Pills vs. Therapy
This one is a bit of a cop-out: No Impact Man wrote yesterday about the perceived conflict between anti-consumption efforts and the Cradle to Cradle model for design. This is my response. I was trying to get at some of these issues in my post on Fast Fashion, and I've elaborated a little bit here.
---
Good points, No Impact Man. I was (am) so excited by Cradle to Cradle, appreciating most its central metaphor as a positive and sensible approach to stuff. While No Impact (and Fix) and Cradle to Cradle aren't exactly at odds - it's clear they'll have to work together until technology allows us to consume without impact - the ways in which each engages our individual and cultural psychologies are.
Cradle to Cradle design takes the view that we've arrived at where we are for reasons beyond simply that stuff is available, and since we're here now with lots of stuff, it's going to be hard to stop people from consuming it or wanting to consume it. (Especially when America's biggest export is the images of its abundance.) I would reckon that most people who are overweight/do drugs/don't get enough sleep know it's bad for their health but are compelled to/choose to engage in unhealthy eating/getting high/etc. anyway. In this way, Cradle to Cradle at its extreme is like a magic pill - do all you want and don't get hurt. No Impact, on the other hand, is like moderation that keeps people from getting sick in the first place, and appeals to those of us with the control freak/moderate/hard work temperaments. Each ideology has its own dangers, of course: binge-y people rage at the holier-than-thou skinnies who have no problem taking just one.
As a culture, we're exhibiting a pretty binge-y psychology, which would require a lot of adjustment to change. Does it take a year to revise our underlying metaphors and assumptions about prosperity, health, cleanliness, safety? A decade? A generation? Let's say we someday arrive at Cradle to Cradle utopia - do we swing right back into consumption after years of sacrifice? It probably wouldn't be that drastic: we'll reduce while feverishly inventing new things, but a lot of people argue that we don't have time for that. And is this balance another version of utopia too?
Megan Metcalf
2 Comments
Reader Comments (2)
Most salient point here, in my humble opinion, is the thought we don't have time for that. Yes, here we all sit and theorize about consume/don't consume, and the world is drifting away...
Funny comparison between the personality types. Funny too that I realize I exhibit both, depending on a variety of factors.
isn't the binge versus moderation dialectic a false choice? binge implies an unstable system while moderation implies a well behaved one -- but the line itself is dynamic -- and there's an element of choice to the left of that line that doesn't resolve either ethical or practical challenges in and of itself. the devil is not a consumer and god is not an ascetic. but then again, who are your gods? perhaps that is the real question...