# 233: BOOK OF THE WEEK — “Cradle to Cradle”
Story behind the Book Choice
The reason why I have chosen this book is very simple: Yes, I am reading a lot but I have not read much about sustainability yet. That also means, to simply admit it: I do not know much about sustainability, except for the stuff that everybody knows who follows the news. I want to pass on more knowledge about this and this is why I also need to read more.
Cradle to Cradle is a common recommendation if you check out books about sustainability. And I have to say: As most often happens, there are good reasons why this book is frequently recommended. I do so too, even though my blog is not a book recommendation club or a review section. I simply want to point out that the book is a great starting point for anybody who would like to know what is wrong with the economy and how it can be fixed. As always when there is a great book — part of what makes it great is the fact that it is so up-to-date despite the fact that it was written almost 20 years ago. That tells you a lot about how far we have come — not far at all…
1. Ants
The authors begin their journey in the book with a quick review of the history of industrialization. Before they do so, they describe their perspectives — an architect and a chemist writing about ecology because this is what connects them. Throughout the book from the very beginning, they use simple and illustrative storytelling. And stories usually derive their value from analogies of some kind.
What they write about ants above is not a simple analogy. As we know from other public science books from the recent period, ants are amazing creatures. This is also what the passage above reveals in connection with the role of ants on the planet. They are incredibly industrious and helpful for the entire eco-system. What makes this comparison even more striking, however, is the immediate connection to humans. As McDonough and Braungart show, human beings, unfortunately, are the exact opposite. With most of the things they do and produce, they ruin the planet.
What I love most about the book is that the authors prevent a black and white approach from the beginning. The aim is not bashing industry, neither is it about celebrating eco-criticism and ecological activism. From the start, they explain that the two can only go in conjunction if sustainable change is meant to work. This is, similar to my work on the humanities and business, the only effective way of creating impact, I think. But I also know how hard it is to achieve this. As they explain:
“We are accustomed to thinking of industry and the environment as being at odds with each other, because conventional methods of extraction, manufacture and disposal are destructive to the natural world. Environmentalists often characterize business (and the growth it demands) as inevitably destructive.
On the other hand, industrialists often view environrnentalism as an obstacle to production and growth. For the environment to be healthy, the conventional attitude goes, industries must be regulated and restrained. For industries to fatten, nature cannot take precedence. It appears that these two systems cannot thrive in the same world.” (McDonough and Braungart 6)
2. Literature
This passage appears in the chapter “Why Being ‘Less Bad’ Is No Good.” And if you think about how uncompromising this is, it also explains how literature and poets fit in here. The authors do a remarkable job in providing a very concise history of the milestones of industrial history on comparatively few pages and a large part of this brevity and clarity comes from the fact that they integrate important literature from different periods.
Romanticism, as they show above, was the period in which authors rebelled against the quick pace of industrialization and what it does to the human condition as well as to the condition of nature. The rapid speed of mass production was the first time in human history when the turn towards efficiency took over and humans not only tried to triumph over the natural cause of nature anymore — they were successful at it. The Romantic authors and poets mourned all this in their writing and, of course, people like Thoreau who is also mentioned in the passage have remained harbingers of the environmental turn up to the present day.
For me, the passage is not only relevant because of the crucial meaning this particular period had for the course of industrialization and the respective technological waves that followed afterwards. For me, it is remarkable to see how relevant literature is for writing history. You have to remember that these authors were poets, i.e., public writers of fiction and non-fiction. So, they were not historians or scholars in the first place. Yet, their voices have made it into a 21st-century book about the ills and potential futures of the circular economy. This is not an exception, by the way. As a literary scholar you might be surprised and at the same time pleased to read how many works from the literary canon have made it into all kinds of “scholarly” and journalistic books throughout history. In other words: Literature matters for the writing of history, not only for the writing of personal experience. We know this, of course, but seeing it brings life to knowledge.
3. Donkeys
Is there really more to say about this? Well, just for the purpose of adding extra emphasis to the morale of the story: What we have been doing in the past and what we are continuing to do in the present, even apart from sustainability issues, reflects exactly the same logic. We are overdoing it with many things. Look at Covid. Germany, for example, has become the master of not making clear decisions just in order to then ultimately make decisions that leave no room for exceptions at all. We have gone from lockdown to lockdown without much hope for a quick recovery and the consequences for many people were devastating because there was no limit— no balance — anymore. I know, it might sound like a contradiction but clear decisions made at the right time can still leave room for balance, for making room for humanism.
The area where the donkey problem kicks in most strikingly is in business as a whole, from my perspective. We have completely lost touch with any balance between humanism and performance, whereby performance, of course, is related to the unconditional paradigm of “efficiency.” The authors turn against this by showing pathways, even with the renewable material which their book is made of, towards “effectiveness.” This also means they reveal certain myths behind things that we often claim to be sustainable but which are not, including recycling which, as they also demonstrate, means more of downcyling.
Back to the donkey: what I mean is that humanism in the work world could still have its place, even in highly demanding and ultra-performance areas. But it has not happened. Instead, employees starve — emotionally and intellectually. They are required to work like donkeys without getting much in return. And when I say “much,” I do not just mean money. People need some kind of appreciation and an affirmation that they are human beings who work for other human beings. If they are not treated this way, how could they know? How could they survive in the long run? And the fact that most of them do, despite the hustle and the degradation that they experience, deserves my highest respect.
I was not able to bear it when I was very young.
I am not criticizing it, just like the man in the story has no intention to kill the donkey. As the authors also repeatedly explain, industrialization as it has happened now with all the environmental downsides was never intended this way — it was not designed. But the constant longing to become more efficient has given rise to efficiency as the one and only paradigm. And, as they also clarify, efficiency in and of itself is nothing bad, it can be quite fruitful. But efficiency as such has no meaning. That is the thought that I would like to end with today because it equally applies to our constant concerns about the meaning and effects of ‘digitalization.’ whatever the term means. Yes, machines help factories become more efficient becaue you can optimize processes and you can fill the wasted time in-between machine cycles. Still, what good does it do if you just deplete more — natural resources and people?
“In a philosophical sense, efficiency has no independent value: it depends on the value of the larger system of which it is a part. An efficient Nazi, for exampl , is a terrifying thing. If the aims are ques tiona ble, efficiency may even make destruction more insidious.” (McDonough and Braungart 65)
Reflection Questions
1) Can you remember any specific paradigm shifts when it comes to your awareness of environmental issues?
2) How do you think about efficiency?
3) What is one thing that you can immediately do to support an economy that is based on using resources in a sustainable way?