From a design prospective, there is never just one way to
solve a problem. There are some
ways that are better than others, but more times than not there are an infinite
number of solutions. Our
imaginations are the only limiting factor. As individuals we each process things uniquely to
ourselves. For instance, if I were
to say, “picture your first bike” the image that comes to your mind is very
different than what comes to mine.
In addition if I said, “picture a yellow bike with a bell and big tires”
your mental image would still be very different than my own. Which supports the idea that our mental
modes are reliant on our experiences, assumptions, education and so forth. In other words, there is not a single
right way to develop a sustainable future, but rather there are many different
ways. We just need to all get one
the same page or even the same book.
Since each person is very individualistic, we each have our
own perceptions. Just within the
United States my thoughts and actions in the south are very different from
northerners. These cultural
identities are amplified in a global aspect. We need to realize these differences shouldn’t be seen as
negative, but rather they should be celebrated in grand collaboration. According to Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science, “A shared vision stands as the
gateway to a community’s sustainable future”.
The reading Thinking
Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness discusses what it means to have high
self-efficacy. Which is performing
in a certain manner to obtain certain goals. I would like to expand on that and include the concept of self-fulfilling
prophecy. In self-fulfilling
prophecy our predictions directly or indirectly cause the outcome to become
true. In other words, if we
believe the future has no hope of sustainability then that will inevitably
happen. Let’s change our outcome. Let’s fulfill our imaginative future as
a hopeful one.
Now leap, not climb on board to my vision of the future. I see a world where we use only
materials that are 100% sustainable.
In other words, I envision a time where we can completely close the cycle
loop for all of our materials! We
are no longer consuming all of our resources. We are no longer abusing our planet. People are not required to “give up”
anything, but consumers are only required to participate in recycling
everything. Think of how far we have come in “green” thinking in the last ten
years, this future looks hopeful.
The glass is half full, now let’s fill it up.
Hi, Kimberly!
ReplyDeleteYou've done a very nice job of discussing how unlimited the possibilities are. It is not as easy as applying a simplistic, perfect solution. And, examining how we think is the best beginning we may make.
I'm not sure I entirely understand where you are headed for your mid-term paper, with the exception of this characteristic, closed-loop. So, continue to expand this list. What are the variables that, if implemented concurrently, define your vision? You obviously grasp the mental mode concept, but you need to flesh out these "tenets" of your vision. Utilize your chosen book and other required sources to describe and support this vision.
Dr. Armstrong,
DeleteI suppose I did miss the mark when it comes to explaining my vision, so let me expand and see if it makes more sense to you before I continue. Within the vision of "closed-loop" we are in a place where we are no longer consuming our natural resources and we are actually sustainable. In the Textile Exchange video, Charline Ducas discusses that in order for Eco-effectiveness to take place, that requires the industry and consumers alike to be completely sustainable. If we are not closing this cycle-loop then we are not being completely sustainable. Thus, I see a world where we are eco-effective. What defines my vision is the production side of the industry is no longer using up raw materials, but instead is recycling the materials weve already consumed. In my reading (Mid Course Correction) they discuss a second (or possibly third) industrial revolution. First being steam, second electricity, and third technology. Thus, in my vision I see a fourth industrial revolution, one that is sustainable or as the MCC points out the "next truly revolutionary industrial revolution". Industrial and consumer ends of recycling will need to be powered by renewable energy too. Potentially this means solar and wind energy. We need to sensitize people to the fact that unless we make a change, life as we know it will cease to exist and any efforts we put into our families, jobs, etc will have zero importance. This will be due to the fact we have left an even larger problem for our future generations to handle, existence. I mentioned before that people would not be required to give up anything. In thinking further this isnt exactly true. Those who are currently profiting from raw material consumption will no longer be able to do so. However, this could shift to them being profited by providing industrial sustainability.
I dont want to write you a novel, but does this explain where Im headed or should I go a different route? Thank you for your help.
Hey, Kimberly; This is great! I am delighted to see you drawing upon your book (one of my favorites). Use Anderson's ideas to expand your own. Describe YOUR revolution. You make such a good point about this conflict of interest in reducing material consumption, while balancing economic development. But, I think if anyone proved that this is possible, it is Ray Anderson. A colleague of mine used to work for Ray and quotes him as saying, "I rue the day I took this company public." Meaning, he really felt challenged to deliver for shareholders while doing this revolutionary thing. But, he did it! And, to your point, I believe that if employment opportunities related to material production begin to taper off, it is highly likely that some new innovative industry will emerge, providing similar opportunities. You might consider discussing this as a characteristic of your vision: balancing environmental health and the economic bottom line.
DeleteKimberly,
ReplyDeleteI thought that your blog was very well-written this week! The opening paragraph was unique, and pulled me in to want to continue reading. I completely agree that each of our mental modes are shaped by our cultural identities and how high of a self-efficacy we possess. I would have liked to see you go into more depth of the readings this week in order to better explain the direction you are headed. On the other hand, I feel as though you have a great overall concept! The "glass is half full, let's fill it up" is a strong basis in looking ahead. In assessing your vision of the future, in what ways would you ignite consumers to take part in helping to "fill up the glass"? What steps would you hope to be taken? Great job!
Thank you for your feedback. As I said to Dr. Armstrong, I feel as though I did a poor job of explaining my concept. Please read my response to her as it pertains to your question too. In my future there is global dedication to sustainability. Therefore consumers are involved in the efforts. The mindset will be reset to include recycling materials consumed. Think back to a time where there were no computers or internet. Then one by one the concept caught on. Now most everyone owns some form of a computer. Like the computer, momentum for sustainability will continue to grow and every consumer will be involved.
DeleteKimberly,
DeleteYour vision makes much more sense now! I like the direction you are headed with the concept of an additional "Industrial Revolution". I do agree that it is important the production side of the industry help consumers out as far as recycling used materials and providing us with a direction to go. A lot of the problems seem to lie in the fact that consumers either don't know what to do, or don't have the time to take part in recycling efficiently.
Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteI thought your blog was very well written this week with a good opening as well as a great closing. I really liked how positive you are about changing things. However, you did make sure to help us realize that this would take work and wouldn't be easy. What do you think are some specific ways we can make these changes?
Kellee,
DeleteIn response to your question would you read what I wrote to Dr. Armstrong? I promise this is not laziness on my part, but rather I did a more detailed response to her. I think it will answer your question too.