|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on May 31, 2007, 8:28 pm
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>
>>>Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm interested in many things. None of which are the latest design
>>>>>>>fad
>>>>>>>for "Sustainability."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heck, make that "Design Fad" because, as we all know, it isn't really
>>>>>>>about design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you really afford to be left behind?
>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/582bt
>>>>>>; )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You can't call a design fad something that people have been exploring
>>>>>for 60 plus years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Do we have that on your personal authority, ++?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's well known and doesnt need my authority. I recall Buckminster
>>>Fuller's lectures on the topic at Yale in the 60s and at those particular
>>>lectures were considered derrivative rather than evolutionary on topic.
>>>People were exploring traditional architecture for more or less natural
>>>local solutions to climate prior to that. Sustainable farms were topics
>>>in the twenties of the last century.
>>>
>>
>>So we have it on Bucky's authority? Either way, what you seem to offer as
>>argument is "ipse dixit".
>>
>>Orange is a new fad. (Actually, it's the 'new blue'.) As far as I can
>>tell, orange was invented at least 15 billion years ago, far far away.
>>Does that preclude it from being a fad here and now? Doubt it. Some
>>thought about the nature of fads, and not so much about 'sustainability'
>>is required, IMHO. It's double-edged when the crowd gloms on to you
>>personal 'thing'. For a while, you're cool, but then, when they move on,
>>you're passé. I was reading Bucky and designing passive solar, off-grid
>>buildings in the '70s. It wasn't cool then. It's cool now. What's changed?
>>Just the flavor of the month.
>>
>>
>>
> Sustainable farming and sustainable architecture were called by several
> names. The concepts have evolved, whether or not one calls them
> sustainable or , like Steiner, biodynamic, or organic, like those
> preceding, or simply, natural. Living gently on this good earth htat the
> earth might survive to shelter us is an ancient and sometimes aboriginal
> theme.
If you're talking about aboriginal North Americans, I think this is a
somewhat romantic view, or maybe a more recent development as they didn't
take long to wipe out most of the big species after arriving, factoring in
stone age technology.
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/in_search_of_na.php
>
> Perhaps the most sustainable architecture is a cave dwelling? Consider
> the caves of Bamiyan.Consistently inhabited for at least 17 centuries,
> some for longer
>
>
http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu/loststolen/Afghan/bamiyan/cavexv/pages/OtherViews.htm
I fear that we are aren't capable of doing anything sustainable. The concept
of sustainability itself really depends on what time frame you choose. In
the end we will probably climb out onto a limb and then saw it off behind
us, be broadsided by event beyond our control, or perhaps we'll spread like
a plague into space. I kind of doubt the last scenario. The timeframe of the
planet and the biosphere is of a different order of magnitude than is ours.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap