Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Cradle
EAPP 8330: Critical Reading and Debate
Industry and the Environment are being at odds with each other. However, the authors are
trying to approach to designing and producing the objects we use with the next industrial
revolution. As of now, the two systems cannot thrive in the current world. Over century
of human industry in full swing has brought decline in every eco system on the planet
nature does not have a design problem. People do.
Consumers have unwittingly become party to a process of waste and destruction even
with good intentions when we the consumer deliberately shop foe items from recycled
materials. Manufacturing process required much energy as well as much waste as
producing a new. Examining closely everything we use in healthy environment as much
as we think as peace, comfort and safety. In fact, hazardous except when sold to
customers, it is considered as acceptable to regulators. There lies the dilemma.
The authors do not support the cradle-to-grave model. Life comforts in daily life find us
1
in peace, comfort and in safety. However, we have a closer look it is indeed a other way
around. The comfortable chair fabric contains mutagenic materials, heavy metals,
dangerous chemicals, and dyes. The computers contain thousands different kinds of
materials including toxic gases, toxic metals, acids, plastics, chlorinated and brominated
substances, and other additives. The dusts from printer toner cartridges contain nickel,
cobalt, and mercury and other substances harmful to humans.
According to the authors International style is a negative product design which advanced
during the early decades of the twentieth century as a reaction to Victoria era styles.
Today the international style has evolved in to something less ambitious: a bland, uniform
structure isolated from the particulars of place from local culture, nature, energy, and
material flows. Originators of international style intended to convey hope in the
brotherhood of human kind. However, the universal design solution does not work for
all parts. For example, soap manufacturers design one detergent for all parts of the United
States even though water qualities and community needs different.
Complete the argument outline for the sections From Cradle to Grave and
One Size Fits All. The main claim/thesis is listed below. Please add specific
warrants/reasons and evidence from the text that support the main claim.
A completed outline will include two reasons and 2 3 pieces of evidence for
each reason. The second reason has been done for you.
Evidence: On average only contain 5% of raw materials in the final product. 95% of
the other raw materials are wasted during the manufacturing process.
2
Reason 2: One-size-fits-all solutions do not work because one size fits all
solutions assume that needs are the same everywhere.
a. resentful
b. empathetic
c. optimistic
d. critical
e. cheerful
3
E. Analyzing the Argument (4 points total)
The authors used reasoning and evidence so convincingly to grab our attention. First by
showing the strategy of tragedy there after showing the strategy of change. Industrial
infrastructure design to chase economic growth at the expense of other vital concerns
particularly human ecological health, cultural and natural richness. The authors include a
counter argument by saying except for a few generally known positive side effects most
industrial methods and materials are unintentionally depletive. The tone of the counter
argument the authors do not blame the corporations or the consumers. In fact the authors
state Just as industrialist, engineers, designers, and developers of the past did not intend
to bring about such devastating effects, those who perpetuate these paradigms today
surely do not intend to damage the world. In fact the waste pollution and crude products
are not the result of corporations doing something morally wrong. Only as the
consequence of outdated and un-intelligent design. The authors have so effectively used
logos, pathos and ethos persuaded me and the authors chosen correct approach to bring to
the audience attention the whole world. The evidence the authors have brought in are so
effective that the next industrial revolution truly a visionary one. At first reading it was
intimidating, frustrating, confusing and could not figure out where it was going with it.
The authors Bill the architect and Michael the chemist, both made their mark in their own
fields, is as a great combination as Steve Jobs (marketing) Steve Wozniak (computer
expert) in the computer revolution. I regret in not reading this article before my career
goal essay, as in page 12 it says when I first met Bill, the environmentalists I knew
were looking ahead to upcoming 1992 Earth Summit. According to the authors at some
point a manufacturer or designer decides we cant keep doing this. We cant keep
supporting and manufacturing this system at some point they will decide that they would
prefer to live behind a positive design legacy. But when is that point? Even though the
authors say that that point is today I do disagree. Because now that president elect trump
is taking oath on January 20th we would have to wait till his term ends. Only there after a
newer administration will say enough is enough.