The 5M theory: Guidelines for Ecological Design

(Part 1 of a 4-part series)

What follows is the first of four posts on my nascent theory of ecological design. It is really one long essay, but I have split it for readability. The other sections will follow, separated by a few days.

Introduction

What is ecological technology, and how do we know it when we see it? How does a designer, an architect, or an engineer set out to create ecological technology? How do we compare two or more technological options for their effect on the environment? Designers can perform embodied energy analyses, study toxic waste products, and calculate energy efficiency, but each of these approaches lacks a global view of ecology. They also require specialized analytical skills and perhaps more time than a residential architect or line engineer might have. What we need is a simple set of rules that can be applied successfully a various levels of detail – from the casual and qualitative to detailed numerical analysis. Ideally, a non-professional could make sense of them and use them to make decisions as a citizen and a consumer.

This is an infant theory of ecological technology. It is not a grand unified theory in the manner of the quantum physicists, but a broad outline, a general direction for to be developed in more detail. It is not perfect – the way to tell if you are dealing with a theory is to look for the holes. It is a set of rules that will assist environmentally conscious people in their technological pursuits. Please read, ponder, test, discuss, add, discard, and develop as your experience leads you.

Ecological Technology

The adjectives “ecological,” “sustainable,” and “environmental,” are used somewhat interchangeably and vaguely. At worst, they are used in advertising copy as buzzwords. The problem with defining them is that they are absolute adjectives used as relative terms. Once a society gets beyond a very basic level of technology it uses non-renewable natural resources and creates artifacts that do not work their way back into the ecosystem. The Swahili herdsmen, the Yanomamo, and the Australian Bushmen use sustainable technology. Once European and Asian societies started smelting copper, they entered the fringes of non-sustainable territory. Today, we speak of sustainable architecture when we are actually referring to buildings constructed using fossil fuels, with materials that include petrochemicals. The buildings in question may use less of these materials and consume little or no fossil fuels, but less and little aren’t none.

Barring a sudden return to stone knives and bearskins, which would be impractical for most of the world’s population, how do we define ecological (sustainable, environmental) technology? How do we know when we have gone far enough towards Yanomamo-tech? The answer lies in carrying capacity. The earth can survive a certain amount of abuse and recover, just as we personally can sustain periodic illnesses and injuries without dying prematurely. Others have attempted to put numbers on this concept, so I won’t try drawing that line at this moment. The point is to understand that there is a line, a level of damage and resource extraction below which we must stay if we are to leave a livable world for our grandchildren. The other things to understand are that we are operating well beyond the earth’s carrying capacity, and that getting there will involve significant lifestyle changes for those of us at the top of the technological ladder.

Any realistic person will admit that no social movement or government, no matter how effective at persuasion, will get an average American out of a car and directly onto a bamboo-framed bicycle with an organic hemp drive belt. Nor will it be able to get an aerospace engineer to give it all up for Amish-style subsistence farming. What is necessary for any movement towards sustainability is to chart a realistic path. This path must be informed by trends in population, technology, customs, and politics. Planners must set the pace by the level and speed of environmental degradation in various parts of the world and the projected speed of environmental remediation. We need to define a turning point well on this side of the point of no return and aim for it. Planners must acknowledge that people learn with one foot planted firmly in what they already know, and one toe dipped into the unfamiliar. Each step of such a plan must be fecund – it must not be designed as an end in itself, but as something that will naturally give birth to the next step. Improving the pollution controls on a gasoline engine is a good short-term step, but ultimately a dead end.

Ultimately, our grandchildren, or their grandchildren, will live a sustainable lifestyle. This is inevitable, with that inevitability contained in the word “sustainable.” The only questions are when, how much of the change is voluntary, and how much chaos and deprivation we and our descendants must endure. We can’t predict exactly what it will resemble. Perhaps something like late 19th century America with a leavening of high tech where absolutely necessary. I doubt it will involve fossil fuels, petrochemicals, high speed transportation, or any intensive use of energy. (The laptop computer I am using right now involves all four.) Our job is to manage the transition so as to reduce the chaos and upheaval inherent in such a dramatic change. Note that I used the word reduce, not minimize or eliminate.

Next time, the first two of the 5M rules.