Thursday, March 13, 2008

Rental Society

In my post the other day, I talked about the problem of the decline of mechanical literacy leading to passive consumerism. I also mentioned the connections between the DIY movement, whih is bringing back near-forgotten skills, and environmentalism. But there is another environmentalist take on who should control material goods, which is expressed by By William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book Cradle to Cradle. In this vision of a "green" future, people will rent or lease everything, and at the end of a product's lifespan, the company will take it back for recycling; It' s a view of production and consumption based on an ecosystem. One problem is that this view of the world leaves no room for user agency and creativity. If corporations own all of my things, I can't do anything to personalize them unless it is authorized by those corporations. Another is that it renders problematic any dissent from corporate policies; if I publicly denounce the corporation that owns my clothes/books/computer, I may have violated the fine print of my lease, allowing them to come and take them away. Vivendi/Sony/Gap/Microsoft are not Mother Nature, and I am not a fruit fly. It freaks me out to no end that this rental movement seems to be gaining steam. Maybe I'm just stereotypically American, but I want to own the things I depend on. Dependence (as opposed to interdependence) is too dangerous a societal fate for me to countenance.

1 comments:

Marshall DDB said...

In this vision of a "green" future, people will rent or lease everything, and at the end of a product's lifespan, the company will take it back for recycling; It's a view of production and consumption based on an ecosystem.

I'll have to finish reading the book to make sure, but I think that it isn't true to say McDonough and Braungart's idea about corporate ownership throughout the lifecycle is a view of production and consumption based on an ecosystem. My sense is that it is all about giving the corporation a market incentive to close the loop and produce greener products in the first place.

The ecosystem analogy actually exposes the fallacy of the model. In nature, producers don't recycle their own waste; Detritivores do that. Thus, M&B don't put the corporation in the position of the producer, but in the position of something managing the whole system...namely, God. And that is the crux of the problem.

However, having corporations have to recycle their own waste is a good idea, but it should probably be aproached through law. That would actually be closer to the ecosystem model--because the what prevents species from producing toxins that can't be processed is that then they would be fouling their own nest, and thus eventually driving themselves extinct. Hopefully we can stop fouling the planet before we do the same.