Dear Chris/ Ann/Terry/ friends
Linear ,Rational, dualistic and fragmenting way of life leads to
unsustainability. As long as selfishness, greed, competition is being
cultivated is there any chance to be sustainable. Then sustainability like
corporate responsibility becomes an afterthought.
Unfortunately sustainability is a wholistic phenomenon where sustainability
is for all, both in terms of now and ever and for everyone. There can not
be sustainability in isolation- for my company or my nation etc. Also this
is very much connected with recycling. In some sense it is a way of life, a
way of being that supports sustainability.
Creativity is an overused and misused word that needs correction.
Destructivity would fit the term. Any unsustainable activity/ product needs
to categorized under this. There will be several ones if one does a survey.
In this context what Chris mentioned about needing a new educational format
is very important and may be it is worth while to explore that.
We are living in time of total absurdity where the psychological needs are
given far more importance to biological needs. hence our whole
educational enterprise has hardly any space for the biological being.
A wholistic paradigm of learning is to be explored which probably is the
way we make sense of the world naturally utilizing our biological
propensity for being in the world. Other wise the linear/ rational way will
co-opt sustainability which is happening with the so called green
design activist, researcher, educationist
On 18 January 2012 05:14, Christopher Brisbin <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Dear Terry & Ann,
> Perhaps problematising Terry's observations is a further complication that
> often face in contextualising these issues with architecture grad students;
> whilst the centralised models that Terry identifies might/are more
> when assessed through a purely empirical lens, the desegregated model is
> more empowering and engendering of advocacy for the environment. Aren't
> citizens whom take responsibility for a personal/individual response to
> environmental pressures, as they perceive them, far more informed and
> to be invested in addressing the broader environmental issues that
> collectively face each and every one of us. They are also far more likely
> not vote-with-their-feet when electing governing authorities to legislate
> effective responses to these same environmental challenges.
> From a 'social sustainability' perspective, the problem I have with the
> centralised models is that they further remove the masses from the
> life-nurturing systems that keep them fundamentally inter-connected with
> Environment. Isn't this partially whats got us into this mess in the first
> So the challenge that I see in teaching 'sustainable design' is that it
> actually requires wholesale change of the traditional disciplinary
> frameworks of the traditional University which inhibits student
> comprehension and responses to global system's re-design. Universities seem
> generally unable to afford the flexible and forward-thinking educational
> context that is fundamentally required in order to allow this response to
> d r | c h r i s | b r i s b I n
> Lecturer in Architecture
> p : sAAD <http://www.unisa.edu.au/artarchitecturedesign/default.asp>
> (School of Art, Architecture and Design)
> University of South Australia
> City West Campus Adelaide 5000