Ecological Design - The 5M Rules, Part 3

(Part 3 of a 4-part series)

In the last post I discussed minimizing mass flow and movement. Here are the 3rd and 4th factors, Modification and Mechanization, and some thoughts on the interrelations between the four M factors.

Modification

The more we modify the materials the world provides us, the more profound and lasting our impact on our environment. There is a general hierarchy to modification:

Guided natural processes – fermentation, bacterial growth (beer and cheese)
Phase – freezing, melting, boiling
Shape – cutting, splitting, abrading (think basic wood shop)
Mixture – traditional paints
Extraction and distillation – lye from wood ashes, alcohol
Oxidation/Reduction reactions – burning, acid etching, smelting metal ores
Reagent Chemical reactions
Polymerization - plastics
Nuclear reactions

At the top of the list are processes that leave naturally occurring materials in a state that is either reversible or biodegradable, including byproducts and waste material. These processes do not markedly increase the persistence of materials in the environment. The processes at the bottom of the list are difficult or impossible to reverse, and produce materials alien to the natural environment. The toxicity of the products is generally increased over the raw materials. In the case of nuclear reactions, the reversibility is zero, the toxicity is extreme, and the persistence is measured in tens of thousands of years.

This is not an exhaustive list. Not being a trained chemist or environmental engineer, I don't stand by it as the final word on the hierarchy of chemical reactions in terms of persistence and environmental compatibility. Still, it gives an idea of how to look at the way we use the materials around us.

Mechanization

Mechanization is an amplifier of the three other concepts. Once we adopt technology that uses moving parts, we increase mass flow, both in terms of the energy source and the products being manufactured. This is true whether we are transforming raw materials into usable energy, or processing raw materials into manufactured objects. The increased concentration of energy and resource use tends to demand resources from farther away and demand more distant markets. Our ability to process materials into useful work also increases our ability to move at greater speed and with greater persistence. Machine parts moving against each other and containing the heat and corrosive nature of reactions introduce the problem of wear and accelerated deterioration. This problem requires replacement parts, lubricants, coatings, coolants, seals, insulation, and the energy to install or remove them. The concept of mechanization is not confined to the cranks and pushrods of the iron-bound industrial age. The electronic devices that permeate our lives may not have the bulk of a diesel engine, but their transport distance can be long, their service lives can be short and the persistent toxicity of their parts, in both manufacture and disposal, is high.

Interrelations

The analysis of any technology requires that we balance all these considerations. A technology might have high mass flow relative to another, but the material used might be unprocessed, with low embodied energy. We might be making a decision between two machines, one more complex, yet lighter and more energy efficient.

The further development of this theory will require the quantification of these factors. That quantification will rest upon an estimate of an ecosystem’s capacity to tolerate particular kinds of stress. It is important that we must make these estimates for the earth as a whole, and for individual ecosystems. The earth has one atmosphere, and a pollutant with enough persistence will eventually become part of a global problem. However, a rate of environmental insult that would be tolerable spread over the planet may be intolerable when concentrated, let’s say, in the air over Los Angeles County.

We have data on the concentrations of many toxins that pose a threat to human, animal, and plant life, and the persistence of those toxins. There is also data available on the use of extracted resources for various technologies. We know the locations of extraction, production, and consumption centers. It is possible to create a database and a set of algorithms that would relate these factors. This would allow a designer to analyze a beginning design and then modify it in a way that balances function against environmental impact. This would be true environmental value engineering.

The sticky point would be a quantification of the quality of mechanization. For mechanical devices we might look at parts count, the working temperature and Ph extremes to which it would be exposed, and the number of mechanical cycles it is expected to endure in a time period.

The balance between modernism and Luddism

Note that the first M in the theory stands for “minimize.” It is not an E for “eliminate.” Perhaps the human species may someday regress to a technological state similar to chimpanzees, but that is not possible at present human population densities, nor desirable from the standpoint of a member of our species. The goal is for us to make thoughtful choices about our development and use of technology.

Modernism is the belief that increased use of technology is the solution to the problems of humanity, and that the solution to the problems of technology is the further development of technology. Luddism, in its popular sense, is the absolute rejection of technology. A student of labor history will tell you that even the original Luddites were not averse to the use of technology. They opposed the use of particular technologies that threatened their way of life. Both Modernism and the popular meaning of Luddism are the extremes of a spectrum of thought, and not useful in the pragmatic business of finding a sustainable way to live.

The transition we have to make is both technological and cultural. We have to acknowledge and accept the present context in both areas. We can’t immediately abandon our interstate highway system, nor can we immediately abandon people’s expectation of self-governed interstate travel at 65 mph. It is actually the psychological transition that poses the greatest problem. People dislike change, dislike the unfamiliar, and bridle under rules that enforce changes. People will reject new designs that don’t feel comfortable. Back when I was involved in converting gasoline vehicles to electric propulsion, my partners and I had a saying: “Converting cars is easy, converting people is difficult.”

Next time, some thoughts on basic principles, and a conclusion.