I enjoyed reading the second chapter of David Orr's book because it explained an array of topics that both plague and benefit Human beings. In particular, Orr's description of the complex human mind(knowledge) was quite fascinating. Orr's argument- fast knowledge v. Slow knowledge- was interesting as well because i felt he was trying to alert the nation that "careless application of knowledge can destroy the conditions that permit knowledge of any kind to flourish"(39). Therefore, applications of knowledge should be for the greater good of man kind, instead of using our knowledge to create bombs and new weaponry. With design in mind, Orr is trying to show the reader the brighter side of knowledge which benefits all, and inconveniences noone. Jo-Sar D-D.
I liked that in this Chapter Orr gives tangible figures about many environmental problems that many people know about but don't know the actual figures. I found this very helpful and at the same time it helped me realize my own ecological impact (in particular his discussion of calorie burning). In addition, i felt like he reiterated many common environmental concerns due to global resource exhaustion in a clear, understandable way. I also really liked when Orr said that we can't keep "repeating old mistakes in new and more sophisticated and powerful ways" (20). However, one thing that i did think was missing was he said a lot about general things nations need to do (become more energy efficient etc...) but he does not attempt to explore specific solutions in his writing. This may be a high expectation but i was slightly disappointed nonetheless. Nickk
I liked in chapter 2 when Orr briefly spoke about how we do not entirely understand how the earth works. This, to me, is an even bigger reason why we should try to preserve all that we have, because we do not know what our harmful actions will do in the future or are even doing right now. there could be far worse things that CO2 emissions and the problems that we already know about. I would like to disagree with Orr on the fact that we are being taken over by technology. We are definitely headed in that direction, but for now I think we still rely mostly on humans to figure things out, we are the most complex and intelligent beings on the planet right now. We must hold onto the things that we do now away from technology so that in the future we do not fall into the technology hole never to return. One last thing. I think it is a great idea to put more pressure on richer countries to reduce damage to nature by certain margins because this is a way that we can make a difference, even just a small one in the scope of the world. Nora K
I found Orr's idea that we are being taken over by technology very interesting. More and more we are becoming reliant on different technologies to do our work for us. Two movies I've seen recently have made me think more and more about this. The first was a movie that we watched in Science and the Origin of Knowledge. It described an apocalypse scenario where our electricity generators break down... permanently. Essentially, mostly everything that we have in our world today becomes completely useless, and the most modern tech that we can productively use becomes a plow towed by cows. For this reason I would agree with the argument that we are essentially 100% technology dependent (or close to it). Finally, I recently saw the movie Wall-e (which everyone should see) and it gave a very grim picture of a future where we have become completely dependent on tech to do the most rudimentary activities. Humanity has spent 700 years in complete robotic luxury on a space ship and no longer knows how to make any of the things they rely on... or any science for that matter. It's all in the computers. Now, I know this is getting slightly ahead of ourselves, but still, it can't hurt to be wary. -Jordan F
One thing in particular that caught my attention when I read this chapter was Orr's statement "A real design revolution will have to transform human intentions and the larger political, economic, and institutional structure that permitted ecological degradation in the first place" (22-23). The way he phrased it kind of made me wonder whether a "real design revolution" can ever take place. It seems that although some people have started looking for ways to design effectively with nature in mind, there are still so many other factors that stand in the way of effective ecological design. It wouldn't be easy to transform the political and economic systems we've used for decades. I think there are so many out there that disregard nature, or at least think the benefits of destroying it outweigh the consequences (I don't happen to agree). Personally, I think the whole concept of ecological design is both important and interesting. I liked that Orr called it "the careful meshing of human purposes with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world" (20). I completely agree that we can't force nature to adjust to our intentions. Instead, we have to change our purposes to work with nature in a way that is beneficial to all. --Samantha H.
I liked that Orr pointed out that although most people depend on technology and scientific information, societies that base their actions off of their beliefs and non scientific information often make more environmentally sound decisions. He pointed out that myth and religious beliefs, although often not considered, can provide good solutions. I also liked the questions Orr said that we should consider while making decisions (on page 26) I think that if every product was made with Orr's questions in mind, the producer or designer would be able to produce better products that would function better as a whole. As a product, in the immediate environment it will be in, and out the larger environment around it. I think the impact the product or design will have on the community should be well thought out, because even if the product, for example a building, was well designed and modern, it would not be well suited for a small country town. I also think that the full cost of the product over its life time is important because although it may be cheap to build now, the cost of repairs, and the resources used on repairs will add up. And the problem could have been avoided originally if the design was better.
The whole technology part seemed somewhat comical to me, though it is a serious possibility that in the future we will not be able to survive at all without technology. Jordan, I disagree with you that we are almost 100% technology dependent. We in a metropolis like NYC may be, but for much of the world, developing nations especially, many people cant buy the technologies we take for granted, so we as a race cannot be technologically dependent if we as a race cannot all, for the most part, afford the things which we are dependent upon. Oh and for the electrical generators failing thing, another possibility is that there is a large enough sunstorm what creates strong enough electromagnetic pulses to wipe every hard drive clean in the world. if such an event occurred, ever person in the world would no longer have a recorded identity, they are all on computers. Scary stuff DK
Chapter two of the book made me think about knowledge in a way I had never thought about it before. Before reading this chapter, I thought of knowledge as something one just aquires over time and can use when needed. After reading this chapter, I understand that there are different types of knowledge. There is fast knowledge that can be aquired fast and applied fast with uncertain consequences or slow knowledge which is more like wisdom and has little consequences when applied.
Thinking about this in terms of architecture, this is another clear example that sometimes simple, old, efficent techniques or designs are effective and new, more complicated techniques or designs can just be more expensive nusances.
Chapter 2 of Orr's book was interesting. Having just discussed ideas and things that have been used to shape principles of design, Orr begins to discuss humans. He makes a clear distinction between what humans need scientifically and what humans believe that they need. He discusses the reluctance of society not to change their ways, but the urgent need to do so. It leaves the reader thinking, can better design fix this? Orr thinks that it can, and discusses things that can be done as a start. Orr suggests that we think about if it's really necessary, if it can be repaired or reused, etc. In this day and age, we hear these things everywhere. One thing Orr said that I found interesting was that many things bad things that happen are the unintentional result of design flaws. The first step in streamlining our society without having to change our ways much has to be eliminating these costly mistakes! Steve
I was a little surprised to see how many calories a human used each day. I was also surprised that hunter gatherers and early farmers were considered ecologically dangerous. I think that the H&G did what they needed to do to survive and so did the early farmers. On another point, I think when Orr writes about all of the ecological changes we need to make, he doesnt foresee how much money all of those steps would be. If Orr wants to reduce population growth and redesign transportation, it is going to cost a lot of money that right now, the government doesnt have to spare.
I thought Orr used statistics very well. At first when I read over the sentence, "For every 100 pounds of product, we create 3,200 pounds of waste," I was Oh my Goodness! After really looking at the number more closely, I found that 1 pound of product creates 32 pounds of waste, which just doesn't seem as monumental. I thought multiplying the proportion by 100 helped support his argument that our ecological footprint is a major problem.
The end of the chapter made me wonder what the world would look like now architecturally if the the two hemispheres had not made contact in the 15th century. I wonder if we would have been at the stage were we are now and if we would be worrying about the ecological problems of our architecture. It would be very interesting to see how developed each areas architecture would be and whether the British would still begun the industrial revolution. Would we be using iron. I know this is a tangent, but this is were my mind went.
12 comments:
I enjoyed reading the second chapter of David Orr's book because it explained an array of topics that both plague and benefit Human beings. In particular, Orr's description of the complex human mind(knowledge) was quite fascinating. Orr's argument- fast knowledge v. Slow knowledge- was interesting as well because i felt he was trying to alert the nation that "careless application of knowledge can destroy the conditions that permit knowledge of any kind to flourish"(39). Therefore, applications of knowledge should be for the greater good of man kind, instead of using our knowledge to create bombs and new weaponry. With design in mind, Orr is trying to show the reader the brighter side of knowledge which benefits all, and inconveniences noone. Jo-Sar D-D.
I liked that in this Chapter Orr gives tangible figures about many environmental problems that many people know about but don't know the actual figures. I found this very helpful and at the same time it helped me realize my own ecological impact (in particular his discussion of calorie burning). In addition, i felt like he reiterated many common environmental concerns due to global resource exhaustion in a clear, understandable way. I also really liked when Orr said that we can't keep "repeating old mistakes in new and more sophisticated and powerful ways" (20). However, one thing that i did think was missing was he said a lot about general things nations need to do (become more energy efficient etc...) but he does not attempt to explore specific solutions in his writing. This may be a high expectation but i was slightly disappointed nonetheless.
Nickk
I liked in chapter 2 when Orr briefly spoke about how we do not entirely understand how the earth works. This, to me, is an even bigger reason why we should try to preserve all that we have, because we do not know what our harmful actions will do in the future or are even doing right now. there could be far worse things that CO2 emissions and the problems that we already know about.
I would like to disagree with Orr on the fact that we are being taken over by technology. We are definitely headed in that direction, but for now I think we still rely mostly on humans to figure things out, we are the most complex and intelligent beings on the planet right now. We must hold onto the things that we do now away from technology so that in the future we do not fall into the technology hole never to return.
One last thing. I think it is a great idea to put more pressure on richer countries to reduce damage to nature by certain margins because this is a way that we can make a difference, even just a small one in the scope of the world.
Nora K
I found Orr's idea that we are being taken over by technology very interesting. More and more we are becoming reliant on different technologies to do our work for us. Two movies I've seen recently have made me think more and more about this. The first was a movie that we watched in Science and the Origin of Knowledge. It described an apocalypse scenario where our electricity generators break down... permanently. Essentially, mostly everything that we have in our world today becomes completely useless, and the most modern tech that we can productively use becomes a plow towed by cows. For this reason I would agree with the argument that we are essentially 100% technology dependent (or close to it). Finally, I recently saw the movie Wall-e (which everyone should see) and it gave a very grim picture of a future where we have become completely dependent on tech to do the most rudimentary activities. Humanity has spent 700 years in complete robotic luxury on a space ship and no longer knows how to make any of the things they rely on... or any science for that matter. It's all in the computers. Now, I know this is getting slightly ahead of ourselves, but still, it can't hurt to be wary.
-Jordan F
One thing in particular that caught my attention when I read this chapter was Orr's statement "A real design revolution will have to transform human intentions and the larger political, economic, and institutional structure that permitted ecological degradation in the first place" (22-23). The way he phrased it kind of made me wonder whether a "real design revolution" can ever take place. It seems that although some people have started looking for ways to design effectively with nature in mind, there are still so many other factors that stand in the way of effective ecological design. It wouldn't be easy to transform the political and economic systems we've used for decades. I think there are so many out there that disregard nature, or at least think the benefits of destroying it outweigh the consequences (I don't happen to agree).
Personally, I think the whole concept of ecological design is both important and interesting. I liked that Orr called it "the careful meshing of human purposes with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world" (20). I completely agree that we can't force nature to adjust to our intentions. Instead, we have to change our purposes to work with nature in a way that is beneficial to all.
--Samantha H.
I liked that Orr pointed out that although most people depend on technology and scientific information, societies that base their actions off of their beliefs and non scientific information often make more environmentally sound decisions. He pointed out that myth and religious beliefs, although often not considered, can provide good solutions. I also liked the questions Orr said that we should consider while making decisions (on page 26) I think that if every product was made with Orr's questions in mind, the producer or designer would be able to produce better products that would function better as a whole. As a product, in the immediate environment it will be in, and out the larger environment around it. I think the impact the product or design will have on the community should be well thought out, because even if the product, for example a building, was well designed and modern, it would not be well suited for a small country town. I also think that the full cost of the product over its life time is important because although it may be cheap to build now, the cost of repairs, and the resources used on repairs will add up. And the problem could have been avoided originally if the design was better.
-Lia Mc
The whole technology part seemed somewhat comical to me, though it is a serious possibility that in the future we will not be able to survive at all without technology. Jordan, I disagree with you that we are almost 100% technology dependent. We in a metropolis like NYC may be, but for much of the world, developing nations especially, many people cant buy the technologies we take for granted, so we as a race cannot be technologically dependent if we as a race cannot all, for the most part, afford the things which we are dependent upon. Oh and for the electrical generators failing thing, another possibility is that there is a large enough sunstorm what creates strong enough electromagnetic pulses to wipe every hard drive clean in the world. if such an event occurred, ever person in the world would no longer have a recorded identity, they are all on computers. Scary stuff
DK
Chapter two of the book made me think about knowledge in a way I had never thought about it before. Before reading this chapter, I thought of knowledge as something one just aquires over time and can use when needed. After reading this chapter, I understand that there are different types of knowledge. There is fast knowledge that can be aquired fast and applied fast with uncertain consequences or slow knowledge which is more like wisdom and has little consequences when applied.
Thinking about this in terms of architecture, this is another clear example that sometimes simple, old, efficent techniques or designs are effective and new, more complicated techniques or designs can just be more expensive nusances.
D.Gibbs (FINALLY!)
Chapter 2 of Orr's book was interesting. Having just discussed ideas and things that have been used to shape principles of design, Orr begins to discuss humans. He makes a clear distinction between what humans need scientifically and what humans believe that they need. He discusses the reluctance of society not to change their ways, but the urgent need to do so. It leaves the reader thinking, can better design fix this? Orr thinks that it can, and discusses things that can be done as a start. Orr suggests that we think about if it's really necessary, if it can be repaired or reused, etc. In this day and age, we hear these things everywhere. One thing Orr said that I found interesting was that many things bad things that happen are the unintentional result of design flaws. The first step in streamlining our society without having to change our ways much has to be eliminating these costly mistakes! Steve
I was a little surprised to see how many calories a human used each day. I was also surprised that hunter gatherers and early farmers were considered ecologically dangerous. I think that the H&G did what they needed to do to survive and so did the early farmers.
On another point, I think when Orr writes about all of the ecological changes we need to make, he doesnt foresee how much money all of those steps would be. If Orr wants to reduce population growth and redesign transportation, it is going to cost a lot of money that right now, the government doesnt have to spare.
The last post was KeeMcc By the Way
I thought Orr used statistics very well. At first when I read over the sentence, "For every 100 pounds of product, we create 3,200 pounds of waste," I was Oh my Goodness! After really looking at the number more closely, I found that 1 pound of product creates 32 pounds of waste, which just doesn't seem as monumental. I thought multiplying the proportion by 100 helped support his argument that our ecological footprint is a major problem.
The end of the chapter made me wonder what the world would look like now architecturally if the the two hemispheres had not made contact in the 15th century. I wonder if we would have been at the stage were we are now and if we would be worrying about the ecological problems of our architecture. It would be very interesting to see how developed each areas architecture would be and whether the British would still begun the industrial revolution. Would we be using iron. I know this is a tangent, but this is were my mind went.
Post a Comment