Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things是一本在绿色设计或是永续设计领域中一本重要的文献，我建议设计专业者或是对永续发展有兴趣的人抽空阅读这本书。这本书挑战了当前工业制程的逻辑，并为工业设计如何走向较永续环保的方向提出精彩的见解，书中提供新的设计观念颇具启发性，但我也建议大家在读这本书时，对书中的论点不要毫不保留的接受，我虽然相当同意书中大部分的论点，但对于作者认为「只要产品对工业制品对环境有正面，工业就可以无限制成长」的观点，无法认同，在这篇文章中提出我对这个论点的评论，供大家参考。

（诚品好像有卖这本书，大学图书馆应该也可以借的到，另外，在丰泰基金会的网页中对这本书有不错的中文介绍和归纳，值得参考：http://www.fengtay.org.tw/paper.asp?num=34 ）

人类似乎是地球上唯一有意识地不断追求成长及发展的物种。1987年，「我们共同的未来」（Our Common Future）这本报告提出了所谓「永续发展」（Sustainable Development）的观念，强调环境保护和经济成长必须并存，并将定义永续发展为「符合当代需求，却又不影响未来世代满足他们需求的发展模式」。有趣的是，目前虽然人们已经意识到环境恶化产生的种种问题和危机，但是在寻求解决方法时，少有人会质疑「需求」、「成长」、或是「发展」背后的根本意义，我们的解决方式强调的是以比较「适当」或者说比较「环保」的发展模式来满足人类需求，因此，所谓的「永续发展」基本上只是人类追求财富和成长的替代方式，比以往的发展模式多了些环境考量，目前已经成为时髦的口号，被视作人类未来发展的解答，但是基本上，永续发展的目的是确定成长或发展这回事会世世代代的持续下去。

在这样的观念之下，么许多关于绿色或永续设计的文献多半都抱持着成长（尤其是经济成长）和生态环境的健全是可以、也必须同时兼顾的的论点，这些文献不外乎着重于探讨设计的本身该如何对环境友善。有部分环境主义者反对无限制的经济成长，在Cradle to Cradle这本书中，作者不认同这些环境主义者认为工业成长的与环境永续无法并存的看法，并认为缩减人类的工业成长不该是绿色设计的关键，真正的关键反而是让人类工业越来越壮大，而且想办法让工业的成长能够修復滋养这个世界。在作者的观念中，工业成长的本身并不是问题，只要透过好的设计：改善工业制程，改善工业产品，工业成长可以是一件好事；换句话说，作者认为只要我们想办法让所有的工业产品都设计成对环境有益而无害，制造再多的产品也对环境也不会有任何问题。作者举了目前对环境造成沈重负担、制造空气污染的汽车为例，认为未来的汽车应该成为「空气清净器」，让开车不但不会排放废气，反而可以洁净空气，而且，寿终正寝的汽车还可以在工业制程中回收，甚至可以透过生物分解，如果我们真的能够设计出这样的汽车，那么「假如二十年后，即使地球上车辆的数目是目前的三倍也不成问题」，作者写道。

Cradle to Cradle的作者的确为人类的永续发展描绘了美好的远景：人类以及生态环境都能在无限制的工业成长下受益。但是，真的有这么好的事？永无止尽的工业发展，大量的工业产品，即使是所谓「环保」产品，真的一点问题都没有吗？这样的观点未免太过天真，硬要说无限制的工业或经济成长和环境保护可以兼顾，恐怕人类的自我欺骗。作者在倡导绿色设计的同时，却忽略了当初造成造成我们生态环境恶化、大自然反扑、人类社会无法永续、威胁到下一代生存的根本原因，正是无限制成长的本身。

在大自然中，大部分的物种都有特定的天敌，生存的栖地也都会受到气候或地理条件的限制，大自然创造了一系列的控制机制来抑制各种物种的无限制的成长，因此在大部分的情况下，不同物种彼此之间可以维持着相对稳定的关系，这样稳定的关系其实对各个物种的生存和繁衍是正面的，维繫着生态系统的健全运作。人类的技术发展让作为大自然物种之一的人类特别不用受到种种自然机制的限制，人类可以说没有任何的天敌，而且几乎可以任意的改造自然环境和气候，让人类栖息几乎遍佈世界上任何一个角落，并且在人口上无限制的成长，然而，大量的人口的成长，让整个地球生态严重失衡，影响到其他物种生存和繁衍的权力，造成人类与其他物种以及环境之间极度不平等的关系。人类的不断成长和发展需要更多的空间，因此越来越多其他的物种失去了他们的生存空间；越来越多的人口需要更多粮食和水来餵养，因此越来越多的森林被夷为平地成为单一作物、讲求高生产力的企业农田，无数的河流则被拦腰截断以建造水坝；为了成长，我们必须投入大量的天然资源来作为工业产品的原料，因此其他物种和未来的人类所能分享到的天然资源就越来越少。

作者在Cradle to Cradle中为了支持他们「人口和成长不是问题」的论点，举了蚂蚁为例，认为蚂蚁就跟人类一样，数量惊人且遍佈全世界，如果蚂蚁的成长对环境不会造成问题，那么人口的成长也可以不用成为问题，只要我们用「对」的方式来成长。这并不是一个很好的类比，因为，蚂蚁的存在，即使是大量蚂蚁的存在，对环境造成的改变与人类比起来是微不足道，而且当人类追求成长时，我们不可避免的需要更多的资源投入，需要对自然环境作出更多的改变来满足人类需求，只要我们取用了更多的自然资源，对环境产生进一步的改变，就会造成地貌以及物种多样性的减少。因此，不管是作者提倡所谓比较环保的「好」成长，或是当前人类不永续的成长模式，只要是无限制的成长，都会让地球生态系统中人类与其他物种以及环境间的关系越来越不平等，只会让地球成为以人类为主的单一文化，人类的成长也许暂时能够持续，但没有其他多样物种和环境的支持，人类所谓的「永续」只是暂时的，追求无限制的工业成长是短视近利的。

当前，许多所谓永续设计或是绿色设计或是环境的解决方案，并不是没有潜在问题的（这点其实在Cradle to Cradle书中作者自己也有提到），例如，可再生的生质能源渐渐成为石化燃料的热门替代品，有着无限的潜力，使用生质能源是一件好事，但是想像一下，在能源需求不减的情况下，完全以生质能源来取代石化能源，未来我们将会看到大片大片单一的能源作物取代了原有多样的地貌和作物，作物越来越单一，造成生物多样性丧失。同样的，可以清静空气甚至可被生物分解的汽车的确比目前的汽车来的环保，但但如果人类的汽车的需求不减，要制造为数众多的「环保车」需要大量非常类似的资源，再想像一下，一个充满类似的所谓环保无害的汽车和其他工业产品的地球，如何还能够在生物上、地理上、以及文化上丰富多样？这是不可能的事情。我们应该要体认，没有任何一样所谓「环保」的产品，即使量多都不会产生任何副作用，就举水为例子，水对人类和环境再好也不过，但是太多的水成了水患，就产生了灾难。

当然，我们仍是可以相信人类的生存和持续繁衍是可以与生态环境永续共存的，但是，人类无限制的繁衍和追求经济或工业成长不可能对环境不造成任何危害，Cradle to Cradle作者主张无限制的工业成长是不切实际的，如果人类对自己的需求和成长不做任何妥协，要达成真正的生态环境保护的是不可能的。作者和其他抱持工业成长观念的人，都犯了一个严重的错误，认为科技和设计的改革可以消除人类追求成长所带来的负面效应。作者在书中引用了爱因斯坦的论点来谈工业制程的革命：爱因斯坦说，「如果我们要解决一个困扰着我们的问题，我们的思维就应该超越当初制造问题时所用的思考模式」，因此，既然人类在人口、经济和财富、以及消费的无限制增长是造成人类社会不永续的原因，那么拥抱成长怎么可能能够解决问题呢？套句作者批评现有的工业制程所用的话，「为什么要想办法让错误的系统最佳化」？

根据爱因斯坦的话，我们用来解决当前人类社会不永续的思维模式，应该要超越仅仅提倡所谓「好」的发展，提倡「永续发展」，我们更应该思考的是，无限制的发展和成长真的有必要吗？人类可不可以在最小的成长和发展下来支持人人类的存在和适度繁衍？人类如何有节制的发展并与其他物种保持比较平衡的关系？如果我们现在不开始检讨无限制成长的必要性，我相信，任何号称绿色获永续的解决方案，都无法真正人类走向永续的未来。

------------------------------------------------

（这篇文章是从自己写的一篇英文报告翻译过来的，我把我的英文原文附在这边供中英对照）

 
Growth and Sustainability

Liao, Kuei-Hsien

Human beings seem to be the very species on earth that has been consciously striving for growth and more development.  In 1987, the Brundtland Commission delivered the report of Our Common Future, coining the term “sustainable development” for pursuing economic growth while protecting the environment.  It is defined that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."  Although environmental crisis has raised people’s awareness of the existing unsustainable pattern of development, when it comes to solutions, few people would question the fundamental meaning of development and growth. The focus has been on exploring more appropriate development pattern to meet human needs.  Basically an alternative pattern for growth, for pursuing wealth that requests more attention to environmental issues, sustainable development has become a fashionable motto and is believed to be the answer to human future, and the purpose is to make sure development can be sustained for generations to come. 

It is then not surprising that much of the literature on sustainable or green design takes the view that human needs/growth and environmental health should be achieved at the same time, striving for developing theories and measures for more environmentally appropriate design conduct.  In Cradle to Cradle, McDonough and Braungart argue that “the key is not to make human industries and systems smaller, as efficiency advocates propound, but to design them to get bigger and better in a way that replenishes, restores, and nourishes the rest of the world” (p.78).  In their ideology, “growth” itself is not the problem, and through better design of the products, growth can contribute to “more niches, health, nourishment, diversity, intelligence, and abundance” and can be a good thing—as long as we make industrial products beneficial to the environment, we can produce as many of them as we want without a problem.  They assert that “if there are three times as many cars in twenty years as there are today on the planet, of course, it won’t matter very much”  if they are designed to purify the air instead of emit polluting gas and their materials can eventually go back to biological and technological cycles.  

McDonough and Braungart depicts an exciting future scenario where both human beings and the environment can enjoy and benefit from unbridle industrial growth.  Is there really such a good thing? I am afraid not.  Providing an important concept for green design, McDonough and Braungart however fail to see the real problem threatening future human generations: growth itself.  Most species have natural predators and their habitats are limited to certain physical and climate conditions.  Nature has a set of mechanisms that control the population of the species so most of the time rather balanced relationships among various species are maintained.  This balance is beneficial to all species, contributing to the healthy dynamics in the ecosystems.  Technology has freed human beings from the control of these natural mechanisms—human beings do not have any predator, can inhabit virtually anywhere, and grow without natural limitation. Human growth has overwhelmed the entire earth ecosystem and despoiled other species of rights to survive and prosper, creating a fairly imbalanced relationship with other species and the environment.  We require too much living space so other species lost their habitats; we need too much food and water so forests and rivers are destroyed and appropriated for monocrop plantations and dams; we generate too much industrial products so fewer natural resources are left for both human and nonhuman species.  McDonough and Braungart use the species of ant as an example to demonstrate that population and productiveness should not a problem for the rest of the world.  However, it should be recognized that ants’ existence exerts negligible impact to other species, but when we human beings pursue growth, we inevitably demands more inputs from and change in nature, hence the loss of biodiversity. Be it good growth or bad growth, any unbridle growth creates huge imbalance in the earth ecosystem, simply working to sustain the monoculture of human temporarily. 

Many sustainable solutions are not without potential problems (just as mentioned in Cradle to Cradle). For example, using renewable energy is a good thing, but as bio-fuel has gained increasing popularity, it might contribute to acres of acres of energy crop plantation with the loss of plant biodiversity if the demand of energy never reduced.  Similarly, cars that can purify the air and even biodegradable are wonderful, but to produce a large amount of them would trigger major exertion of resources of similar kinds. How can one expect a planet full of seemingly benign automobiles and other “green” industrial products to be biologically, geologically, and culturally diverse?  Nothing in the world that is good would still be so when there is too much of it. Water is good and essential for our life, but it becomes harmful when we have too much of it, in the form of floods.    

The wellbeing of Human species can coexist with environmental health, but the attempt to achieve everlasting industrial growth and sustainability is unrealistic.  So far most of the so-called sustainable solutions are merely being “less bad”.  By emphasizing industrial growth, McDonough and Braungart have too fallen into one of the “isms” that they are opposed to.  They simply embrace an “ism” that believes in growth and development and in which technology and design revolution can eliminate the negative effects normally associated with growth.  Albert Einstein’s observation is mentioned in Cradle to Cradle that “if we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place” (p.165).  Since our unbridled growth in population, economic wealth, and consumption is exactly the problem that plagues us in the first place, there is no reason we should solve it by embracing it.  Using McDonough’s and Braungart’s own words, “why optimize the wrong system?”  

Out thinking should go beyond merely promoting good growth.  Why don’t we contemplate how human lives can be sustained and be meaningful with minimum growth and development?  How we can create a truly balanced relationship with other species?  Green design theories and techniques have been explored by designers for a while, and maybe it is time for the designers to pay more attention to the larger perspective. If we do not re-examine the fundamental meaning and necessity of growth, none of the design solutions can truly be “eco-effective” enough to solve the environmental crisis we face today. 

本篇文章转载自热脸贴冷世界: 廖桂贤的地景及社会观察，版权属原作者所有，

台湾摇篮到摇篮平台在此仅做分享， 

若有不适当或对文章出处有疑虑，请发信告知，会立即进行撤除。