Question

Is it an issue with our habits or is it an issue with the wasteful nature of products? Which is the bigger problem?

Does it mater? They both contribute to it. They both need to be dealt with.

Why Redesign Objects

New Thesis Direction: Instead of getting people to change, to change the objects them selves. Looking at altering the objects related to the habits to be less wasteful. For it seems out of everything, the main issue in the identified habits is our tendency to be wasteful.

Trash into Treasure

Found this article from national geographic about a campaign to get people to become more avid recyclers. It is based on a rewards system where the more you recycle the more green store credits you get. Each recycle bin would have a code that the pickup truck can scan. It then weighs how much recyclables you have and that translates into credits you can print from the web. A number of cities have tried this new system, and they've increased their recycling 10 times the original percentage. My questions here are: How much of what the homeowners deem recyclable were really recyclable? Are they also faking it to get the vouchers? Does the recycling system really work that well anyways? Recycling has it's own downfalls too, it can be seen as route to alleviating the guilt of consumption resulting in more consuming.

It's a good idea though in the sense that it becomes a cycle of rewards.

Shutting Down Computers

- Automatic shutdown after 20 min no use ("Of the $250 billion spent every year on powering computers worldwide, only about 15 percent is spent computing; the rest is wasted idling."- World Changing)
- Makes beeping noise like cell phone in 10 min cycles of no use

Water and Faucets (sinks)

- 7 to 10 second automatic turn off
- low flow faucet heads
- water drains to living machine like tank - gray water then used to arrogate lawn and back yard
- motion detector - turns on only when there is a object under faucet
- toilet sink lid - attach water intake hose of toilet to sink lid - can wash your hands after going and that water can help flush your excrement
- reuse gray water from all sinks into tanks for toilet flushing
- use your foot to turn on water instead of hands - gets rid of unhygienic hands on faucets

Lighting a Space (Light Switch)

- it would beep every ten minutes like a miscall on a cell phone when it is on
- continuous humming or ticking when on
- motion detectors that automatically turn off and turn on lights in the room when you leave/ enter
- cycles of blinking lights every couple of minutes
- automatic turn off every ten minutes
- windows with self adjusting opacity - light and temperature sensitive
- open and close door detecting devices that control on and off switch - when ever door is closed lights turn off

Am I doing the right thing?

My thesis is about taking action over just pointing at the problem - to change unenvironmental behavior. Thing is that who am I to say that unenvironmental behavior is bad, that's just my opinion. I came into the process with a pre-supposition of a negative. Is that smart? Is habit change really the problem?

Look if I were asked is environmentalism really worth pursuing if the world is not in a gigantic crisis, I would say yes. The way we're living may or may not impact future generations as severely as it is popularly advertising today, but we should live with respect for our fellow species. That means a change of ways, and a paradigm shift of thinking of our selves in relation to other Earth creatures. A change in our everyday behaviors can aid in living more symbiotically with one an other but it's most likely only with relatively minimal effects. What it does do is train people to consider and question their actions so that they may make better decisions with bigger choices. Like allowing the dumping of wastewater into lakes and rivers by factories.

Stopping people from doing the things they like doing is different from altering habits. One is open to desire, people act that way because they like to. Habits on the other hand

Environmental Hysteria

I was shown a video on environmental extremists called Penn and Teller - Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria. It basically talks about how this trend into environmentalism is just a political ploy in conjunction with people's natural tendencies to join something.

Environmentalism as a cloak for anti-corporatism, anti-globalism, and anti-business.
Patrick Moore a founder and former president of Green Peace argues that environmental language has been cleverly injected into various political agendas to garnish support - misinformation and scare tactics.

1970s Crisis verse 2000 Crisis
The 70s was different because the issue then was the cut off from cheep oil, thus people had to find a new way of sustaining a large modern population's needs and wants. The 2ooo crisis is the belief that the environment is being drained of it's usable resources.

Anything to help the "Environment"
In the video they documented an experiment to see if people really knew what they were supporting, or do you just have to use buzz words like "it's for the environment" and they'll sign anything. So they ran a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which is water (H2O) by using environmental language to explain it's effects on people and nature. Waves of people signed the petition. This is probably because yes, people are joiners, they like to belong and being part of a group. It's a survival instinct, human beings are relatively fragile for an animal so we're more likely to live and last longer if we come together in packs. So when individuals see that a particular group is getting bigger (meaning higher likely hood of the pack's survival), they want to join. Problem is, they don't understand what they're choosing to participate in.

Is Global Warming really happening?
If you take the recorded average annual temperatures and draw up a graph with a trend line, it seems the Earth is warming up. Theoretically this will cause alterations in weather patterns, and we see this happening now. But did we cause this? How will this effect us? Some say that climate change may result in the melting of most of the polar ice caps (which will flood the earth and drown cities among things), a dramatic increase in natural disasters, and perhaps even push the earth towards the run-away greenhouse effect (basically turn the earth in to a second Venus). Others conclude with the fact that the earth has gone through these cycles of heating and cooling through out it's history of existence, we're due for an other one, and thus it's happening now. They cite that if you look at the averages of the total contributors of green house gases in the atmosphere, that you'll find the human contribution to be quite small compared to the rest. Environmentalist counters with saying that this may be true but the Earth's ecosystem is a delicate balance, that little bit may be enough to cross the line. All in all it seems that we just don't know, everything is theoretical (we're supposing). It seems the argument is yes the world is warming up, we don't know exactly what that means but we should perhaps prepare for the worse.

Bad News Sells

After watching this video, I found that the main issue with the eco movement seems to be the lack of reliable information. I've heard arguments for global warming and those that say it's just a natural occurrence that the Earth goes through. Thing is that despite all the research and theories, what it comes down to is that science is not fixed. No one knows these things for sure, and even if they say they are, things could change in reality and then they would cite that science has always been based on theories. They're human, and humans make mistakes. My point is that no one knows the future, we can only predict it, and predicting is different from knowing. It is also important to note that all information is presented with a bias, you'll never know what you think unless you examine the data your self. It like what happened with Bjorn Lomborg, he looked at the data for him self and came up with a conclusion opposite to that pro-environmentalist. I'm not saying he got it right nor that he got it wrong, just that the data spoke differently to him.

Personally, since grade school I've always liked plants, trees, and animals. I believe that we all share and live in this one closed space and we each have something to offer in sustaining that space. Therefore we should respect one an other, respect life, to promote co-existing. Rather then the Earth belongs to man kind thus we are authorized to act with out consideration to all the other creatures that are here with us.

But the thing is that this is how I think, who am I to say that this is how others should think. It was discussed before that my thesis should revolve around education, perhaps it should center on getting them to actively look for their own answers and conclusions over just copying someone else's. Get people to question. To stop the repetitive behavior of just sitting back and being spoon fed opinions and get up to form your own.

Forget-me-not Campaign

Since the problem I identified with poster campaigns in influence change was that it relied on viewers to remember to act, why not involve a reminder aspect to it. A couple decades back, a piece of string tired to the finger was used to remind people of things they should not forget. Perhaps something similar could be implemented as an interactive part of the campaign, that people could take something of the campaign with them as forget-me-nots.

Suggested Idea and I Ran with It

I was told this idea that I ran with in terms of thought. I don't mean to do it, but it might be a direction to head towards. So one of the major problems with over using water (long showers, washing machines, etc.) is that people can’t physically see where that water comes from and where it goes. We know about it, that there are lakes, filtering plants, and pipes involved, but we don’t directly see our actions’ effects. So even though we’re told the negatives about it, we still can’t relate to it (hence lack of response). Thus I figured if I could some how reveal those hidden facets and the effects that using water has on it them, then it might influence a behavioral change.

The idea begins with an installation piece where a sink is attached to a tank with a fish swimming inside. The waste water then goes into another tank and put through a time-consuming filtration process. But basically each time the sink is used the water decreases in amount and the fish has less space to swim. So to wash our hands has a direct and visible affect on the lively hood of the fish. In addition to it, there could be graphics put up in bathrooms around the area that has an illustrated version of the installation. (thus the first part would be in a public area like an art piece, the second part would be where the action occurs)

Other iteration for different habits are definitely possible.

The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis

Article from Adbusters quotes:

"It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.

The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.

The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.

It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.

The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.

Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.

So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or farming foods that were once naturally available.

Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.

But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.

“Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.

“Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why don’t you speak with so and so politician or such and such business.”

What makes people react aversively to changing habits?

Basically people are used to consumption with out much limits.

What incentive do they have to change?
How can people reduce their consumption with out feeling deprived?

What does it mean to be environmentally conscious in an industrialize society?

For most it's basically being less bad, to continue to consume but at a slower rate. This only pushes the expiry date further in the future, doesn't prevent it from coming.

Generational Gap

In order to effectively communicate to the masses, one must understand that different age groups react and responds to things differently. So to be successful in engaging them, one must acknowledge those variances.

The three major generational populations that contributes to the human impact on Earth are the Baby Boomers (40 - 57 years old), the Gen Xers (27 - 39 years old), and Gen Yers (7 - 26 years old). Each population segments response to differently to varying stimuli as well as cues. The Baby Boomers relate to themes of achievement, status, and performance, Gen Xers value imagination, creativity, and relationships, while Gen Y responds to fun, interactivity, and experience.

What Makes Life Worth Living ( Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi)

I came across this video on Ted Talks that looks into how human beings derive pleasure and lasting satisfaction in life. He proposes that money is not that driver, but rather a state of mind that he labels as "flow". Examples of entering this state are when composers, athletes, artists, performers, even movie goers, become completely absorbed into what they're doing. Often times so much so that that they lose sight of the self, as if everything did not exist not even your self only your actions.