Contract - March 2010 - (Page 102)

essay: on the future more happiness, less stuff By Ray C. Anderson ore happiness, less stuff. Itâ€™s the conclusion Iâ€™ve been drawing lately on the speaking circuit, as I describe my reworking of a famous equation by Paul and Anne Ehrlich from their book The Population Bombâ€”the environmental impact equation. It is a mathematical depiction of the negative impact of population, af uence, and technology on the environment. As I work through to a new solution, I make the case for minimizing negative technologies and maximizing bene cial technologies. We wind up with less af uence (less stuff), but more happiness. This always gets a big reaction â€“ audiences love the idea of more happiness, less stuff. So why do we nd ourselves in the mess that weâ€™re in, environmentally and socially speaking? Industrialismâ€”the industrial system of which we are each a partâ€”developed in a different world from the one in which we live today: fewer people, more plentiful natural resources, simpler lifestyles, less stuff. It made perfect sense to exploit nature to increase human productivityâ€”300 years ago! These days, with people overly abundant and nature scarce and diminishing, industry moves, mines, extracts, shovels, burns, wastes, pumps, and disposes of four million pounds of material to provide one average, middle class American family its needs for a year. With the whole world aspiring to the American standard of living, that cannot go on in a nite Earth. And it is nite. You can see it from space; thatâ€™s all there is, and there isnâ€™t any more. The rate of material throughputâ€”the metabolism of the industrial systemâ€”is now endangering prosperity, as much as enhancing it, and the toxicity of some of that stuff is really endangering the biosphere, thus everyoneâ€™s healthâ€”ours and that of the 30 million other species that share the biosphere with us. Clearly, it is manifestly the wrong thing to do. When you talk of viewing environmental destruction as the â€œwrong thing to do,â€ youâ€™re talking about what I see as a shifting mind-set, a growing sense of ethics. This growing sense of ethics might be the push we need to nd our way out of the mess that weâ€™re in. In the nal analysis, the ethical thingâ€”the right thing to doâ€”is driven by enlightened self interest. The study of ecology tells us we are part of nature, not above or outside it. It also tells us that what we do to the web of life we do to ourselves. Industrial ecology tells us the industrial system, as it operates today, simply cannot continue on taking, making, wastingâ€”abusing the web of life. The industrial system takes too much, extracting and frittering away Earthâ€™s natural capital on wants, not needs. It wastes too much. It abuses too much. It takes stuff and makes stuff that very quickly ends up in land lls or incineratorsâ€”more waste, more abuse, more pollution. Iâ€™m told that less than 3 percent of the throughput of the entire industrial system has any value six Ray C. Anderson Chairman and Founder, Interface, Inc., and author of Confessions of a Radical Industrialist M months afterward. We industrialists operate a waste-making machine. Each of us is part of the problemâ€”either as producer, speci er, user, or consumer. I believe that a sustainable society depends totally and absolutely on a new mind shift to deeply embrace ethical valuesâ€”values that, along with an enlightened self-interest, drive us to make new decisions. I also believe that It doesnâ€™t happen quickly. It happens one mind at a time, one organization at a time, one building, one company, one community, one region, one new, clean technology, one industry, one supply chain at a timeâ€”until the entire industrial system has been transformed into a sustainable system existing ethically in balance with Earthâ€™s natural systems, upon which every living thing is utterly dependent. Again, what we do to the web of life, we do to ourselves. â€œWe industrialists operate a wastemaking machine. Each of us is part of the problem, either as producer, specier, user, or consumerâ€¦what we do to the web of life, we do to ourselves.â€ So what about this sacred shrine of growth and af uence, the one that fuels the extractive, abusive, and linear technologies upon which we are so dependent? How do we make the shift? How do we decide, if we are moving toward a sustainable society, what should grow? What should not grow? Here are some thoughts to stimulate your thinking: The lowest impact technologies, those that are bene cial, should grow. The abusive technologies should shrink and eventually disappear. The sale of services should grow. The sale of products should shrink. Applied brainpower should grow. Applied brute force should shrink. Market shares for the sustainable companies should grow. For companies that are not sustainable, market shares should shrinkâ€”to zero. Each of us has a role to play, each of us has power. The power to vote, with our dollar and our ballot. The power to shape commerce, with what we buy and donâ€™t buy. We have power as individuals and collectively as a community. We each make choices, large and small, every day, that translate into powerâ€” power to change the paradigm. To get where we need to go requires a vast mind shift that leads to a cumulative and collective mandate: Less stuff, more happiness. Will we get there in time? 102 contract march 2010 www.contractdesign.com http://www.contractdesign.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Contract - March 2010

Contract 3/10
Contents
Editor’s Note
Introduction
Resources
Perspectives
Essays from the Past:
The Contract Design Dilemma (May 1962)
Space Planning Symposium (July 1963)
Changes in Workplaces Reflect Changes in Task Structure (June 1970)
Women Need Feminine Desks (June 1970)
Name “Interior Designer” Is a Misnomer Because of Broader Duties (August 1970)
Research Reveals Proper Height, Width, Depth of Furniture, from Office Chairs to Library Tables (September 1970)
Astounding Technology Portends Drastic Office Changes in the ’80s (January 1980)
Is the Office Really Necessary? (January 1989)
If You Cut Your Fee, Do You Bleed? (June 1990)
Design: Retrospective
Essays on the Future:
More Happiness, Less Stuff: By Ray C. Anderson
The Social Aspect of Social Responsibility: By John Cary
Leading in the Global Market: By Ross Donaldson
Technology Trends: By Cathryn Barrett
Inadmissible Evidence: By Michael Berens
Practice
Designers Rate: Eight Designers Pick Their Favorite Three Commercial Interiors Products of the Last 50 Years
Ad Index

Contract - March 2010