Ants are a highly organized species. Every single last ant that exists on Earth has a job, a purpose, including their “children”. What surprised me to learn was that ants actually have a higher collective biomass than humans—the equivalent of about 35 billion people. What Life Upcycles thinks about this is that humans can easily live happily and sustainably on Earth, using Cradle to Cradle, with a population of 10 billion.

            The point brought up by my text that has me rethinking my entire argument on overpopulation is this: Instead of telling us that we need to have “zero emissions,” or we have to “stop” doing things, it would be better for us to create objects and buildings that work with the environment rather than separately from it. It seems like a rather complex statement to me because it is a new idea for which I have little understanding. We, as people and including myself, have a habit of telling each other all of the ways in which we need to be “less bad,” but not of telling each other how we can do “more good.” So, how can we do more good?

            The first steps have already been taken. We are doing less bad. Companies and businesses everywhere tout the ways in which they are reducing costs, reducing waste, reducing badness. In addition, we now have things in place such as LEED and the Living Building Challenge, meaning that architecture is moving forward in a way that may allow us as humans to live and work on this planet in a more symbiotic way.

            When we rethink overpopulation, it is important to note that carbon is not inherently bad. We have come to think of “carbon” and “emissions” as four-letter words: bad things that must be eradicated in order for our species to avoid auto-annihilation. When we see companies advertising goals for “zero emissions,” we think, “Great! Yes! Good!” But is it, really? After all, take a look at the advertising images: Often, companies bragging about “zero emissions” use images like trees to indicate how “green” they want to be. The thing is, though, trees are not emission-free.

            Trees emit oxygen. Oxygen is an emission of trees and the more trees there are, the taller and older they get, the more oxygen they emit. So, rather than saying we should strive for “zero emissions,” we should look at what we are emitting. Trees essentially eat carbon dioxide, which we exhale. As Life Upcycles puts it, “emissions are breathing.” So, how can we create an environment—a habitat for humanity—that breathes, rather than exuding toxins? That is my question as we move forward.

            No longer will I so ignorantly claim that humans are in overpopulation. No longer will I so ignorantly advocate the use of eugenics as a solution when other opportunities abound. Finding the opportunities is the trick.

Sustainability: Architecture and Words

My blog is overdue for a new post, and what better topic than sustainability?

            As I’ve mentioned, the program I’m currently taking at The Evergreen State College is called Sustainability: Reimagining the Built Environment and the Written Word. I’ve missed a lot of class and a couple of assignments but I don’t think I’m failing and I don’t think I’ll fail, I just think I’ve been pretty overwhelmed by the wealth of knowledge available on this topic and all the ideas that come to mind every time I read new text related to what we do in class.

            I have a huge project coming up. I get to design a building or group of buildings, essentially, that meets LEED requirements and may even qualify for the Living Building Challenge. This means I have to do this project with practicality in mind and suggest using absolutely NO new materials. Everything must be recycled and reused.

            I suppose now is a good time to cover a couple of things. First: LEED. What is LEED? I certainly didn’t know what it was before taking this program so I wouldn’t expect you to know it by sight. “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” is a “certification program focused primarily on new, commercial-building projects and based upon a points system.” Source.

            Second: The Living Building Challenge. Details, naturally, can be found at their official website. Put simply, the Living Building Challenge seeks to create “regenerative spaces that connect occupants to light, air, food, nature, and community.” When my class took a field trip to Seattle to tour the Bullitt Building, we learned some basics of the Living Building Challenge. To us, it was explained that the building has sensors that detect the amount of air flow through the building and the amount of sunlight filtering through the windows. The Bullitt Building, specifically, has outdoor shades that lower and raise depending on the level of sunlight coming through windows on the building. The sun on the east may cause eastern window shades to lower, while western window shades stay up high to allow the shaded side of the building to get more natural light. Solar panels on the roof provide the majority of energy to the building—in the case of the Bullitt Building, I believe they actually became energy positive many times and thus sold energy to Puget Sound Energy, making money rather than spending it on electricity. Ventilation of the building and plumbing all revolve around sustainability and reuse.

            The Living Building Challenge is far more interesting to me than LEED. While I think that both are great and necessary in today’s world, moving forward, I think the Living Building Challenge is one that all new designs should strive for. It has seven “Petals,” or performance areas, each of which has its own requirements, also known as imperatives. The petals are Place, Water, Energy, Health & Happiness, Materials, Equity, and Beauty. In order for a building to meet the requirements of the Living Building Challenge, they must meet all imperatives of at least 4 Petals.

            This design assignment, reusing materials and applying adaptive reuse to the spaces they want to use for this project, has me thinking of the “Mistake on the Lake,” or the Capitol Center Building, a blight on the landscape standing nine stories high in concrete, steel, and glass. Straight lines, a flat roof, and an earthquake-proof foundation despite sitting on fill in a flood zone. The architecture of the gutted, long-deserted building in the midst of many of Olympia’s public services is ugly not by design, but rather neglect and disrepair and I think that most, if not all of its materials can be taken and used for the new spaces this project seeks to create for artists in Olympia.

            There are many sites with articles covering what locals call the Mistake on the Lake. All of these articles explore a couple of ideas for adaptive reuse of the building, which has been grandfathered into the area that today has a developmental height limit of 35 feet. The Capitol Center Building cannot be added to or expanded due to new architectural codes in the area and many, if not most of the residents in Olympia would rather see the eyesore taken down rather than renovated. The steel and glass standing nine stories high could be taken and used for the artists’ spaces we have been assigned to design.

            New ideas come to my mind every time I read something new about sustainable architecture. Even if I’m reading about old buildings that do not meet new LEED certifications or Living Building requirements, I find ideas coming to mind of how we can use old aesthetics and new methods of design to create beautiful, sustainable architecture that brings people together and makes a place “pop”. I find myself incapable of articulating these ideas to my faculty and often, I even find difficulty transcribing my ideas to my journal. I hope that this blog entry clears up a little space in my head, files away a couple of thoughts that clutter my mind, and allows me to clearly formulate and articulate the ideas I have for this major assignment.