This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How about dropping the drumbeat emphasis on the problem and making room for the solutions.
If there were two available speakers on a medical epidemic - one who wrung his .hands about how terrible it is and one who had a working cure, TED and everyone else would surely focus on the cure. Yet when we talk about trash and waste and disposal and garbage and the Pacific Gyre, the exact opposite happens. Endless books and articles and TED talks lament the problem. Where the garbage goes after discard is considered fascinating in one book, article and video after another. Garbage dumps, ragpickers, poisoned waterways are part of popular culture. Solutions are nowhere to be seen in popular literature. Recycling is not a solution to anything - it is universally a failure. Yet deeper analyses, such as Zero Waste Theory which is what I work on, seems to be viewed with suspicion. Surely there can't be any solution. Somehow this is known in advance. We may cure cancer, but never the drive to make garbage. We must just live with it forever. Very peculiar!
Ken brown 30+
Yes i saw the benefits and envisioned how many throw away pieces will make it into our rubbish bins as people play with it when they first buy one,have a look at this TED,you might find it interesting if you haven't already viewed it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/fiorenzo_omenetto_silk_the_ancient_material_of_the_future.html
Paul Palmer 10+
I assume you wanted to see my reaction to the impact such a material could have on waste generation.
It isn't clear. Is the production process for the protein better than other commonly used processes? Is it still dependent on silkworms or done by genetic engineering or fermentation or chemical reactions. He offers no clues.
I would also ask the question: what happens to the bare material if it is available from a product that has worn out or broken. At one point he states that it dissolves in water. Obviously silk does not dissolve in water unless perhaps the pH is quite high. Can the material be dissolved and then recombined into brand new silk? Again, he gives us no clue.
What really grabbed me is that he displays a very unfortunate ignorance about waste in which he joined by a large audience of clearly intelligent people. They swallowed his reference to biodegradability uncritically (they clapped) when all that he was putting forward is the same greenwash that the garbage and recycling industries are promoting. I can assure you that Archer Daniels Midland does not share his misunderstanding. They are the ones who make biodegradable polylactic acid. They churn it out by the millions of pounds in huge reactors and laugh all the way to the bank as the disposable goods are discarded. It makes no difference what happens to disposable goods after discard. The waste has ALREADY taken its toll through unnecessary production. The real assault on the planet is marshaling factories, raw materials inputs, energy inputs and human labor to make something shoddy that could be made robust and reused endlessly.
So, his applications are totally cool but he goes off the rails when he mounts his uninformed claims about waste. His attitudes are now publicly and widely accepted, more's the pity for a groaning planet.
Ken brown 30+
Why don't you try out for you're local TEDx or whatever TED is near you, it would be great to see your idea on the vid section as it is another path that the world could take if it will listen.
Paul Palmer 10+
I have done that twice. Neither time did I receive even the courtesy of a reply.
It was precisely that frustration that led me to frame the premise of this conversation in the unusual, kind of negative way that I did. I see that people are invited onto TED (and onto the NY Times book list and TV interviews) in order to tell people how bad garbage generation is, about the Pacific Gyre and to promote assumptions that I consider to be what I call "first ideas". By that I mean that people who have never thought in any deep or analytical way about the role of garbage generation or waste creation in society simply express the first ideas that pop into their heads as though they were settled results. Most often these are ideas that the very profitable and powerful garbage industry wants people to believe because it serves their purposes well. Ideas such as biodegradable products being desirable or recycling solving problems. If you look into these ideas, the common feature is that it is fine to discard products quickly and to create garbage because it will somehow go away. Obviously this view sits well with the garbage industry. The ideas that I promote, that we need to stop managing garbage and simply eliminate it, threaten their business and so must be suppressed.
This may amaze you, but so far, in twenty-five years of writing and promoting Zero Waste, during which I was the first person to ever use the term Zero waste publicly, created a successful company for reusing every chemical produced by Silicon Valley and others, wrote the only book on Zero Waste, managed a large website and watched most cities around the world pass ZW resolutions, not one radio or TV station or public presentation forum (think conferences on waste - even Zero Waste) has ever wanted to hear my ideas. Does that sound like censorship?
Maybe you want to make a suggestion to TED. I've tried.
Thanks again.
Ken brown 30+
Paul would you look at this TED? what do you see? This is a good 5 to 10 yrs away possibly before it spreads,from your point of view Good or Bad?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lisa_harouni_a_primer_on_3d_printing.html
Paul Palmer 10+
I looked at the TED video you offered. I've been watching 3D mfg. for a few years now. I went to a design show in San Jose CA and saw a fully articulated golden metal linked bracelet that had been made all at once without subsequent removal of material. That blew me away. I have no doubt that many parts of mfg. will be revolutionized.
However, I observe that there is no way to make items out of wood or other natural materials such as minerals. I notice that the cost of creation is always skirted by these companies, as in this video which tells me it is prohibitive. You may be able to buy a desktop 3D printer for $300 but it will be like any cheap printer. It won't do much.
All new technologies are initially sold on their ability to overturn the previous world. They all fail to do that (except maybe the internet) .except in limited ways. The commercial milieu is complex beyond simple prediction. For example, will the ability to make replacement parts lead to a mentality of making all parts shoddy and disposable so that they can be often replaced? Will there be millions of disposable plastic junk alligators and pandas? I've seen these for sale made by 3D printing.
One topic they always ignore is the source of the metal and plastic input materials. These will be made in large smelters and reactors as today. And inks, paints, cements, pharmaceuticals, chemicals.
When they talk about a low carbon footprint, they ignore the manufacturing of these machines. Will they be made in huge factories, just like other electronic devices? Every new technology is sold on the basis of solving environmental problems. Will the machines be disposable like iphones and ipads?
Of course, immensely intricate products and models and bespoke medical implants are an amazing capability. No question.
I want to commercialize plastic post stabilizers. I can't imagine ever making them one at a time. They will need to be made en masse by injection molding.
Paul
R H 20+
Paul Palmer 10+
Thanks for making that distinction plain.
R H 20+
Paul Palmer 10+
I will try to find some different words. You treat Zero Waste as though it were the conventional goal that activists use. They want to gain some monopoly on social power (by passing regulations or laws or bans for example) and make people do things their way, which they see as superior. You too are looking for a way to transition "to zero-waste engineering" by changing society for the better.
Yes, I too want to live in a zero waste world but I don't see any way to take anyone by the scruff of the neck and shake them until they "see the error of their ways". A better way of designing products and processes, using a better set of social goals; building businesses that incorporate those better goals is the approach I favor. GE, General Motors, Dow etc. will not suddenly change their spots. There are already many people like you and I who want something better. The irresistible push to solar power is a great example. There will be solar panels whether GE wants it or not. Vermont Yankee will be shut down whether Entergy manages to obstruct and delay or not. Designing intelligently is not more expensive, it is cheaper for customers and more people understand external costing. More and more people understand that recycling is just a greenwash for garbage. There are constantly improvements in architectural designs for less waste, though a zero waste approach eludes them. But the soil is being prepared for a basic market for new, zero waste businesses that sell products designed for perpetual reuse. Shoddy design is only "needed" for a saturated market. The market for good design is small and growing, and doesn't need constant discard to create demand.
It isn't a "transition" I'm after. It's a revolution in design.
Paul Palmer
R H 20+
Paul Palmer 10+
In your terms, A and B, I'm not imagining that I or we could suddenly eliminate all of the A people. Well, maybe ultimately, that would be desirable but for a start, what I am hoping for is to start at just one corner. One company, making one superior product that can then be expanded to be a core ZW company making a whole line of ZW products. Maybe if it is really successful it will be widely copied.
Yes I know I did say a revolution in design, but I didn't mean an instant worldwide explosion of different design. Maybe something like the way that digital information swept the world. Wouldn't that be something? I can't imagine that in a hundred years all manufacturing won't be Zero Waste based. It's got to come. The logic of living on a finite planet cannot be long ignored. This economic system is unsustainable.
Would you like to get involved? Are you a business person?
Kris Rosvold
I see this every day in the Commercial Appliance industry (commercial cooking & laundry equipment). After about 8 years of service life they will "obselete" a piece of equipment. (make the parts un-available or require a +$1200 retrofit, and force the client to replace the unit) Autos are the same way now... My first car was a 1969 Olds Delmont 88 which ran like a top until at least 1995. They were designed for a 20 year life. Now, I have a 1995 Buick that I am going to have to replace because there are no parts available for it. The Buick was designed for a 10 year life. I think the question is "How do we force the corporations to clean up their messes?"
Paul Palmer 10+
What I am proposing is to take advantage of the one fairly free endeavor that is still allowed - the freedom to start a business and compete in a marketplace. I propose that a core group join together to manufacture and sell products which are so superior for their customer's use that they succeed on the basis of that superiority. Not only has thirty years of environmental consciousness raising created a new customer base for the right kind of product but the realities of resource exhaustion and terrestrial pollution and sentiments similar to yours and mine are asking for a new approach to products.
The corporate managers who claim that quick obsolescence means more profit do not control the entire market. There is plenty of space within the market for alternate ways of framing support. We don't need to pull an Apple and try to capture 50 to 75% of the possible market. 1% would be a sizable business and 5% would be fabulous. Are these reasonable target numbers? The first product I would like to commercialize is the fence post stabilizer I call Straight Up. This replaces an obsolete way of installing posts and standards that has not changed in 2000 years. It makes sense for the customer and saves him money while tickling his pride in using a better designed product.
Does this approach tackle your objections?
edward long 100+
Paul Palmer 10+
I hope this answers your question in an acceptable way, even if you didn't get a free, "magical" answer.
You will find a little more in the Archives section of the ZWI website.
edward long 100+
Paul Palmer 10+
Social problems don't yield to magical solutions. They require hard work, thought, innovation and experimentation. The TED talks that report on solutions report often on years of development, investment and testing work that paid off. I am reminded for example of Tal Golesworthy's report on his aorta wrap. If you go to www.zerowasteinstitute.org you will find that garbage is produced because products are designed specifically for discard. That is part and parcel of their design. When it breaks, wears out, becomes obsolete, or whatever, you, as someone who hates waste, have few options. Not only is the product itself designed for early discard but so is the industrial, commercial and social milieu in which its use is embedded. The assumptions leading to discard and waste were assumed for you long before you even thought about them. The way to break that vicious cycle is to design for reuse, not for discard. This then is the road to solving garbage problems. Change the thinking and the design. So far as the material design is concerned, many examples are worked out and presented. Principles of the approach are also presented. The theory has many ramifications, not all of which can be summarized here, but that is the gist of it. The planet will thank you.
Ken brown 30+