Screen Saver
Ever wondered what happened to your old computer screen? At Monitex, a Grand Prairie, Texas recycler, workers strip picture tubes from used computer monitors. Tubes that work will be exported to a factory in Thailand, where they’ll be used in low-cost TVs. Broken ones are recycled domestically. Peculiar image of the week by Peter Essick.
Hi Koert,
|
Just wondering: where do you position RECYCLYING in the landscape of NEXTNATURE?
|
I would say that both are for sure related, just like ‘chess’ and ‘checkers’ are related (the similarities are obvious: both are pawn games on a board of squares), however… one can not exchange the elements between “checkers” and “chess”. So, despite their similarities, they are also a different type of game.
|
Do you see any ‘overlapping’ between the concept of NEXT NATURE and the concept of RECYCLING?
|
By the way, am I death wrong if I would say that RECYCLYING is always “isolated” from ‘old nature’…?
|
So, I am wondering … NEXT NATURE & RECYCLING … are they fundamentally really related? (nature)
|
(It’s so hard for me to understand your concept of NEXT NATURE when you present examples that are not related to ‘old nature’ at all; for I keep think it would be a philosophical mistake to include ‘the nature of things’ in the concepts of NEXT NATURE – recently I pointed a few times at this “vocabulary issue”, but I think so far you haven’t responded on that aspect…???)
Martijn, So far, the implications of nextnature thinking on recycling haven’t been worked out with much detail. I posted the image because it is ‘peculiar’ and could be a starting point of a discussion. Let’s have it.
-
I think your observation that recycling is always ‘isolated’ from old nature is an interesting one. As it uncovers a fundamental limitation of the recycling concept.
-
A nextnature approach to recycling could start from the notion that products are born, have a live, and will someday die – just like phenomena in old nature. Hence when designing products, the whole life cycle should be taken in consideration, not just the moment they are used. This very much relates to the cradle-to-cradle concept of McDonough and Braungart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle
> I keep think it would be a philosophical mistake to include ‘the nature of things’ in the concepts of NEXT NATURE.
Please elaborate why, or where the question remained unanswered so we can revive the discussion. Perhaps we should have the discussion here: http://www.nextnature.net/?p=2776 (or is this already an answer to your question?).