ABSTRACT
There have been great efficiency gains in some areas, which have mitigated the impacts of growing resource flows and disparities of wealth. By comparing components through input–output analyses, we can make plastic bottles thinner, make more efficient air-conditioners, and increase the yield of crops relative to the cost of chemicals. But as a society, we still seldom ask whether we actually need more plastic bottles, fossil fuel heating and cooling, or chemical fertilizers. The emphasis on reducing consumption trends can instil the false impression that we have a demand-driven economy. Our supply-driven production systems put candy in front of people and then ask them to abstain. We have neglected the ecology and failed to appreciate the ability of built environment design to value-add social and environmental benefits. Input–output thinking means other design relationships tend to be neglected, such as the nexus between functions, materials, space and context. Instead of escapism, what we really want from products and buildings are comfort, conviviality, convenience, quality of life, love and laughter. Buildings – energy-guzzling glass, steel, concrete and aluminium cubicle containers – may not be the best way of achieving these qualities.
