I have recently been researching cradle to cradle design http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm. Conceived by Michael Braungart a bio chemist and William McDonough an architect and designer, it is described fully and more eloquently than I can, here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle

As I understand it, it is an approach to design in all its forms, a new way to approach industry and commerce and overall the way humans live and do business on the earth. It embraces the natural, and sites natural systems as it’s inspiration.

Consider the cherry tree: thousands of blossoms create fruit for birds, humans, and other animals, in order that one pit might eventually fall onto the ground, take root, and grow. Who would look at the ground littered with cherry blossoms and complain, How inefficient and wasteful! The tree makes copious blossoms and fruit without depleting its environment. Once they fall on the ground, their materials decompose and break down into nutrients that nourish microorganisms, insects, plants, animals, and soil. Although the tree actually makes more of its product than it needs for its own success in an ecosystem, this abundance has evolved (through millions of years of success and failure or, in business terms, R&D), to serve rich and varied purposes. In fact, the tree’s fecundity nourishes just about everything around it. What might the human built world look like if the cherry tree had produced? (Cradle to Cradle, M Braungart and W McDonough)

With regards specifically to product design it considers the full life cycle of products. Most products are designed with a cradle to grave philosophy, at the end of a product’s useful life we throw it ‘away’… but there is no away. Valuable metals and minerals are lost to landfill, gone forever, at best providing no benefit to nature and at worst poisoning soil and water supplies. Toxic chemicals are used in everyday items in our homes and offices. They not only are released as the product degrades so effecting us, they make hazardous waste when we decide to get rid of the product.

The current mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle only goes part way to addressing the issues we face today. It implies a strategy of business as usual… and a philosophy of being ‘less bad’, we can carry on doing harmful things but just do less of them! The major problem with this is that products that were not designed to be recycled in the first place are very hard to disassemble, process and reassemble. By combining natural and man made materials and using harmful chemicals to do so it makes it very difficult to separate the products after use and in stead of things being recycled into products that are of equal quality they are downcycled into inferior quality items, until they are once again put into landfill.

The current messages of environmentalism based on guilt and fear, although born out of a desire to reverse the current degradation of the natural environment, have only gone so far to achieving their aims. We are told that we have destroyed our planet and climate change will kill us all and destroy earth as we know it. Although there is obvious misgivings for which western consumerist society is responsible for. The current media, government and in some cases environmentalist message does little to instill the positive mindset needed to address these problems. Radical thinking, positivity, collaboration and imagination are needed so that we may conceive a world where humans live in harmony with nature and perhaps even positively enhancing the world.

Cradle to cradle advocates design that not only aims to combine form and function. It seeks to positively enhance the life of people and the natural environment. I believe that cradle to cradle is a case in point for the prophecy of the eagle and the condor. Western technology and science coming together with indigenous spirituality and philosophy once again. http://www.mtnmath.com/condor.html It is a practical tool that is achievable, economically viable and ready to be applied. The technology in many cases exists and with more support can be created.

Here are some examples of packaging that have adopted the cradle to cradle approach, http://spcdesignlibrary.org/items/index

Too much choice?

On my return to the UK from New Zealand I had to readjust in many ways to things I had forgotten or just erased from my memory. One of these things is overcrowded supermarkets and the vast amount of choice we face whenever we buy something. Every purchase offers multiple options sometimes with little to distinguish one from another. In design week I was interested to read an article about this, and they predict that driven by recession and consumer confusion this will be rationalised “This will eventually result in about four options per product/ the market leader, the number two, a challenger and a supermarket own-brand”

Given this, which ones will survive? Old favourites… You know the ones. They have been around forever and are consistent in their branding, slow to change. Owned by large often global companies, although priced a little more than the own label option in times of uncertainty they offer reassurance.

As well as these we are seeing a raft of smaller start up brands. They are in most cases niche, local and have more of an element of the hand made and so offer something different that big brands can’t do in a true sense.

Supermarket own brands are also upping there game and moving into the branded territory. This is a Tesco own brand believe it or not. Own brand will always compete on price and now it seems they compete for our affection as well along with all the other brands.

So as choice seems to be expanding it will be interesting to see if, as predicted brands disappear, which ones will survive?