The glass is half full...

Like Leigh Ann, I have to agree that the message McDonough and Braungart deliver in Cradle to Cradle is rather optimistic. This is not necessarily a bad thing because frankly, there are too many pessimists out there. I do not think their vision is necessarily idealistic either. Most people don't realize how much they actually waste. It's sad to know that sometimes, it just can't be helped. Like Leigh Ann pointed out about the layers of packaging, what could I possibly do with all the packaging? Is it possible to save some of it for some random use...maybe...BUT wouldn't it be smarter to stop wasting right at the beginning of the assembly line?

I think a lot of us are under the impression that we can go on with our normal routines, as long as we minimize our impact in certain ways. So, if Peson A decides to ride their bike instead of driving their car, they may feel that it's okay to add to the cycle of overconsumption and being completely wasteful. I think McDonough and Braungart provide the little speck of hope that many of us need to see and hear. Some may certainly brush off their hopeful thinking, but what good is world if hope does not exist?

Cradle to Cradle is Possible!

I really like the Cradle to Cradle message that McDonough and Braungart spell out in their book. I think that although it seems optimistic, it is achievable. Today we are in a cradle to grave economy, a one way, linear system in which things are designed for the dumpster. They say that 90% of durable goods become waste almost immediately (29). Manufactures try to impose universal design solutions, and a brute-force approach to designing. In this scenario, all approaches should be the same, and specialized circumstances do not come into play. I really notice this fact each time I go to the grocery store. Everything comes individually wrapped, in 5 layers, and as soon as I open my food, I immediately throw the packaging away. There has to be a way to do this in a smarter, greener fashion. It is possible!


In the movie The Next Industrial Revolution we got to see these design principles in action. A building was designed to generate more power than it used, carpet was designed to be chemical free and of biodegradable materials, and even Nike and Ford have signed on to change some of their manufacturing. If giant corporations like Nike and Ford Motor can try these methods, anyone can. It might take a little extra money, but at such a large company that will probably go unnoticed. I believe the authors are on the right track, and that design is truly the first signal of human intention. Let’s design a world where we waste less, and let’s try to stop being bad in the first place, instead of simply “less bad”. With all the doom and gloom that comes along with this class (it’s the truth, what can you do?), it is refreshing to see people who are working in a positive way for change. It can be done, and hopefully it will be done!

Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust

I liked what McDonough had to say in Cradle to Cradle. The implications of how toxic-filled an environment we live in, with toxins in just about everything we eat, wear, or use, waiting to get out through unorthodox usage of those materials was not what impacted me the most. Rather, what struck me most was the clarity and optimism given to the vision of technology and eco-friendliness living side by side.

A great deal of environmentalist action is dedicated towards, as metioned in Cradle to Cradle, a vicious battle between economic growth and environmental protection. However, this does not have to be so, and in that respect I think McDonoughs use of the materials of Cradle to Cradle to make that point is to thier credit. The point, since I don't think I am being very clear, is that humans do not have to technologically downscale themselves, or sacrifice economic progress in order to pursue environmental protection. It doesn't ahve to be a zero-sum equation. Prevailing attitudes towards relationship between the two claim that we shouldn't solely rely on technological progress to save ourselves from our own destruction. While this is true, that doesn't mean that we can't rely on technology to help us. We don't need to revert to being hunter-gatherers to save the planet. As McDonough mentioned, innovation is what brought humans the sort of affluence we now have.

The only problem with the innovation was that it was poorly designed. Misguided technology, if you will. But in the cases where technology has been successful in making people happier and/or healthier, while not being detrimental to the environment, most people will think that they want to continue pursuing the technological path, advancing our society.

So why not? Let's continue to innovate. But from now on let's try to make sure we're doing it right. One saying may go "history repeats itself," but another tells us to "learn from our mistakes." Let's shoot for the latter, one, and start printing books from entirely reuseable (not reuseable in the downgrading sense, but in the Cradle to Cradle sense) paper, and start designing our lives to be not only environmentally friendly, but economically progressive. The technology that humanity is so proud of should not have to come at the cost of a ruined planet or a burdened conscience.

To say that having the "recycle, reuse, reduce" slogan I grew up with so easily overthrown is unsettling is an understatement, but I think most of what McDonough and Braungart have to say consists of viable optimism. For the moment, I'm a convert. The ideas behind Cradle to Cradle seem sound: McDonough and Braungart are trying to solve our problems by looking at all sides of the equation.