Waste Does Not Exist

The idea that there is no such thing as waste blows my mind (in a good way) and at the same time it feels so familiar. It feels like a thought buried deep down in my archive of natural human behavior but overshadowed by what we have learned is the norm: trash cans, landfills, the away where we have been told to throw things once their initial purpose of use is completed. As Dr. Culhane mentions in the lecture, “If we didn’t have essentially a garbage bin in our head, we would naturally think about what else could be done with the outputs of any given system.” The extra “W” is not necessary in the FEW Nexus acronym because waste does not exist, it is simply a part of our food, energy, and water systems. One way or another, what we consider waste will seep into and add to these crucial systems. Whether it is through landfills, littering, run-off, or sewage systems, “waste” adds to our soil, water, and air that impacts the FEW Nexus. In fact, EVERY material ever (natural or synthesized) adds something to the Earth. We need to figure out how to create positive nutrients, and stay away from or repurpose negative nutrients to keep them out of the biological metabolism. We are part of nature and need to figure out how our “waste” can become another animal’s treasure.

On second thought, a lot of us already do this and have been to a degree for generations. I always used to think it was a funny “Latino” thing that my mom and grandma wash and reuse plastic/disposable plates, utensils or straws; or use old shirts as rags or as material to make quilts. Even the fact that we use the stove as extra storage space for pots and pans (the classic). I also think about poor

communities making shelters out of natural and random, industrial materials; or folks experiencing houselessness keeping and reusing the same plastic water bottle as long as they can because they don’t know the next time they will be able to get their hands on one. Additionally, I think of the Global South’s agricultural practices being more organic and sustainable because they don’t have access to the newest industrial technologies. It is actually interesting that those that have lived or currently live in scarcity naturally use systems thinking to create abundance. Nothing is taken for granted, everything has a purpose and a repurpose. These communities don’t have the privilege of throwing away…they ARE the away. They do what they can with what they’ve got, which (funny enough) is mentioned as one of the transformational steps towards eco-effectiveness in chapter 6 of Cradle to Cradle.

Systems thinking is a natural behavior that we can resurface from within our innate archive through approaches that understand the simple definition of a system itself. Donella Meadows defines a system as “a group of related parts that move or work together” in her book Thinking in Systems: A Primer. When designing or problem solving, it is important to take a step back and get a bird’s eye view of the whole rather than only a reductionist view of one particular part of the system. As Dr. Culhane mentioned, the idea is not necessarily to avoid reductionism but to know when to apply that lens and for how long. Reductionist thinking is PART of systems thinking therefore both are crucial to understanding the WHOLE picture and to creating self-regulated systems that maintain themselves through feedback. In a way I believe Biomimicry is a good example of using reductionism positively impact a system. Biomimicry models a specific part of nature that impacts the whole ecosystem. For example, when we specifically focus on oysters’ mechanisms for filtering water, we can then inform the larger man-made filtration systems design to self-regulate and positively impact the surrounding environment. In some cases, we can actually use nature to restore and regulate, not just mimic it. In Cradle to Cradle McDonough & Braungart explain how Bill Ford used phytoremediation and mycoremediation to not just clean up contaminated soil but also to restore and create healthy soil where the original Ford factory was located. Instead of leaving a brownfield behind and moving the factory to a new location (and continue the cycle of toxic practices), “Ford decided to help his company become native to its place,” where the genesis of the automobile company began.

Like Ford’s “Rouge Room”, Walt Disney also had a similar studio where he and his team of imagineers planned and visualized their Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT). Both of these settings not only offered renderings of their thinking process but also encouraged them to raise difficult questions. Similar to systems thinking frameworks such as Double Loop Learning and tools such as the Graphic Facilitation, the Iceberg Model and Donella Meadows’ Envisioning Guide. Though Walt Disney did think systemically in some ways, he perhaps missed or disregarded some of the difficult questions that challenged the success of this prototype community. Specifically questions of society such as: who would govern the place? Would it be a democratic society? Would people be able to buy a home there? Would people want to constantly be testing new innovations in their homes? Would they be able to impose any of their cultures, interests or aesthetic judgments on their rented homes? How would they deal with racial issues of the time, how would they deal with crime? He failed to use the Open Space tool of systems thinking that would’ve helped him listen to and tailor to the needs of this projects’ participants. In stepping outside of the box, Walt Disney created a whole other box (literally an enclosed community). On the other hand, Ford expanded his box by using the knowledge and wisdom from his original box to create a safe and sustainable automobile factory. Maybe one day the Ford company can use their past wisdom and knowledge of assembly lines to create the first auto mobile disassembly line to further their commitment to sustainability.