Efficiency and sufficiency, ideology and technology

Technology gave us the Bomb. It’s given us a lot of useful stuff as well, so we can’t really hold the Bomb against it. Like any other tool, technology is only as good as the people using it and as good as the ideology behind its conception (not a very subtle way of using the topic of this journal entry in a sentence, but it will have to do). Our technology impacts on the environment – factories belching smoke into the sky, mechanical detritus orbiting the earth and the sheer invasiveness of drilling machines digging deep into the earth for every last drop of oil possible. Among others. If I remember correctly Ian Malcolm (in Jurassic Park) talks about how science is an invasive process. He was spaced out himself at the time, dosed on morphine to take his mind off the fact that a supposedly extinct dinosaur had taken a bite out of him. But he was right: post-Industrial Revolution science has become the new religion, the only difference being that where people once worshipped the unknown they now stick their noses into everything. We need to change our attitudes and our beliefs, at least those of us who need to which, frankly speaking, is most of us anyway. We see ourselves as separate from each other, discrete units fulfilling our individual destinies, bravely treading where no human has gone before. And yet things would be so different if we realized that our unique lives are really same old same old (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). Life is pretty damn amazing when you take the time to stop and think about it, but it’s about Life with a capital L, not individual lives. Whatever we do matters in the bigger scheme of things as much as it does in the sphere of influence we perceive our individual lives have. Basically we are animals, living and interacting with other living organisms in an ideally symbiotic environment. When you look at the earth from space (if you’re a millionaire like Dennis Tito and can bribe yourself aboard a Russian spaceship, lucky guy) this realization hits home: the actual layer where Life exists is wafer-thin, a fragile bastion in the dark reaches of space. And, smart apes that we are, we’re trying our hardest to spoil that layer also known as the Biosphere, literally the zone of Life. All ecosystems have a carrying capacity beyond which they break down – right now perhaps it isn’t so much a question of if but rather when the Biosphere breaks down. Unless our attitude as a species doesn’t change it will probably be sooner rather than later. So, a checklist for attitude:

1. Natural Capital: is about viewing plants, animals and minerals of the biosphere as providers of natural “services” such as oxygen production, erosion prevention and so on. It helps bring the hitherto alien concept of nature as a resource to people in the more understable terminologies of finance. Using terms like carbon surplus and oxygen deficit may seem like taking a very hard-headed business approach to our relationship with nature, but it helps “keep things real”. Financial organizations like the World Bank take into account factors like usage of natural resources and GHG emissions while calculating the savings rate of a country, not just the money they have left in the bank after a year of pillaging the environment. Again, talking in more economic terms, people have proposed the idea of eco-taxes and eco-subsidy (Diesendorf and Hamilton). Tax ecologically unsound practices like transporting materials long distances from production to constructuion site and subsidise good practice like the use of locally available material and renewable energy.

2. Ecological Footprint: is a tool that approximates the amount of imagined arable and agriculturally or ecologically productive land area it takes to sustain one human or group of humans, say in a family or city, based on their use of energy, food, water, building material and other consumables. It is a way of determining relative consumption for the purpose of educating people about their resource use and, sometimes, triggering them to change how they consume. (www.wikipedia.com) During one of the SUSD lectures all the students of our class did this exercise and compared results. The results were not good.

3. Carrying Capacity: measures the maximum density of a species that a particular habitat can support sustainably.

4. Precautionary Principle: Better do nothing than cause harm (a version of the Hippocratic Oath). 

5. Indigenous Ingenuity: The “common man” isn’t a fool – practices that have served local groups of people well over the centuries don’t necessarily have to be jettisoned in the name of progress.

6. Voluntary Simplicity: It’s all about the money, its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum (Meja). Then again, maybe it isn’t. Adherents of voluntary simplicity see it as ‘a sustainable, ecologically sensitive alternative to the typical, western consumerist lifestyle’ (www.wikipedia.com). They stive towards self-sufficiency by doing many things like gardening and cooking on their own, not to save a few bucks but to improve their perceived quality of life. I many ways this probably mirrors Alvin Toffler’s idea that society needs to shift towards a ‘prosumer’ character.

7. Personal Responsibility: If we all hold ourselves personally responsible for whatever actions we do, no matter how inconsequential they may seem, everything will turn out fine.

8. Intergenerational Equity: What I do today I do with the knowledge that it will affect future generations. And if I were one of those people who couldn’t care less about “future generations”, then I would do well to go and jump off the nearest building. Who could care less anyway? 

While writing this Journal I’ve learnt a fair bit about a range of topics, from passive solar design to carbon trading in the international boardrooms, from reusing buildings to invisible light affecting human health. I won’t cover them here again, suffice to say that with knowledge comes power, so if you want to save the world read the entire Journal from cover to cover. Feel free to trash anything I’ve written, but hopefully some of it (at least) makes enough sense for you to have something to work on. There are horrific statistics in here as well – cold numbers that may or may not have been used out of context… you be the judge of that. How serious are things really? Do people with vested interests exaggerate the situation to sell their theories to the public by using fear as a motivator? Even if climate change is a reality (and it does appear to be so, doesn’t it?), would switching over to renewable sources of energy and designing climate-responsive buildings make a difference, or enough of a difference? There are many factors held against this switchover to renewable energy:

1. “Wastage” of land in wind farms, for example 70% of wind farm projects in the UK have been blocked in recent years. However, most of the other alternatives are quite benign. Photovoltaic, for example, are located on rooftops and walls.
2. More energy is required to construct the equipment than can be produced by the technology. This is a myth. Wind turbines, according to a study by Hydro Quebec, can generate almost 40 times the power required for their construction and operation.
3. New technology is expensive. Yes it is, like all technology. We just have to weigh the potential benefits to the environment (and therefore to us) against the initial investment in research and development, and realize that no cost is too high. 

Anyway, it’s all very well to talk about how one should change one’s attitude (and how one should never use “one” in sentences to describe people). As an architect, what I can appreciate is other architects applying these attitudes in their designs and setting examples the rest of us can emulate, and surpass. I’d like to take two sets of case studies – one is from the Houses of the Future exhibition held in Sydney recently, and the other is work done by the architectural firm Design Mobile out of California that is really good. I’ve also done case studies of the Amsterdam Eastern Docklands with my design group here at UNSW, but I won’t go into that here. It’s worth having a look at though.

THE HOUSES OF THE FUTURE‍

a) The Cardboard House

“The Cardboard House represents the reduction of technology and the simplification of needs. By demonstrating that we are able to recycle 100% of the building components at extremely low cost, the Cardboard House is a direct challenge to the housing industry to reduce housing and environmental costs.

Cardboard is not a traditional building material, however the introduction of innovative bonding, cutting and structural techniques has provided the opportunity to consider this lightweight and recyclable material in a more creative fashion. All the material in the house is recycled, and recyclable, making it an excellent environmentally sustainable option for housing. The Cardboard House is made of recycled cardboard supplied by Visy Industries. This is completed with a waterproof roof made from HDPE plastic, which also forms the material of the flexible under-floor water tanks and the novel kitchen and bathroom 'pods'.” 

b) The Concrete House

“Designed by Peter Poulet and Michael Harvey of the NSW Government Architect’s Office (GAO), the Concrete House celebrates concrete as an honest and robust material. The design utilises readily-available components to create a solid mass of curvilinear concrete shells on the south side of the house and curtain-like enclosures to the north side that open up for ventilation and light. In the tradition of the ‘pavilion’, the house interfaces with the surrounding landscape: the relationship between inside and outside is ambiguous. The curtain-like screens can be opened up for summer outdoor living, or closed to create a feeling of warmth and enclosure that only the thick massing of concrete can provide.”

c) The Glass House

“The Glass House reveals the latest in Nanotechnology research from around the world.
‍
It will showcase both commercially available products, and prototypes of recent research into materials science, to demonstrate the ways in which these products can:
‍
1. Enhance our lifestyle;
2. Improve natural lighting, thermal and acoustic performance of buildings; 
3. Result in lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of buildings.
‍
The basis of the Glass House was to design an environmentally responsive, ultra-low energy living space incorporating state-of-the-art material technologies. Nanotechnology is an emerging area of science that is concerned with the control of matter at the scale of atoms and molecules.
There is a wide range of Nanotechnologies, with many current and potential applications. With molecular control of matter we can make smart materials that change their properties in response to some stimulus from their surroundings - including instructions from people. Some smart materials might even function like micro scale factories for the production of other materials or devices.”
‍
Images and text from www.housesofthefuture.com.au

DESIGN MOBILE

a) The Portable House

This 3,000 square foot custom residence uses traditional commercial, industrial materials. Using storage containers and steel found on-site in downtown LA, Office of Mobile Design creates an oasis without abandoning or disguising the industrial landscape that inspired the design and provided the materials.

b) ECO LAB

As a working mobile classroom, the ECO LAB provides a base for a range of exhibitions all of which focus on ecology. A multimedia program explaining the "life of a tree" creates a path for discovery that weaves in and out of the expandable ECO LAB. A working art studio, local artists collaborate with the children to create facade-sized murals replacing graffiti at inner-city schools. Schoolteachers use stage-like platforms to discuss each child's role in the importance of planting trees and maintaining a sustainable environment.

c) The Hydra House

The Hydra House is a mass-customized mobile modular structure that is responsive to environmental issues of global warming and water desalination and recycling. The structural stalks are separated into chassis (providing internal structure, power, communication, mechanical, and a self-sufficient energy collecting system), and mass-customized elements (for interior build-outs, exterior and interior skins, electronics, and communications). Component design, engineering, and integration are at the system level. 

Structures, embedded with intelligence:

1. Water: rainwater with stretched bladder and desalination (97% of the planet’s water is salt water in the seas and oceans) and treated wastewater. Each tube either pulls seawater upward or distributes desalinized water downward to provide potable and washing water.

2. Power: photovoltaic, salt crystallization, and thermocouple energy conductors

3. Communication + Mechanical: global knowledge and plumbing

4. Pneumatic Exterior Skin: 2 layers of inflated neoprene

5. Liquefied Connections: suction-like tentacles attach to each independent housing unit, forming colonies and allowing for external passage.

6. Floating Garden: each independent housing unit has an attached self-sufficient floating garden. These Lily pads stem from Hydra House’s structural stalks, using an umbilical cord to provide fresh water and nutrients gives life and feeds the floating garden.

Images and text from www.designmobile.com

Very cool stuff.

References

Human Ecology, Human Economy, Diesendorf, M and Hamilton, C, 1997, , Allen and Unwin, Sydney
A Sustainable Future? The limits to Renewables by David Elliott, Professor of Technology Policy at the Open University
www.designmobile.com
www.housesofthefuture.com.au