Just because something is renewable doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for the World. When being environmentally conscious we can’t forget to be socially conscious as well because in the end, we are trying to sustain HUMAN life and culture. Products such as bio-diesel and bio-plastics made from renewable crops (i.e. corn) appear to be a great renewable source of energy, but alas there are two sides on every coin. In a world where millions of people still don't have the means to properly feed themselves can we really afford to turn food, a basic human need into items that aren’t necessarily key for our survival? We need to look beyond our own environmental egos and look at the big picture (or the full cycle). Corn is a renewable resource that can be produced in a fairly short time, but also a staple food in many countries. The raise in price of specific food items, such as corn, has caused havoc in countries like Mexico where the masses can’t afford to buy the own food they grow. Is it ethical to try to sustain the people of the future while starving the people of today?
Here is an alternative to bio-plastics made from corn: Maple Syrup Bio-plastic
Maple syrup is not a staple food, but more of a luxury food item that we can afford to use as product rather than food. Trees are less energy intensive when provided with the proper climate, acts as carbon sinks, prevents soil erosion rather than causing it, etc. In short, trees are a positive element to the ecosystem, while farming crops require huge amounts of resources and energy being a negative impact on the environment. Please click on summary below for full article on maple syrup.
As designers, when creating a product that we think is environmentally friendly we also have to ask ourselves who is this going to affect? Will there be social consequences? We have to be careful not to get lost in the new fad of going “green”. When creating goals for design, we should always keep in mind that we design for people first.
2 comments:
It is essential that we look at going"green" from a much broader perspective and consider the social consequences resulting from the current state of our planet. I agree with that.
However, perhaps it is the way it is worded, but I do not fully understand the last statement in this comment. Yes, we are designing for people, and we must think of how our design will affect people, (the way they move etc...)but to me, humans do not have priority over the environment and other species. They are simply apart of it. I am not suggesting that environmental issues take precedence over social ones. They don't, just that they go hand in hand with each other.
It may just be the word "first" that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. Putting people first has been the model for humanity for quite some time and I don't always agree that that has led us in the right direction.
It is true,the fact that we design for humans first is entirely the problem! Animals, and mother nature do not "invent", or create things that are harmful, or unnecessary. What we need is not to re-invent everything we use and do into a magical green product, but to re-assess our needs. Do we NEED take-out containers? Especially at Degrees for example, could a system of re-usable containers be realized? You could leave a deposit, take the container, eat your food, return next visit- then they REUSE it. Or bring your own? After all we are all there everyday! I think Mondragon restaurant has the right idea, they offer a discount for food taken away in your own container.
All I am saying is I think that although we do have alot of responsibility and advantage on the sustainability stage as designers, I tire of the magic sometimes. This is everyone's responsibilty, and we as designers are very restricted by how society is willing to perform.
Lindsey
Post a Comment