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
Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımcısı / Trend Uzmanı
@trendssoul
Translated by Ersan Devrim
Bibliography:
(13) http://www.epea.com/
