What does "Sustainable" mean?

[eje]

If everyone on planet earth lived in a bamboo and grass hut that could be regrown in a couple of months AND the population continued to grow and grow, wouldn't we still run out of bamboo and grass eventually?

It seems that human population dynamics is the underlying issue, and that sustainability is a moving target. Buildings that are sustainable today will not be considered sustainable tomorrow, when there are more people on the planet to sustain, right?

Does sustainability require a leveling off of the world's population? At what numerical value? How is population equilibrium going to be achieved? If population growth is going to be curbed by normal evolutionary forces, then the sooner we use up our resources, the fewer people there will be to have to share whatever is left over, no?

Who's in charge of this sustainability thing? Where can I find a white paper that spells the underlying assumptions? It looks like a big bandwagon, with everyone going along for the ride...

Thanks

eje

[P.C.]

It seem you lost any fait about what even brought us here -- but ofcaurse , if brilliant new building technikes that build at a third four times as strong and finaly Digital even in manufactoring and with the promise of new develobed Eco materials , are just scrapped becaurse "no one shal think he is somone" , then ofcaurse we will never get the cheap nice houses you can not emagine.

Innovation alway's provided ; concrete, steel plastics --- why shuld it stop now, just becaurse a few vain academics and retired bicycle mechanics rather fight the Hippies as how you see 3D-H been refused by rigid minded home builders and conservative "what we have are good enough" sayers.

Just think about it --- with true new digital manufactoring that on-site can produce the building compoment you cut off al expensive off-site manufactoring , you can focus on local materials and new technikes acturly use the computer. Npt use it as today where most you do with a computer, are the old technikes in some kind, just rewritten and the worker replaced with a computer -- that's omiting workforce to so why not join the revokution , start beliving in innovation and tell those old sad rigid minds, that nomatter the innovator are a hippie it is not fair to fight new visions with saur remarks and vain complains.

[eje]

Per?

I'm certainly not opposed to progress, but I'd like to make an analogy.

In the 1950's, a small group of biochemists was synthesizing the hormone progesterone, in development of a revolutionary concept: the "birth control" pill. If women took this little pill, they thought, the world would change for the better. Families could control their size, and there would not be so many mouths to feed. Famine and hunger would end. There would be enough resources for everyone to share and still everyone could prosper. That was their dream.

What they discovered was that entrenched cultures around the world were opposed to the concept. Religious, political, and social institutions which took thousands of years to develop would have to change, and this was not an easy task.

The point here is that without population control, new ways of doing things will change nothing. In fact, to the extent that new ways may facilitate uncontrolled growth of an ever-growing population, they only make things worse, not better, in my opinion.

I'm not trying to discourage progress, I'm just asking the question: How is human population to be controlled and managed as part of a plan for a sustainable environment? Does anyone have an answer to this question?

Thanks for your comments.

eje

[P.C.]

Eje -- I would like to be able to give an answer. But education is my only one.

[lekizz]

eje, you will find that PC enjoys hijacking every thread to talk about his computer programme and 'cheap strong' houses

Your question is one that goes way beyond the scope of architecture. Thomas Malthus argued in the 1800's that population would exceed food supply but, as we know, technology could more than cope with increasing food production as populations rose. As it is, as a general level of wealth and education is reached, population increase drops or even goes into reverse (take Western Europe for example).

The problem is not population increase but our over-use of energy and non-renewable resources.

Even the most simple architecture is quite sophisticated. And because buildings use the majority of energy and emit the most harmful gases, there is certainly big scope for designers, planners and clients to improve our sustainability. You are correct when you suggest we build using renewable resources, but why live in houses that require dismantling and renewing regularly? It would be far better to create buildings that can be adapted and developed over their lifetime.

[eje]

[dd7]

eje - this is a great post, it has caused some degree of inner conflict for me and really has me thinking. I am an advocate of both, sustainable design and birth control, but I have never seen birth control as a factor of sustainable design.

You stated "Sustainability itself goes beyond the scope of architecture, no? After all, architecture is about aesthics. So if architects are really trying to address the problem of planetary survival, they have to address the population issue at some level. Sustainablity is not just about renewability, it's about the rate of renewability vs the rate of consumption, no?" I think this is all fair, but part of sustainability, that many people fail to remember, is that we are actively concerned about/making decisions for our future generations in the built environment. While designing a building, and programming it, we should be asking ourselves, what if this family grows and they have to put up an addition, or what if this person decides they require less living space and more storage area, or perhaps a dwelling is too large and at somepoint, part of the residence could be sold off/rented. That is a clear example of handling a growing population - a building once used to house 5 people, might have become a residence for 7.

Any thoughts?

[annabe]

A human population is limited by its resources, we can keep on multiplying but our resources are not infinite. Exponential population growth creates a huge problem, so how does sustainability fit into the equation.

The most effective way of managing population growth is birth control. However, as countries become more affluent, birth rates increase (quote fact). Birth control was kept maintained in nomadic hunter gatherer tribes, due to their lifestyle. Their sheer existence depended on them using the resources that existed for them within their natural environment, at that time. Their available resources could only carry and support so many people. We have artificially gone beyond what the world's resources can naturally offer for us as a species. For instance, agriculture has become more efficient; we have been able to grow higher yielding crops and produce pescticides to prevent natural decomposition. Artificial means of increasing food production leads to larger population. Machinery has allowed us the extraction of resources and exportation (as I mentioned earlier in my dissertation, about the industrial revolution). In turn we have been able to sustain a growing population with (what are now becoming decreased) resources.

Sustainability itself goes beyond the scope of architecture, no? ............. So if architects are really trying to address the problem of planetary survival, they have to address the population issue at some level.

If architecture is to address the problem of planetary survival simultaneously realizing the population issue, it needs to reassess its purpose and responsibility towards our current design systems within cities and inhabited areas. Architecture can influence the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture....................In modern usage, architecture is the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. Architectural planning becomes the blue print of how we coexist with our man made environment and the rest of society living within it.

As a society we have to be responsible for regulating our numbers, the key issue being birth control. Problems arise when religious views, against abortion and contraception, are instilled as an exterior ideology placed on a community (i.e. this was not a decision reached through consensus by the community itself). The architecture of highly populated areas should be structured around smaller communities. Each community should be responsible at maintaining its own population (without having to be fully dependant on anything outside of that). If a community has to generate power locally and function together to make it work, then they govern their own ifra-structure. If communities are self empowered and responsible for their own resources, then they will have an understanding of their own limitations, and the need to keep an equilibrium. i.e not over procreate. Choice has to come through neccassity.

The contemporary architect could design the layout of densely populated areas, by creating working / living space that runs in proximity with natural geometry, one that supports smaller communities and operates as an ecosystem. Naturally ecosystems sustain themselves through self regulating organisms, as we and every other living species pursues its own subsistence, we simultaneously support other life systems. Every bit of given life in an ecosystem has its part to play. Fill filling that place or niche, is part of the being of that life form. We shape each others' reality through all of our actions. That includes humans. Being part of a community is important - p.52

A theory hypothesized by James Lovelock (gaia theory*) explains that all living species and matter are keeping the constant ecological equilibrium of one super living organism - the planet earth. When we gaze upon the global ecosystem as a whole, we find that everything works in ordered splendour and unison, overlapping from the smallest of algae, bacteria and plankton to the migration of birds, caribou and whales.....Everything is intelligently self-regulating and acting coherently and wisely.. - James Lovelock This theory could set a paradigm for designing a self - sufficient city. A number of small communities could work to sustain themselves ,where by interior actions and regulating systems e.g storing and generating energy, sustain the city as a whole. The objective; to create living architecture that co-operates with natural human habitation (devices that absorb and store everyday kinetic energy, systems that recycle excrement and waste) and sustaining an equilibrium for that community. (N.B. relating to dissertation - section on Relationship of alternative technologies and energy conservation will explore how to deal with waste and turn it into energy ).

The function of civilization depends on machines more than individuals. Architecture as part of our civilization (the architecture of spaces designed for human usage) can offer a model for sustainability that depends on an individuals subsistence to maintain it. Thus empowering them, and their ecological responsibilities. In the long term i believe this would help appease social and political issues, as the power has been given to the occupants of that community, and is not governed by any exterior authority. Every individual is involved with the coherence of the community. This would lead to sharing, better communications, and respect for one another. A better understanding of each other and building strength within a smaller community will gain values and a deeper understanding of what it means to share knowledge and skills. We are so used to being completely independent and unknowledgable of anyone elses needs accept from our own. In urban areas people live very close to each other, yet as soon as we walk out the door, it seems we step into our own entitative bubble, and could not be further apart. The city has become a 'dog eat dog world' in the sense that it is highly competative. Competing for capital and we are now beginning to compete for resources.

With rising population, one vital factor is education. We need to implement the importance of environmental sustainability and how to maintain it, strongly into the system. It must be taught like a language until it becomes the mother tongue. As awareness , understanding, and respect of our planet becomes inherent with each future generation, it will become natural, and our relationship with one another and to our physical surroundings will be continued with a positive reaction towards nature.

[lekizz]

[annabe]

Architects do still engage with the wider issues today, in many different ways. But the world's population growth has more to do with politics, religion, poverty and other social issues, which need big campaigns (way beyond architecture) for change.



- Yes this is so very true, unfortunatly my desire for a utopia tends to be a bit extreme and only attainable if we turn the world upside down on its head, and start over.

Obviously this is not possible, and would be ineffective. We need to work with what we got now.
Population growth is inextricably linked to politics, religion, poverty and other social issues, but i also see architecture, or the design of our environment as inextricable to these things. Politics and media may be the only way in which an increased green awareness and attitude will formulate (eg. carbon rationing), architecture then needs to support this. Buildings and urban scape will have to be designed around energy efficient lifestyles, if architecture promotes this - along with its (positive and productive) marketing, it will heighten and instill awareness within the importance of sustainability, and will hopefully make a change. It is part of the bigger picture that helps towards making the greater change. If communities were down scaled and designed in a way in which they had to rely on each other for essentials (food production, energy generation), then we would have to work together. This would lead to sharing, better communications, and respect for one another. We have to be put in a situation where there is no other way other than for us to work and solve problems together. A better understanding of each other and building strength within a smaller community will gain values and a deeper understanding of what it means to share knowledge and skills. This would solve many social issues - we are so used to being completely independent and unknowledgable of anyone elses needs accept from our own. In urban areas people live very close to each other, yet as soon as we walk out the door, it seems we step into our own entitative bubble ( i-pods do not help this ). The city has become a 'dog eat dog world' in the sense that it is highly competative. Competing for capital. We are beginning to compete for resources. I believe architecture ( our environment) to be a reflection of our lifestyle. Most think issues regarding war, religion and politics have to be solved before there is a positive change in lifestyle, what about Lifestyle changing, then maybe war, religion, politics and social issues will slowly become appeased. It will involve making sacrifices, but it is nothing compared to the penalties we will face with potential environmental and social issues.