Moral Taxation

The argument of where the social responsibility falls with regards to ethics is an interesting question. Is the consumer always at fault for consuming excessively and not managing his greed, is the manufacturer at fault for not going against the grain and working to more responsible standards or is the government at fault for making it too easy to exploit and waste whilst indulging big business. The governments relationship to big companies is always scrutinised but perhaps more now in these harder financial times. On www.socialresponsibility.com it states that the argument against companies being responsible is “should [organisations] shoulder those costs on behalf of society?”
I feel that in the end government must take responsibility for finding more effective ways of encouraging responsible business practices that benefit all communities involved and remove some of the power from big companies. So by looking at taxation on products that are produced further away that could be produced locally, or likewise on lower taxes for ethically strong products (fairtrade for example which already has a full system in place). It would take some restructuring but could bring about a greater sense of community, reduce emissions and promote jobs in local areas. The downsides are of course just as numerous, such as the loss of the global village and even a return to elitist society. I would be interested to further explore the responsibility in society for ethical practices and how accountable government is and should be.

Human/Nature

Humans perception of the earth as a vulnerable entity, sensitive and frail is interesting. Is that idea actually only relevant when seen in conjunction with our dependence on it? We are selfish beings and in worrying for the Earth are we not worrying for ourselves and nothing more? After all if it does become one big, warm wet sphere, devoid of life, will Earth even know any difference? However, it does not benefit us, so we worry. Would we worry so much about the loss of trees in Amazon if they were not so important to our survival? On the other side, the survival of animals is like a visual embodiment of our conscience with regards to the power we have and how we use it. The death or endangerment of a species saddens us and lowers our perception of how responsible we are, further removes us from our image of ourselves as gods, dominant and controlling. In fact we know that we are gods, wielding the power of technology and bestowing pitiful benevolence on other inhabitants of Earth. The problem then, our intelligence means we draw a line between us and everything else. We struggle to connect ourselves to nature. We are technology, retching forwards, morally confused and born into a world that is not ready for us. Is there a way to actually care about Earth, to connect to nature (beyond ourselves) and truly feel it, or would we just be kidding ourselves?

Farm Farm

By 2050, more than half of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 10,000,000,000 hectars of new land will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (Sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, around 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices.


A potential solution could be realised through introducing artificial nature in urban areas by building farms and parks vertically. Since the concept of synthetic trees was introduced in 2003, geophysicist Professor Klaus Lackner at Columbia University designed one, a construction that mimics the function of natural trees whereby leaves pull carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air as it flows over them. He estimates that every tree would remove 90,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. And when the CO2 is captured, it would be locked away deep into the sea bed by drilling into the surface, where high water pressure traps them to not be able to come back up to sea surface again.




I reckon dedicating a whole skyscraper to build a farm is a tempting proposition - no more weather-related crop failures, diseases spread by livestock, or runoff polluting water sources. Not to mention locally-grown produce for the residents of central London, Manhattan and Tokyo, eliminating the environmental costs of transport (with fresher vegetables to boot!). Veggie prices will fall in these cities with more city-farm-vegetables produced, which would be something to look forward to.

Info retrieved from: www.verticalfarm.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6374967.stm

The Reality

The climate of the Earth always changes from time to time. Looking in the past, it has cause changes its composition in a significant way as a result of natural causes. Nowadays, referring the term of climate change is generally used when our climate have been identified since in the early of 1900’s. The changes we all have seen and feel over recent years followed with predictions over the next eighty years are thought to be mainly as a result of human behaviour rather than due to the cause of natural changes in the atmosphere.

With the greenhouse effect are well known to this topic, it is important when we discuss and change ideas about climate change as it relates to the gases that keep the Earth warm. It is however the extra greenhouse gases, which were mainly produce by humans, are thought to pose the strongest threat. Currently there is a growing of general agreements amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing due to the manmade greenhouse gas emissions ever since human life starts to revolutionize.

The main topic to the problematic is certainly focussed on the amount of climate change we can or might expect in few years time or not whether it will happen. With adaptations amongst humans in terms of how we need to change the way we use to live in order to cope with changes to our climate such as using renewable energy can actually reduce any incoming impacts from getting a drastically drastic climate changes.

*Filah

Artificial Natural

How natural and artificial! This is the reaction to the perennial question of the relation of human life to nature’s creation that provides an important topic for discussions. In terms of biology, it is the scientific study of life and it is simple the only kind of life that has been available to study and question. Without other examples, it is difficult to distinguish essential properties of life that would be shared by any other living.

Moreover, our only option is to try to create alternative life forms ourselves and that is the artificial life that literally refers to as “life made by Man rather than by Nature itself”. It is the name that gives out a new discipline by attempting to recreate biological phenomena from scratch within the use of computers and other “artificial” media. The process of combining and composing ideas to form a theory or system has been an extremely important tool in many disciplines.

With great practice more on artificial life in an attempt to recreate another alternative ways or media will result in not only theoretical understanding but also in the technology of computer hardware and software, mobile robots, spacecraft, medicine and other vital engineering or sustainability projects that gives a big impact to the environment and the life on Earth. By extending the horizons based on this topic, it is within this vastly larger domain in which we will discover practical and useful implication in approaching towards sustainability and the design practice.

*Filah

The Black Gold

After reading the article posted below by Clark titled "Climate change" i found the points to be exactly the same as what someone would say if they did not understand the fundamentals of how everything, that is used throughout their day is available to them because of these companies.

People complain that companies are producing too much waste, and these "petroleum" companies are causing massive environmental and ethical problems... Well yes they are, but we are the ones funding them to do this.  If you went to University today or traveled to work, you used a type of fuel to get there, which is, well... supplied by them.  Now you may think that this is as far as it goes, so it’s all there fault… Well no every single item you have used today is most likely been made buy some sort of petroleum product or has had petroleum used to make it or transport it to you…People may abuse these companies with all sorts of media but again all these media types have been made or need to use some form of petroleum to run.. I do not understand why people shout and complain, when in reality you have to have it if you want to keep living the life that you all enjoy so much...

However I do believe that we can change and that we do need to.  I’m no blind and I can see that the world around me is changing and this is due to our misuse of fossil fuels… But people need to understand that this is not an overnight job.  Massive amounts of infrastructure have to be changed. And unfortunately a large amount of funds have to come from somewhere to achieve this. Basically people may complain and make a fuss but I would like to see people throw away all of their items and live a green life style… I don't think many would sign up

You are addicted to the Black Gold whether you like it or not!

Luke Guttery

COMIC Relief

Everywhere you go at the moment you get a big red nose in the face. I wanted to report on "consume your ethics", and charity consumerism seemed paradoxical and interesting.

Comic Relief is an annual national charity event culminating in a comedy telethon. The money raised gives thousands of people who face discrimination, injustice or poverty the chance to transform their lives. Without question I am in complete admiration of Comic Relief's charity work and the 450 MILLION! that they've raised to help people in both africa in the UK. Over 50 million Red Noses have been sold since red nose day started in 1985 to raise funds. This year if you arn't taken by the 'nose' (of which there are 3 variants) or you want to show further support, you could also purchase: 'A set of all three noses, The red nose deeley bopper, Red nose charm, The gggliing giggler, The magnetic car nose, The perfect little pin badge'. Or if your a fashionista who doesn't think a big red nose will suit your look there are 11 different T-shirts available (celebrity endorsed) (and designed by Stella McCartney)  - Momentary commodity driven gratification and when the hilarity wears off, (excluding the select individuals that save their 'noses' with the view to them becoming their grandchildren's ebay generated inheritance) they go in the bin. Only this year are the noses recyclable (if you take them into Sainsburys).

Skipping the issue of virtue-washing, targeting children and celebrities basking in PR, we are continually fusing shopping wth giving. Apple and (Project)RED generates donations to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and Swisstool sell a pink swiss army knife with proceeds going to Breast Cancer Campaign. I can’t help but believe that donation through buying goods serves as a distraction from what we consumers should really be thinking about. I applaud Comic Relief's philanthropic efforts, but maybe our morals are being manipulated. A Red Nose is not just an emblem to show support or help spread the message, its abit of a gimmick. Why do we need a gimmick to make us donate? It seems to stand that the western population need coaxing by a Comic Relief carrot with the promise of a good time to actually give the time to apprehend the real crisis. Embedded-giving takes the focus away from the real concern and its backstory. It over looks the issues; rather than donors getting closer to what is needed and how their money is used, they’re getting farther away. Is it a meaningfull way of generating money? 

It's interesting to note that consumer gratification seems to be needed as an incentive to donate. Our ethical conduct is strenghtened with the offer of goods, and it is not yet recognised as unethical to buy into throwaway marketing tat.  Is it right of comic relief to be what seems slightly perverse and hypocrytical in their approach to fundraising - or are we all consoled by their admirable efforts to do good so its okay?

Climate "CHANGE"

I always wonder about what ethics does large co-operations has. Every co operations has human resource department, by using advertising or their design trying to produce a friendly and responsible image to the public. But do they actually physically help or just ignore the endangered environment  and carry on with their ridiculous lies.

    Royal Dutch Shell plc had a set of adverts to show their efforts to save the environment and how they are connected to their work forces in different countries. That’s totally creating a mirage for the public to see and covering up how much crap they have actually created.

   Because of petrol, countries are invaded, civil wars broke out, environment is damaged and even our lungs are affected. Political forces are behind these large co-operations, because of their revenue, politicians can be funded. And this is one of the reason why it take so long for the US to cute their CO2 emmitions.

How many people heard about Zapata petroleum Coropration? It is the petro company that owned and opened by George H.W.Bush,No wonder why the oil price had rocketed and little is done to lower the consumption of petrol.

Co-operation with bad ethics and numbers of politicians uses design and their power in different ways to divert your visions. The little power from Greenpeace and various organizations would not be able to fight against multi trillion dollars co operations. But a union of power from citizens of Earth might be able to make a difference and set new ethics for them. Industry and co-operation which make up 70% of the total greenhouse gases release.