This is a wonderful dialogue. My two cents:
There is an ecological mindset that almost all of us have grown up in... that human activity is f..king everything up, and that in order to change that we have to stop that human activity. I believed this for many years, feeling that we needed to regress in order to heal. I no longer think that way, but rather believe that way out is through. This is part of what I was trying to express in my talk the other night, but perhaps it was too diffuse.
My friend Gerould Wilhelm, an amazing system ecologist, opened my eyes many years ago to what he calls the "Eden principle:" the idea that if we humans withdraw from nature, nature will take care of itself. The reason that line of thinking is hopelessly flawed is that we humans are, and have been, an integral part of the natural world for a couple million years. When you look at the native ecology of pre-Columbian America, it was incredibly vibrant and fecund and anything but devoid of human activity (I recommend Charles Mann's 1491 for any of you that haven't read it). In every climate zone, native peoples actively participated in and co-evolved with their place. Our particular place was dominated by oak/hickory/hemlock forests that were highly managed with annual burns and the regular harvesting of nuts, berries, grains, large and small fauna and downed trees. The result was a vital open woodland that early european settlers had never seen the likes of... you could drive a wagon through it for days on end. Human activity is not inherently harmful or antithetical to the health of natural systems.
Technology is any human artifact used for a purpose. Bricks are technology and so is a fork, so were the fires used by the people who inhabited this land before us. One of the concepts in my talk was the idea that the development of technology is an extension of the evolutionary process (not analogous to evolution, but a real expression of it). With the jump to life as co-creator facilitated by the human brain, language and opposable digits, evolution marches on through the development of technologies. Technology is not separate from nature; it is nature. One of the unfortunate consequences of our species evolution in this regard has been our progressive isolation from the rest of nature and the subsequent emergence of the cultural memes that lead us to believe we can dominate and exploit it and each other. I believe there is a way through this if we don't self destruct first (and if we do self destruct, I am confident that the evolutionary process, including the rise of consciousness and technology will continue here or elsewhere in the universe). The way is integrally linked with our technology. Without technology I would not be able to express these words to you now, there would be no books, no internet, no farming, no advance in knowledge and no buildings (even a wigwam). The advance of knowledge and consciousness rides on the back of technology. It is the emergence of higher consciousness occurring around the globe in all peoples facilitated by technology that shines a light on the path through. If we approach our work, our power as co-creators, the development and use of our technology with humility and reverence, understanding that we are inseparably connected to everything, we can actualize the full potential of our creativity so that it regenerates and enhances rather than degrades life. For us who dwell in the world of building technologies, I believe this means we think deeply about what is appropriate technology for the work at hand whether that's harvesting the straw and clay from surrounding fields give our building form, employing building science to design advanced building envelopes, integrating thoughtful feedback loops for occupants or intentionally creating places of delight or harmony with our environment.
The cost conversation is always a difficult one and requires education. I offer a few attachments to this email to start that discussion. One is a few slides from another presentation I often give where I use the metaphor of a microscope with different lenses to widen the field of view around the cost discussion to shift out of the "first cost" mindset. Another is a document called the Packard Matrix, which was developed for the Packard Foundation in 2002 years before the Living Building Challenge when Living Buildings were an aspirational idea, but which does a good job of looking at whole life cost. The third is a few slides from the marketing presentation of another one of my current projects, a net zero energy cohousing community called Three Groves Ecovillage (www.threegrovesecovillage.com), where we lay out the cost benefit of spending more up front for homeowners.
Sandy
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Alan Abrams <alan@abramsdesignbuild.com> wrote:the technological approach is seductive and even addictive, and the deeper you probe, the deeper you must go. methodologies have great value, but they soon turn into parochialism. In a sense, what I am describing--this analytic exercise, this regularization, codification--and its relationship to society, economics, and government--is a natural and organic process. but it's easy to forget that it is not an end to itself--it is only another stage of evolution.where I think I'm going with this is parallel to Bill's dad, that simplicity and durability--and paradoxically--adaptability--are the essential attributes. That the journey into complex methodologies and rigorous systems and checklists are informative--are noble endeavors in themselves--but ultimately they lead us off course.none of this negates what Sandy concluded--that is to be aware of the impact of your decisions. We are not going to save the world with bricks and studs, whether we hit LEED platinum or passive house, or even LBC--because making every brick scarred the earth, and harvesting every stud raped a forest. Is it enough to say a prayer, like the shochet before he cuts the throat of a lamb? All our technology, all our wisdom and experience, all our methods and checklists and point systems cannot completely negate the destructive act of creating a home.
if any of this is true, then perhaps the first step in building is humility.AA
No comments:
Post a Comment