CIRCULAR ECONOMY = CRADLE TO CRADLE = VIRTIOUS CIRCLE
Opposite / derogative
form of the Arabic/Persian rooted term “Facet Circle”, which is generally
used as a jargon in economics and also known as ‘barren circle’ in our modern times, is hardly ever used in
Turkish.
Facet
is
an Arabic attribute meaning “perverse, immoral” (1). Whereas the role of the
term Circle in this concept is a
referral to “a curve formed by a constellation of any number of points placed
at the same distance and plane”. As we all know it, that curve is enclosed and
therefore does not permit for any linear motions (whether forward or backward)
and thus only allows for the space on that given plane to be narrowed or
enlarged. Unless criticized within its own specific conditions, no proposals
for any linear notions as being “good or bad” can be made, since the contrast’s
itself is not a direct result of principal cause. In day today usage of this term by the
ordinary folk, the meaning of the word facet
when used in sociological / cultural terms is supplemented by the word barren that refers to a monotonous
circle. But, being barren does not
mean facet (perverse, immoral) under
all circumstances. Because what is “facet” may not be barren at all times (for
example, a linear progressing economy despite the nature itself). Hence, the actual
meaning of this word could have only been referring to the term vicious if the same was used as and
economic jargon, for the same term is used in definition of economic states of
developing countries since their actual economic developments always and each
time ends up at the very same spot where it had initially started.
Indeed, in English
language, the said economic jargon is used along with its counterpart term as “Virtuous Circle and Vicious Circle”. In those two opposing
terms, the word “circle” refers to a
specific meaning that would be explained as “complex chain of events that reinforce
itself through a feedback loop that is made of parts which are connected to /
depended upon each other” (2). Therefore, the Vicious Circle is the exact correspondence of the term facet circle as
used in Turkish, with exact correspondence of the word vicious as facet (bad / defaulted or even faulty / with bad intend - vicious, but
never barren).
On the other hand the
meaning of the word “Virtuous” as
used in the term “Virtuous Circle ” means “meritorious; righteous,
scrupulous”. Hence, in our language, a
specific usage of the said term (Virtuous
circle) does not exist in neither direct nor indirect manner. So, just like it is the case with the
rest, we hardly use that term, which is a term refers to economics mostly, in
our daily sociological / cultural communication and similar other walks of our
lives: Worse, we haven’t got a clue about it! Despite the fact that the terms
“sustainability” and Cradle to Cradle that have been gradually making their
ways into our spoken-language as well as our conscious minds, actual roots of
their meaning lie within that term “virtuous
circle”; it is in fact the actual self! Though this is the case, actual
content of that very term, which we are yet to bring it down into our day to
day social and cultural lives just like the other / opposite, does not mean
anything to us. On the other hand, it will be rather unfair to call it as being alienated and/or becoming marginalized for only the
defined and declared terms / definitions could transformed and therefore what
we are not aware of do not “exist” at all.
Our planet (and
perhaps, or even the universe as a whole) has been going through that virtuous circle. We, the human beings,
as part of our planet, have done almost all we possibly could (unconsciously?)
to impair that circle… for centuries. It is, and would be, really difficult to
foresee how that all we have done so far; particularly, since the second half
of the 18th Century of industrial revolution to date, will take its
place in our history and evaluated by future generations. Human beings, having
realized the necessity of copying the nature and creatures in it, as well as copying
the systems, elements etc. (biomimetics / biomimicry) centuries ago, learnt or
realized far too late the fact, or simply ignored due to his weakness or
incapability in terms of scientific / technologic terms, that himself is a part
of this nature and therefore he had no other option but to adopt and copy those
actual circling aspects of the nature
that nature herself used for and in its
production methods. Well, what is now obvious that the best response to
this issue will be given by our future generations?
One of the widely
recognized examples to biomimicry is the research made by Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519) on anatomical structure of birds. Though never flown in real sense,
drawings of first “flying machine” in history were made by da Vinci. On the
other hand, Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi (1609 - 1640), a 17th Century Turkish
Muslim scientist, is the first person to fly by wings he had developed (from 1623
to 1640). It is said that both Leonardo da Vinci and Hezarfen Ahmed Çelebi were
inspired by İsmail Cevheri, a 10th century Turkish Muslim scientist (3).
Wright brothers, who successfully
managed to build the first flying machine (1903), were too inspired by their
observations of birds flying. Leaving aside many more prior and later examples
to that matter, we can now say that one of the most important inventions of our
recent times is the discovery in 2002 of that highly-capable of sticking feet
of an animal called gecko and
copying of that ability which was a breakthrough in biomimicry / biomimetics especially
in fields of sports, health, defense industry and nanotechnology (4). Though initially
named by Otto Herbert Schmitt during the 50’s (5), as far as the biomimicry / biomimetics
concerned, human being has always “copied the biological structural aspects of
nature in all technological fields” since the very first day that his journey
to civilization has began (6).
Life’s itself on our
planet holds the most magnificent example to that “virtuous circle”. So
magnificent and so virtuous it is that even the crocodile’s tears do not go to
waste, but provides nutrition for bees, butterflies and many other insect types
(7). Though we have been discovering something new “in that circle” on a day to
day basis, why on earth we consciously ignore to see the basic aspect of that
circle; the virtuousness, all the while trying to copy each and every one of
those miracles in that circle?
Though initial step
to reduce the amount of waste that is acceptable was implemented by the “The
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)” passed by USA Congress in 1965 (8), same issue
was first brought to attention in Europe by a Swedish architect Walter Stahel (9)
and by a research report published by Genevieve Reday that was submitted to
European Commission in Brussels in 1976. In that report titled “The Potential
for Substituting Manpower for Energy”, authors talked about a draft economic
model named circular economy whereby
the authors outlined their views on creation of employment, economic
competition, preservation of natural sources and prevention of waste, which was
later published as a book in 1982 under the title of "Jobs for Tomorrow,
the Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy”. Certain aspects mentioned
in that book, namely; ecology, economics and social conformity, refers to those
three basic factors now accepted as critical for sustainable development of our
modern times (10).
Published in 1987, in
a report titled “Economic Strategies of Durability – longer product-life of
goods as waste prevention strategy”, the authors of the report prove that the economic
actors adopting the methods of circular
economy are in fact better off in terms of achieving higher profit margins
than of those adopting throughput
economy (a linear economic method based upon the quantity of products
manufactured at any given time).
As a reaction to
above-mentioned report, some specialists in 1987, by implementing the
advantages of it being already compatible with the throughput economy/linear
economic model, have come up with an alternative method named circular (loop) economy which they
simply referred to as from cradle to
grave. Stahel persistently claimed
that a really sustainable solution was to manufacture durable goods that
repeated and renewed themselves as defined under that cradle back to cradle model. During those times when this method
was being discussed, Stahel delivered speeches at various conferences in
Germany which were also attended by a German chemist named Michael Braungart
where the two exchanged ideas and expressed in despair that they were only
going against the tide without much success (10).
Born in 1958, Michael
Braungart is a German chemist (11). Upon completing his PhD studies back in 1985
at Hanover University , he headed Greenpeace
Chemistry department that was also established by him under the Greenpeace
umbrella previously (12). Later in 1987, he also established EPEA (the
Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency) in Hamburg under Greenpeace Chemistry (13).
A year later; in
1988, EPEA left the Greenpeace umbrella. Having set out to introduce, expand
and set out application basis of Cradle
to Cradle Design, which claimed
that in design processes of products
and systems the biomimetic methods should be adopted (14), EPEA as a non-profit
organization has been carrying on with its activities to day. Cradle to Cradle is a registered
trademark registered by and for the name of a consulting company titled McDonough
Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC). In 2002 Braungard and an American architect William
McDonough has published a book titled “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We
Make Things” and a manifest titled cradle
to cradle design in which they explained in detail the ways and means of
how that model may be brought in to life for implementation.
A non-detailed, basic
inquiry held in to the history of the human being would show that he has always
been aware of the fact that he had to first observe, copy and set an example of
the nature -even during those times when the science had nothing to offer and
technology non-existent- in order to raise the quality of his living standards
and solve the problems. Indeed, we realize that means, ways and methods of
manufacturing surely cannot be identical on a one-to-one basis; having such
hopes would be nothing but wishes thinking! But, wouldn’t it be desirable if
the same was at least within the capability of what the science and technology
has on offer for us? Why on earth we are so late in realizing that
manufacturing process should be implemented in accordance with the ways, means
and capability of Virtuous Circle
principles? What is so tragicomic is that the said realization is still a theoretical
stance, with just a handful of self-volunteered people and organizations
actually trying to practice it. First thing that will come to mind of a person
who may read a phrase saying something like “There is disrespectful rough
attacks against the nature throughout all stages of manufacturing; right from
the actual acquisition of raw materials to implementation of ways, means and
methods of manufacturing processes!”, would never ever be himself, but any one
of those thousands of industrial establishments! That is just that typical
subconscious defense mechanism of an ordinary everyday folk, who never bothered
to dispose of the plastic, paper, glass, metal and similar waste in separate
bags and never turned off the tap while washing his teeth: It’s them, NOT me!..
Human is the one and
only enemy both to own kind and all other creatures as well as to nature as a
whole. Indeed, it is because of his very genetic structure that makes it almost
impossible for him to maintain his life within the principles of Virtuous
Circle :
He simply turns a blind eye to concepts that call for or refers to such
virtuous forms of living; he excludes and never utilizes that call! As shown by
the scientific investigations, societies could only be defined by the words and
terms that are used in their common languages; this is one of the ways and
means of evaluating the humanity as a whole. In that sense, it is a typical,
paradoxical attitude of the human being, to expect the answer for that term, which
is almost non-blended into our socio-cultural life as societies, from the
capital owners who are naturally only involved in the economics of the life.
Cradle
to Cradle
philosophy, therefore, displays a resistance, a stance against the vicious circle in the field of
economics, and hence encourages the players in the field of economics to join
and take part in Virtuous Circle movement. However, though not so much
in theoretical but especially in practical sense, that is just an encouragement
/ philosophy / approach that is aimed at the very tip of the pyramid, and
therefore it somewhat makes me feel that it in fact aims to redesign the much
needed social changes from top to bottom. Whereas the history proofs that this
is an impossible struggle for all such attempts have only ended up in the dark
pages of history. And anyway, we simply don’t need to dive deep into the pages
of history; tracing the rising of Cradle
to Cradle philosophy from its initial roots to date will suffice to simply
proof this thesis; despite all that time that lapsed since then, it just cannot
be claimed that it has now settled in the conscious of the consumers.
Even though we deemed
that Industrial Revolution began in the year of 1800 as opposed to 1750, the
very first Virtuous Circle movement that I was
able to trace (put aside a law which was passed by the American Congress in 1965)
is a research report published in 1976; 176 years later to be precise! Beside,
almost 38 years elapsed since that movement has begun; ones who were born in
that year are now almost middle aged people with kids. Plus, the actual
founding members are still alive. I don’t even wish to begin thinking how they
might be feeling today when they question the place of Circular Economy model (as known today as cradle to cradle philosophy) in the consciousnesses of the people,
for which they spent a lifetime.
It is obvious that there
are things that have been stirring in the consciousness of the consumers in USA
and Europe, where there are now questions in minds and some changes in consumer
attitudes… but, that is not good enough, since what the movement needs a
through, proper start from the bottom on a worldwide scale. But as it seems even
the majority of the intellectuals are either unaware of the issue or just
acting in ignorance. It is simply because that this movement is seen as
something beyond the people and therefore it is an economic trend to be enacted
solely between the states and holdings. That philosophy is even referred to as
the “Second industrial revolution”. Yes, we could accept it as a trend; a
categorical classification termed as “before and after C2C” may not be so unacceptable after all… but it is surely not the
second industrial revolution the way it stands today since there are those basic
contradicting issues / parameters we would like to briefly explain as follows:
(First) Industrial
Revolution was made for people despite the people; it was a movement (process)
planned and led by the state supported by the state incentives, during which
the lives of British people were turned upside down and social explosions were
occurred. Though the lives of those generations were screwed up, the planning
(of that revolution) was perfect: the humanity had won. It had all begun
despite the people, but it had not been against the people; it was only against
the nature for in those days the nature was not a consideration. We have just
begun to realize that “real loser” in that is nothing but the nature itself: this
is typical of the revolutions, for they are a win-lose systems that never lasts
forever.
But now, the more we
dry out the life lines of nature, the more the nature dries out our life lines
in return… it is taking its revenge. We have been going through an infertile
process where both the nature and human stand to lose. Therefore, C2C simply
cannot be a revolution (e.g. the
second industrial revolution) in that sense for C2C is not despite (against)
the people: during its initial stages a generation of people are not sacrificed
at all. On the contrary, it requires to be made under the state’s leadership
with state incentives but volunteered cooperation of people; it is not “for
people despite the people”. C2C is not against the nature; it is for the
“nature”… it is an apology, a peace pipe offered to the loser. In that sense C2C
cannot be a revolution since there is not a losing side and it simply aimed at
for winning of both sides. C2C is a
peace call in between the human and nature with its win-win philosophy.
C2C is neither an
innovation that would be considered a breakthrough like in the case of
innovation of wheel, nor the discovery of America . It is never like the
nanotechnology that is a breakthrough in science. Manufacturing and industrial
use of the material called is certainly a revolution, and humanity is set to
see the biggest of all industrial revolutions by the actual manufacturing of quantum
computers in near future. Whatever the concept may be, C2C is not a revolution,
but an “awakening”.
As said above, for C2C having been simply seen an economic
trend (beyond people) solely among the states (and holdings), game makers in
the field of economics (states / capital owners / R&D groups...) are
recognized as the dynamics of change,
all the while the intellectual parties are satisfied by just discussing the
subject matter and some conscious individuals are on the wait without creating
any pressures on their claims. Whereas the state authority cannot push for such
an economical model by adopting laws and regulations, but can only urges for it
and implements necessary measures. Even if the players taking part in the chain
of manufacturing wish to initialize a transformation by reaching a mutual
agreement as a whole, they would facing a number of challenges from capital and
demand to scientific and/or technologic incapability. Some of the companies,
that are already have the scientific / technologic infrastructure for
manufacturing of products and deciding to move ahead on their own accord, will
not be able to reflect those initial transformation costs into their retail
sale prices for they would have a rough ride (or cease to exist) in a
competitive market for the levels of existing demand will be substantially low.
If we are to consider the establishments as living organisms like humans, why
should they take on risks (even though the same will become profitable on the
long run, as proved in circular economy model)?
Even a brief
observations held into America and European countries is satisfactory (to me)
to show that unless the principles of those Circular Economy or Cradle
to Cradle philosophy (whichever we may prefer to call it) are accepted by
the lower layers of the society as a whole, it will get nowhere and remain a
theory forever. And, as far as Turkey
is concerned, I see it as a very challenging, even an impossible task to get
our society to come to grasps with that philosophy under the name of C2C.
Unless we succeed in
persuading people around us to lead an environment friendly life totally integrated
with nature by the implementation of the ways and means of virtuous living circle, and further persuade them to believe that
they must so request at all times, then I think that actual contents of this
term shall never reach beyond “intellectual layers”, while the actual
“practice” of it will only be attributable to “very strong brand names”.
Unless we free our
minds of that sickening thought that “the environment as a whole is a kind of
concession granted to us to muck about with”, unless we become fully aware that
we are an inseparable part of the nature and therefore we must immediately stop
damaging it before it is really too late, and unless we adopt the idea as a principal
that we should not contaminate the environment while benefiting from it, and
unless we find ways of recycling all our waste in manufacturing processes.... unless
we stop cutting off the branch of life we sit upon, unless we stop drifting
into that barren circle... and, unless we, as a whole, learn to recycle and
manufacture by the rules of C2C philosophy, then I’m afraid that, we; as human
beings, will cause our own DNA’s going through a mutation as our own nano waste
to only get mixed into the water, air and earth!
Özlem Devrim
Industrial Designer & Trend Expert
Industrial Designer & Trend Expert
@trendssoul
http://www.trendssoul.blogspot.com/
http://www.ozlemdevrim.blogspot.com/
Translated
by Ersan Devrim
Bibliography:
(13)
http://www.epea.com/