Cradle to Cradle

The idea of a Cradle to Cradle design is one in which materials are circulated healthily. It stresses that industry has to protect ecosystems through a healthy cycle of goods. Some key ideas with the Cradle to Cradle design are the uses of technical nutrients and biological nutrients. The idea behind them differs with the basis of their makeup. For example technical nutrients are inorganic materials that can be used many times without decreasing quality and can continue to stay in the cycle. Biological nutrients on the other hand are different because they are based from organic materials and instead of being able to stay in the cycle for a long time with out deteriorating, their strength is based on how easily they can decompose into the natural environment without making a negative effect. This idea of Waste=Food, which consists of a large portion of the book, follows this premise of biological nutrients. The basic idea of Waste=Food is organic materials(waste) becoming food for bugs that decompose it and therefore return it to the environment and leads to the production of our own food. I believe these ideas in the book are very revolutionary. If we create products that will last in the system and use organic materials that bugs can break-down this will immensely help our current problems with waste today. This idea totally goes against how most businesses work unfortunately. A great example of this is the idea of planned obsolescence which was discussed earlier in our class.The negative effects that come from Perceived obsolescence could be deterred if we start use technical nutrients in these products that can be reused in the newer technologies.

Waste Equals Food

The premise of the book Cradle to Cradle, as Carolyn and Yumi have already mentioned can be manufactured in ways that are more environmentally friendly. This calls on shifting from an idea of building products which will eventually become obsolete and are harmful to the environment, to ones that will “give back”. In the book the authors mention the idea of products as biological or technical nutrients. Through these methods the materials that products are made of will safely reenter the water or soil without harming the environment by depositing synthetic materials and toxins, or can be continually used by downcycling—into low-grade materials and uses rather than being “recycled”.  This idea surprised me as I never really considered that even though we recycle it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are helping the environment because we still have to think about the materials that make up products, which are toxic and unsafe for the environment. If we were to adjust the production of goods in such a way that takes into consideration “nutrient cycle” then we would definitely be in a better situation. Instead of the “cradle to grave” industrial model we should think about the “cradle to cradle” notion.

Cradle to Cradle

After reading the book, I feel that the authors are arguing that the current industries where so many products are produced and wasted can actually be used to generate ecological value. Of course there are economic values in them as well that industries always compete with one another, but the authors emphasized that even though in the modern days it seems that there is no future (from The End of Wild), there are ways to shift from the wasteful society to repeatedly recycling and producing, without having to use up all the resources. It was really interesting to me that the authors brought this notion of “lifecyle development.” And I feel that that is a term/phrase that we should all think about for sustainable development, future generations. As we all know, the environment conditions will not improve in one day, but throughout life time, many things can be done if each and every one of us actively participate in this process and be aware of this. I definitely think that they are on the right track, in the sense that what other options do we really have? If industries were to stop producing, human life will not continue—so many people will lose their jobs etc. So, the industries must keep moving forward, in which they can use this “cradle to cradle” design where they can use-recycle-produce the material without having to use up the resources like the book, made out of polypropelene paper, demonstrates.

The Presentation of Science

Having taken a class on statistics with a climate skeptic, I was pretty familiar with many of the arguments presented by the Friends of Science page and refuted by the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic page. This disagreement over the reality of climate change is present throughout society. We do not consider climate change a scientific fact but instead a polarizing political issue. Each point has a counterpoint presented by the opposition and both sides seem to have science on their side as represented by their numerous graphs and figures. And both websites seem pretty convincing. The layouts are clear and each possible argument is addressed, bolstered by other articles. We like to think of science as definite and factual, but so much can be done in how those facts are presented. Scientific data does not definitely prove a point either way, much can be done with the analysis and presentation. The websites have made choices in what facts they want to include and how they want to present them. This makes their causes seem obvious and factually based. It is no surprise that skeptics and believers alike have dedicated followers to their causes. For me, the Grist website was more convincing, but I went onto the sites with specific opinions and therefore looked for the information that reinforced my beliefs.

Climate Change

I have seen clips before where scientists argued that climate change is not happening. When I first watched them, I could not believe my eyes and was speechless. I took some time to look over the two websites and felt the same way again. People, in general, need solid facts to support any arguments. For this particular issue, scientists argue that climate change is used for political means with no scientific proven facts to support the climate change. The fierce competition around the science of climate change occurs in order to prove that climate change does not have scientific facts to support the cause and the cause of the climate change is simply a myth. Climate change is however, used in the political field and has become a bigger issue politically than scientifically—is these scientists argument.

Neither of the websites sticks out to be more convincing than the other.As Thomas mentioned though, there is bias, due to the fact that I do believe in climate change and feel that these websites are rejection of the obvious and cannot be ignored or treated the way it is.

It Varies

Climate change is an issue that seems very broad in regards to the effects and the actual causes. The science behind climate change varies, depending on who you ask the answer will either be CO2 emissions or the Sun, which is what the Friends of Science organization believes. Because there isn’t a strong consensus as to the scientific cause or effects of climate change the debate over the topic is intense, with arguments varying in perspectives. 

And when you examine the websites of the Friends of Science organization and Grist an online environmental magazine you see just this. It’s difficult to actually differentiate and determine whom to believe, which is why the best approach is to take the information from both websites and inform oneself about the varying arguments. Just being aware of the issue and knowing the various point of views is better than not being aware about the aspects of an issue. For instance the Friends of Science organization has a specific standpoint on the issue which is the Sun being the main driving force of climate change and Grist is completely different as it mainly informs people about environmental issues through commentary and news articles. If you basically just browse through the Friends of Science website it appears to be more convincing in terms of its standpoint, with the site listing scientific references, initiatives, as well as consensus and skepticism on the issue. Compared to the Grist website this site is more convincing as it takes one central point and appears to back it up with scientific data.

Valuing Nature

Through many of my formative years my parents were part of a CSA that required its members to spend a certain amount of time in the fields working for their share. While I strongly detested the fresh chard and other products of my parent’s hard work, I detested tagging along to the farm even more. The parents of my childhood best friends were also contributing members in this CSA. This meant our stay at home mothers would put on their work clothes maybe once or twice a week throughout the summer and force us all into the Volvo to carpool out into the country. The farm, in my memory, was hell on earth. It was always hot and intensely boring. As our parents, usually mothers, weeded and watered, the kids tended to get a little “Lord of the Flies” on each other. There was rarely a work day that went by that someone didn’t end up in tears with an incredible number of burrs in their hair. One summer when I was about eleven had been particularly unbearable. Maybe it was hotter than most years or we had just grown tired of each other sooner, but those farm days were becoming brutal. Our mothers had grown so tired of us and our complaints they encouraged/forced us to go out and explore.

We had previously been forbidden to wander beyond the confines of the barn or the fields they happened to be working in. This new license to explore meant we could venture into the woods that abut the fields. After having spent a summer hanging out in an overheated barn or in the fields bothering our parents, this felt like a dream. And the woods did not disappoint. We found an oasis, an area where a beautiful creek ran through the woods. We climbed trees, waded in the water, and built forts of fallen branches. We spotted a few deer, a multitude of insects, and an alarming number of snakes. The place seemed entirely private and untouched. Having grown up in a densely populated urban neighborhood, our interactions with the ‘wild’ were limited. What we found entirely changed our opinions of all that nature had to offer. The magic of that spot is something we, my friends and our respective siblings, still discuss when we all make the obligatory Thanksgiving migration back to our hometown. This experience in nature really began my love of the natural world. It is something I value and hope that we can conserve into the future. Unfortunately, there are many who do not share this value of preservation of the natural world and instead look to what we can take from nature or how it can be manipulated to suit our needs. I think changing this viewpoint and valuing nature for what it is instead of what it can offer is a large obstacle.