The Ethics of Design
The industrial revolution was a period between 18th and 19th centuries in which the world transitioned from a more natural environment, to heavy industry and infrastructure. During the industrial revolution, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban through advancements in technology and manufacturing processes. Growth in industrialism in combination with an anthropocentric world view, brought with it a lack of sentiment for the environment, health risks, and resource depletion. Naturally, as ideologies have shifted to a more basic biocentric point of view, people have sought out to replace the design and production methods of industrial environmentally hurtful materials with more sustainable methods. Among these people are William McDonough, and American architect, and Michael Braungart, a German chemist. Based on the idea that nature is a designer and that human industrial structure works in contrast to the natural environment, McDonough and Braungart have pioneered “cradle to cradle” design which attempts to imitate nature’s structural design that produces without pollution. Additionally, David R. Keller and E. Charles Brummer, professors and directors of studies, have developed postmechanistic agricultural ideas to humane and environmentally conscious food production. To offer a greater philosophical view, Aldo Leopold’s, “The Land Ethic” reorients ethics to view human beings as members of a much larger biotic community. These speakers all act on different interrelated topics to preserve nature and provide for human interest and longevity. The industrial revolution was a turning point in history that paved the way for industrial, technological, and cultural advancements. These improvements came at the loss of public health and environmental wellness, and only after addressing these issues has society begun changing in a positive way. The effects of the industrial revolution can be evaluated in several ways. According to McDonough and Braungart the industrial revolution left the world with great disadvantages, this included massive pollution and waste, loss of employment in the lower and middle classes, and the erosion of natural and cultural diversity. Looking at the problems that arose from the revolution, they concluded the main issue originated when environmental resources and assumed opportunities were taken advantage of by industrialists, engineers, and designers to build infrastructure. As an example, the Titanic stands as an appropriate metaphor for the revolution’s industrial infrastructure. At the time, the Titanic emphasized the design philosophy of technology, prosperity, luxury, speed, power, and progress. However, like the famous ship, “this infrastructure is powered by brutish and artificial sources of energy that are environmentally depleting. It pours waste into the water and smoke into the sky…and although it may seem invincible, the fundamental flaws in its design presage tragedy and disaster.” The negative consequences subsequent to the Industrial Revolution have amounted to the following: massive amounts of waste, hazardous material being placed into the air, soil, and water every year, cutting down natural resources, and more. Correspondingly, the industrial mechanistic view of Nature presumed that its resources were immeasurably vast. Nature itself was “perceived as a ‘mother earth’ who, perpetually regenerative, would absorb all things and continue to grow…At the same time, the Western view saw nature as a dangerous, brutish force to be civilized and subdued.” 19th century engineers and designers did not foresee the consequences of how industry would impact the environment. Now, human beings have learned about the greater complexity of the natural environment as well as nature’s dependency on all aspects of an ecosystem. Although this realization came to pass, 19th century infrastructure and systems are still used heavily in society. In view of that, work done by green architect and chemist, McDonough and Braungart, seems even more significant.
The design and production strategy of McDonough and Braungart has shifted from the industrial “cradle to grave” method to a “cradle to cradle” method. “Cradle to grave” design is when resources are extracted, shaped into products, sold, and eventually disposed of in a “grave” of some kind, usually in the form of a landfill or an incinerator. These products are used by the consumer and then the remains, packaging or product, are thrown away. More than 90 percent of materials that go into consumer goods are disposed of almost immediately. In addition, transportation, infrastructure, and chemical liquids have all attributed to the destruction of natural resources and the environment. Agriculture, landscaping, and building homes all contribute to dangerous pesticides, artificial fertilizers, herbicide, and genetically modified products reaching our soil. Soil erosion, nutrient depletion, chemical runoff, habitat destruction, and super-pests, are all effects of these “cradle to grave” activities.
“Cradle to cradle” design is made for reuse and recycling. The materials go back to their original condition or the materials can be purified once it goes back through the system, called “upcycling.” All materials must be beneficial and productive to the environment. “Cradle to cradle” products are made up of chemical compounds that can be quickly dissembled, and the materials are used as food or as a source for something else. All waste becomes raw material again for other materials or the same materials. This design concept has been realized through the idea that natural resources are not unlimited and waste can equal food. Similarly, in the TED talk, “Eben Meyer: Are Mushrooms the New Plastic?” Eben Meyer explains how synthetics, due to their disposable issues have been poisoning our planet. As a solution to this worldwide problem, he has designed and entirely new class of materials from mushrooms and crop waste that are completely compostable after their use. Mushrooms are a crucial part of nature’s recycling system. They can simulate plastics and be used as packaging instead of synthetics such as Styrofoam that currently makes up twenty five percent of our landfills. These synthetic materials cannot be broken down and are toxic to the ground and if not picked up. As an additional benefit, mushrooms also use far less energy content that it takes to make synthetic plastics. Mycelium, the key part of the mushroom in use for this process, is a self-assembling material. Mycelium, in combination with any locally growth feed stocks, can create a polymer in a five day growth cycle. This natural polymer can be used as packaging materials, materials used for building a table top or other surfaces, and even building blocks. Polymers from mushrooms have the same physical performance as synthetic plastics and other brutish industrial materials but will improve local soil once disposed. Mushrooms as the new plastic is an idea that follows “cradle to cradle” design which gives back to the environment and allows for production and consumption without waste.
As another illustration of “cradle to cradle” design, the previous pillar of infrastructure in the 19th century, Ford Motor Company, has redesigned its manufacturing plant based on these design principles. In 2000, they began redeveloping their site on McDonough’s and Braungart’s environmentally green suggestions. Together they added wetlands, greenspace, and wildlife. It was transformed into an industrial nature park where the waste water can be purified naturally, daylight is allowed in to the building instead of using electricity, and all waste flows are controlled. Components to the building and the cars can be reused or reworked, waste is reduced, and they created an environment outside of the building that allowed wildlife to thrive. Although it cost a large amount to renovate, Ford saved money on heat, air conditioning, purification, and keep up for an estimated savings of 35 million dollars through this program.
In 2012, a research paper, presented by the International Symposium for Students of Doctoral Studies in the Fields of Civil Engineering, Architecture, and Environmental Protection, outlined the historical development of industrial architecture as well as the importance of the aesthetics of this architecture. Increased investments in industry and the population increase in urban areas led to extensive usage of modern synthetic materials such as plastic, reinforced concrete, asbestos materials, etc. The substances used during this period of heavy infrastructural building have worn down over time and left the environment with heaps of non-compostable waste material. Paralleling the thoughts of McDonough and Braungart, this study exposes the undeniable decay of contaminated industrial buildings and land. With this decay comes the challenge to rebuild and revitalize cities and metropolitan areas that are suffering. Accordingly, there are, “three powerful forces guiding development today- environmental concerns, renewed urban cores, and historic preservation- work together to redefine the post-industrial city,” Sustainable and profitable solutions include the change in design ethics. To curb the damage that has left lethal chemicals, toxins, and known carcinogens in these regions, green architects and engineers suggest items such as solar panels, water purification units, swap in materials for biodegradable substances, and more. Changing the fundamental design of infrastructure and industry is the sole solution to improving the environmental conditions that now effect the planet.
To analyze another source, The Metaphysics of Industrial Agriculture summarizes how the mechanistic view of nature came to dominate agricultural policy and practice. The foundation for this view of nature was established in its strong connection to anthropocentrism. In this viewpoint, humans have come to understand natural systems as being mechanical, predictable, and understandable. The text states, “Connected with the metaphysics of mechanism is the idea that nature, as machine, has no intrinsic value.” As Christianity and scientific research spread, economic exploitation of natural resources increased and the view of natural order shifted. Human beings began an understanding of fact-value, where value is based on human emotion and not fact, from this it was derived that nature should be treated with fact judgments and not value judgments. This separation of science from ethics consequently led farmers to believe nature had no intrinsic value but that its resource value could be transformed into useful products. Farmers then attempted to produce as much food as possible in order to gain economically, both the producer and the consumer made judgments based on the “noneconomic worth” of the land.
Making judgments based on the “noneconomic worth” of the land resulted in the production paradigm, the improvement of, “the productivity of a select set of plants and animals “for the “greatest possible quantity of agricultural product.” The main pitfall of the production paradigm was that it did not recognize the intricate networks that make up natural ecosystems as well as the value of their services. It overlooks nature as a living thing, where all of its parts, soil, plants, animals, water, and energy are all alive and important parts of the land. Modern farming techniques, driven by industrialism, lack important components that human beings could learn from investigating the natural systems to develop more sustainable agricultural systems. “The severing of links in food webs by biocides, pollution, related to soil erosion and the use of fertilizers, and the reduction of biodiversity are often written off as externalities and excluded in the decision making process about prudent agricultural policy.” Modern agriculture disregards the negative consequences on the environment to produce mass amounts of food. Even though current farming production levels have resulted in a surplus of food, studies show that if a more ecological system is not introduced, the production of food will eventually decrease substantially.
In looking for potential solutions to the growing agricultural concerns, Keller and Brummer developed five principles for postmechanistic agricultural ethics. The first merges agricultural science and practice to become holistic in nature. Having an understanding of developmental trajectory of nature is increasingly important as environmental conditions continue to change. Second, the diversity of agroecosystems has to be researched. Species diversity is shown in some cases to improve biomass productivity, stability, genetic diversity, nutrient cycling. More simply, diversification in one situation may might not work in another. For healthy biotic communities, diversity is a key indicator which allows for food stability against unpredictable factors. Third, technology is not the solution to all agricultural problems. Advanced research and technology cannot always be implemented to fix crop problems. Research should be devoted to increasing the yield of crop and improving nutritional quality. Fourth, externalities need to be included in cost-analysis systems when comparing different methodologies. These externalities include pesticide pollution, soil erosion, depletion of aesthetic value, etc. If analyzed, industrial agriculture can become much more cost effective. Lastly, agricultural systems need to be criticized in order to improve. Sustainable agriculture cannot be found through a single farming system, it will come through the combination of systems that is adapted to a particular region, farmers, for a purpose. Success in this field requires criticism, debate, research on a location, combination of key features in particular systems, and finally implementation for improvement.
Aldo Leopold offers a third perspective on the ethics used during and post-industrial era. Leopold thinks that ethics has evolved in a process called ecological evolution. The first stage in ethics was between individuals. Further along ethics dealt with the relationship between an individual and society. The next logical step in the ecological process is land ethics. He writes, “There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.” He continues with an explanation that land, is property and that the current relationship between an individual and land is solely economic, leading to privileges but not obligations. Since the industrial revolution, soil, water, plants, and animals have all been mistreated. To take a step in the right direction would to begin protecting the earth’s resources.
Leopold suggests that the “enlightened self- interest” method, “defines no right or wrong, assigns no obligations, calls for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values.” He asserts that education is only the first step in numerous actions that should be taken to protect the environment. The mistreatment of the earth has been showing its signs since the early 1930s and visible progress needs to be made. Due to the fact there are no obligations to the land, we have less soil and fewer healthy woods. He believes making a change requires human beings to modify the way they think about land. His solution comes in the form of “land pyramid,” a symbol of land, which consists of multiple connected layers. The bottom layer is soil, a plant layer rests on the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and rodent layer on the insects, and so on through the animal groups to large carnivores. Leopold states, “Its functioning depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts.” Each layer is dependent on the layer of food or services below it. Land then, can be looked at with greater significance, as it contains the energy to produce all of these layers. Through this analysis, human beings, as a part of the pyramid, can make the prospect of co-operation and land ethics more reasonable. Traditional design and production methods have put the environment and human life at multiple health risks. Potential risks include the waste build-up, toxicity in water level causing ecosystems to be destroyed, deforestation, and nuclear waste runoff or burial in soil. Industrialism, anthropocentrism, and the drive to be efficient and technologically advanced in infrastructure have been the underlying factors that have led to these problems. To replace current destructive methods with sustainable humane processes, McDonough and Braungart have enacted their practice of “cradle to cradle” design. If “cradle to cradle” design methods were implemented in all building projects, future generations would have a substantially smaller amount of waste to process and these buildings would benefit from cost efficiency due to their ecological changes. Agriculturally, to save soil erosion and mineral depletion, Keller and Brummer suggest looking at the environment’s natural systems to develop new methods. Leopold would strongly agree with both of these alterations in our system. However, a point that is vital to these changes, are the modifications that need to be made to our laws. Education cannot be the sole preventative to environmental destruction. Even though some environmentalists have begun the transition, laws need to be enacted to make the transition required. The government should provide incentives such as tax breaks and government- backed funding to fix the initial set-back corporations and farms will face. Long-term, the companies will see the profitability of the changes as well as the drastic change in ethics from anthropocentrism to biocentrism.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. "A Question of Design." Cradle to Cradle. New York: North Point Press, 2002. N. pag. Rpt. in Cradle to Cradle. Print, 18-19.
[ 2 ]. McDonough & Braungart, “A Question of Design,” 17.
[ 3 ]. McDonough & Braungart, “A Question of Design,” 18.
[ 4 ]. McDonough & Braungart, “A Question of Design,” 25.
[ 5 ]. McDonough & Braungart, “A Question of Design,” 27.
[ 6 ]. McDonough & Braungart, “A Question of Design,” 34-35.
[ 7 ]. Waste = Food. YouTube. N.p., 2013. Web. 4 May 2015. .
[ 8 ]. Meyer, Eben. "Are Mushrooms the New Plastic?" TED Global. July 2010. TED. TED Conferences, July 2010. Web. 4 May 2015. .
[ 9 ]. Meyer
[ 10 ]. Meyer
[ 11 ]. Waste = Food.
[ 12 ]. "Aesthetics of Industrial Architecture in the Context of Industrial Buildings Conversion." Academia. N.p., 2012. Web. 4 May 2015. . 81.
[ 13 ]. Keller, David, and E. Charles Brummer. "Putting Food Production in Context: Toward a Postmechanistic Agricultural Ethic." Environmental Ethics. Ed. David Keller. N.p.: Blackwell, 2010. 481-89. Print. 481.
[ 14 ]. Keller & Brummer, “Putting Food Production in Context: Toward a Postmechanistic Agricultural Ethic." 483.
[ 15 ]. Keller & Brummer, “Putting Food Production in Context: Toward a Postmechanistic Agricultural Ethic." 484-485.
[ 16 ]. Leopold, Aldo. "The Land Ethic." Environmental Ethics. Ed. David Keller. N.p.: Blackwell, 2010. 193-203. Print. 194
[ 17 ]. Leopold, "The Land Ethic,” 195.
[ 18 ]. Leopold, "The Land Ethic,"