Post-Class Post Week of 10.14.09

To preface this blog entry I'm going to mention that I'm currently sitting in my apartment under three blankets and my nose feels like an ice pop (silly heat that won't work). So, if this blog is incoherent let's agree to blame it on the fact that the most warmth I have access too is the heat coming from the bottom of my lap top.

"Cradle to Cradle" seems like it will be mostly about how industry could produce things differently to be less wasteful and how to create products that are healthier for humans. My hope is that the "scare-tactics" are over because, frankly, I'm on board. While the introduction was effective in convincing me that we need to change the way we make things I hope that the rest of the book isn't just a big list of how bad everything around me is for my health.

Admittedly, last class I was very caught up in an idea that was a bit different from this topic in particular. Specifically, I was trying to reconcile how we would get companies to even create these products. Perhaps the authors will address this later in the book, but as of now it seems that companies make things the way that they do not for a lack of innovation (we create tons of new products all the time) but for a lack of will or resources.

I am inclined to think that even if companies are presented with the designs that this book will inevitably offer the products will rarely make into mainstream consumer culture. The new less-wasteful pro-human-health-and-environment products will probably be seen by companies as a luxury for the wealthy and the educated, so companies will not be inclined to produce shoes that are easy to recycle and reuse they will instead choose to produce knock-off nikes.

So, now we are presented with a dilemma (I know I should finish reading the book and see what solutions the authors offer, but what the heck). We know that it is possible to make products that are good for us and good for the environment, and we know how to make them. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that these are the goods we use everyday rather than the harmful goods? And furthermore does anybody have a right to make sure we are buying earth-friendly or non-toxic products? What if I want to buy the cheaper paint with lead in it? Should I be able to or are the environmental and medical/social costs too high? How do we quantify this?

While my opinion isn't completely formulated I think (at least until I'm convinced otherwise) that government and industry should partner with the scientific community that is already researching these harmful substances and create a system to (at the very least) easily inform consumers of the dangers of certain products. Every time I buy a pack of cigarettes I am reminded that they can give me cancer. If a t-shirt can do the same thing it should also be labeled with a skull and crossbones. Or (at the more invasive end of the spectrum) government should ban certain ecologically and medically harmful substances from even being used in production. I'm sure the right answer is somewhere between those two extremes.

Wow, sorry about the rant. My fingers are a bit warmer now...