18 February 2017

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.

17 February 2017

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.

18 January 2017

Questions Concerning Humanity and Utility

Humans are an interesting lot. It seems at once like yesterday and like forever ago that I wrote my blog entry, “Humans Are Actually Terrifying.” It seemed a popular enough piece at the time, but I think it’s good to spark some dialogue about the human condition and our habits as we live our lives.
            A classmate of mine asked, regarding architecture, “At what point does development become meaningless?” This made me think of some other things I have thought about, other questions I have asked: At what point do we realize that not every single human needs to ‘make a living’ in order to be valued and loved? What is the true purpose of cancer and why are we so intent on and obsessed with curing it in all its forms? What further studies can we do that might tell us the reason cancers appear? Isn’t cancer simply the evolutionary process taking place? Why do we grieve those who die? Is death not merely a part of life that we should all accept? Should we not honor the dead for who they were in life, rather than bemoaning the fact that they no longer breathe our same air?
            We should celebrate the lives of those who have passed. Take, for example, the late, great, Alan Rickman. Or, perhaps, the wonderful Carrie Fisher. Yes, it is sad that they are gone because they were wonderful to see on screen. Has it crossed no one’s mind, though, that perhaps it was their time to go? It may seem premature to us, as we expected Carrie Fisher to finish the Star Wars movies and Alan Rickman to tell his great-grandchildren about Harry Potter, but since when has the world cared about what humans think should happen? Life happens on its own terms and we simply need to grab on, hold on tight, and figure it out as we plunge forward with the persistent march of time. I was particularly devastated with the passing of Robin Williams. He was like the cool uncle I knew and loved but had never actually met. I felt an intimate connection with him that I would like to mention before anyone tries to tell me I simply don’t understand because I was never a true fan. It felt as though a family member and a true friend had passed when Robin Williams took his own life and I cannot fathom why he did it. All I know is that he was found to have hung himself on the day I gave birth to my daughter. Coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences. For a while, I mourned Robin Williams, but I realize now that the best thing for me to do is to continue his legacy by ensuring that my wonderful daughter knows all of his movies, so that she can see what a wonderful soul we had with us for some time. I want her to know Robin Williams as I knew him, to feel him as intimately as I felt him, even and especially when he discussed mental illness. Robin Williams can help teach my child compassion and wherewithal, even if there is no longer a chance of my meeting him in person. I hope we can all think of our favorite late celebrities in this way.
            What is cancer, really? I always imagine one of two things. The first is to imagine feeling lumps multiplying within my body at an exponential rate, so that each time I poke a particular part of my body, it feels like more and more little balls are forming within. The other is to imagine what cells look like as they multiply… and multiply, continuously. Why do cells become cancerous? What purpose could cancer serve that humans are blind to due to our “divine spiritual and intellectual development”? People like to share things on social media that condemn cancer for the suffering it induces in those who become sick with it. People like to do things like participate in Relay for Life and purchase items from the Susan G. Komen Foundation for Breast Cancer Awareness (a scam if I’ve ever seen one). “Cancer is horrible!” “Fuck cancer!” “Rest in Peace Grandpa, Grandma, Auntie Susie, and Uncle John, all cancer victims…” I do not seek to belittle the emotional implications behind the suffering endured by cancer patients. I do, however, seek to belittle the way in which we approach the topic. Why do we think it is so vital to save every single life that comes into this world? Why are we the only species on the planet that coddles the weak and unfit? Is it so that we can flash our Good Guy Badges in one another’s faces and claim we’re such excellent citizens because we have compassion? What is true compassion? At what point does compassion turn from strength to weakness?
            I believe death is a part of life. I believe that we need to accept the inevitability of bodily death and focus less on what happens afterwards and more on what happens beforehand. The religious are, in many cases, entirely too focused on what seems to be the end of the journey that is life. I believe wholeheartedly in living in the moment as much as possible. Of course, it is important to plan for the future. After all, we do have an average life span depending on demographic and geography, so that virtually every person on this planet could plan as if to live up to that point. In this way, people could be prepared for the future even if they weren’t to reach as far into it as they’ve planned. We also need to learn from the history we are taught and presented, as well as do our own historical research in order to develop well-rounded ideas of what has happened over time and what mistakes were made, so that we do not continue to repeat that which has been detrimental to our livelihoods. It has been said that the smart man learns from his mistakes while the wise man learns from the mistakes of others. I believe this is true and I strive to learn from the mistakes of others so that I can push forward and hopefully contribute to human evolution in a positive manner. This leads me to a connecting point…
            In coddling the weak and unfit and by supporting those who would otherwise die in nature’s survival of the fittest, do we waste resources on those who do not contribute to our futures? In what way are the severely handicapped useful to our lives aside from teaching us a level of compassion that is virtually useless? At what point will our habit of coddling the weak come back to bite us in the ass due to overextension of resources? We are already an overpopulated species on this planet and we continue to fuck up the environment by transporting wildlife from place to place, disturbing local ecosystems and forcing species after species into extinction not only from the transport of species to new lands but also from such abhorrent activities as shark finning and bottom trawling our oceans. We worry about sustainability but who will we be sustaining for? At what point will we need to prioritize human lives based on people’s merit? At what point do we stop demonizing eugenics due to the Holocaust of World War II and instead look at it as a viable possibility for improving the human race and reducing our impact on the planet?

            I encourage feedback to every blog entry, but this particular entry is one on which I very much wish to see dialogue sparked. I would especially like to see what some thoughts are as far as the question regarding architectural development, as that is the question posed that sparked this entry and all the questions I’ve presented herein.