Green Design
New developments have been made in energy efficiency through green design. Some of the most mundane things such as stoves or light bulbs are being designed. The idea is based on less energy, not less quality or comfort. Even buildings are being designed such as: Swiss Re Tower, London England, ABN-AMRO world head quarters, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and even apartments in Israel.
John Todd's "Living Machine": Natural Water Purification
John Todd’s creation of a “living machine” is explored in Evan Eisenberg’s The Ecology of Eden. Todd and his associates at Ocean Arks International created what is essentially a water purification system out of plants, animals, bacteria, and the like, rather than chemicals and toxins. If it sounds unlikely to be a success, consider this: Todd built one machine that ran nonstop from 1989 to 1995. Sewer water is streamed through tubes lined with a tiny ecosystem, and what comes out at the end is actually safe, drinkable, up-to-federal-standards water. Upstream, snails and hyacinths feed off the dirtiest water; downstream, other organisms make the water even clearer. The sludge normally produced from purification is fed to living beings, rather than dumped into an external environment such as the toxic sludge produced by purification plants. With machines made of actual living parts, processes can happen faster and the machines actually organize themselves. An added bonus for this particular machine? In a modern-day water facility, it might take two to three days for the workers to realize there is a toxicity problem. In Todd’s living machine, snails cling to the tubes when there is sudden introduction of toxins, immediately notifying the worker that downstream water needs to be recycled back upstream.
What Todd (and Eisenberg) offer us is a fantastic example of how we can use nature to meet our needs in a mutually beneficial way, but is it actually feasible on a global (or even national) scale? Todd's website proclaims that he can meet the needs of any client, encouraging folks to own these machines to meet their water purification needs. One would expect, though, that it would literally take an entire social movement to successfully integrate these machines into our everyday lives, and while this is not to say it should not be done, one must recognize the difficulty entailed. Aside from the fact that everyone would have to believe they should make the switch from mechanical machine to living machine, several difficulties arise in integrating Todd’s living machine, as well as several advantages and disadvantages. What follows is a consideration of these challenges, advantages, and disadvantages when it comes to putting a living machine in every person’s home.
One could anticipate that the biggest challenge would be a lack of scientific and environmental knowledge on the average person’s part. Todd knows how to make these machines work and could offer an instruction manual, sure. But much attention must be paid to these machines, and it takes great time and energy (something Americans seem to lack) to seed the soil periodically (and especially at the start). Could we reasonably expect that most people could successfully maintain these machines? More importantly, who would regulate and test our water? If maintaining these machines takes scientific knowledge and close attention to the behavior of organisms, is it reasonable to assume that the average person would know when there is a problem with the water?
Other, smaller challenges arise: how big would the machine have to be? Eisenberg speaks of it as looking something like a garden, where a small table for coffee might not even look out of place. The photos on Todd’s website seem to resemble an entire greenhouse, but it is unclear whether the photos capture one large machine or just many smaller machines. Would the amount of space required to host a machine be suitable for an apartment, or would one need a backyard? Must the machine be temperature controlled? Would pets be seriously harmed if they happened to eat the machine or drink from it one day? How long does it take to get a gallon of clean water—would one have to wait a considerable amount of time between cooking or making large jugs of lemonade? Most importantly, how do we get the water from the sewers to our machines to begin with?
Once these challenges are overcome, there might be some advantages to each of us owning a living machine. The most obvious advantage is the reprocessing of the aforementioned sludge inevitably produced from conventional water purification. How fantastic would it be for the sludge to take care of itself? Gallons upon gallons of toxic sludge would be prevented from being dumped into our environment and burned each day. This is, without argument, the best option for nature’s ecosystems and humankind alike. Also great for humankind is the snails’ ability to detect high toxicity in the machines, making our drinking water even safer than we might get from a modern-day facility. One last advantage: Americans could save hundreds of dollars normally spent on bottled water, and simultaneously save the environment from the dumping of millions of plastic bottles.
Every silver lining, though, has a cloud attached. Consider what happens to both people and nature when Todd’s machines make their way into every home: as for nature, the environment would be stolen from constantly. What will happen to ecosystems when we take all their snails, and hyacinths, and algae? As for humankind, if some sort of epidemic were to occur (such as all sewer water became infested with a particular bacteria or virus that went mostly undetected by the organisms in our living machine), how many of us would fall ill or die before someone became available to test and regulate our water? (This is also a concern for water treatment facilities, but they do have experts on hand and the technology to detect such a problem. Would it be apparent to the owners of living machines?)
Other miscellaneous questions arise, as of course they will when all change requires some uncertainty about the future. How would the government’s role change? As it is, the government does not test or regulate water in people’s private wells. Would a new department need to be created once a machine was placed in every person’s home? And what about the economy—what sort of changes could we expect? Some obvious clues are that water bottlers and facility workers might be laid off, but perhaps these are the best people to hire to test and regulate the new living machines, seeing as though they already have background in the water industry. How might this machine be class-related—do we yet have an idea of how functional a machine might be for the lower-class? Would it cost more money for them to run than letting a water company do it for them? Or would it save them money and thus allow for some upward mobility on their part? Most importantly, what do we do with communities whose water is already severely contaminated, such as those in the famous Erin Brockovich story, or the water of South Louisiana?
Obviously many questions arise when considering the likelihood that Todd’s living machines could be successfully integrated into each home, or even a group of homes (such as an apartment complex). It is too soon to tell whether Todd—or Eisenberg—have all the answers, or even that enough time has passed to begin to collect the necessary data. Even convincing enough people that owning a living machine would be beneficial to them would entail an actual social movement. Perhaps eventually we will see the day where humans and the environment work together in true harmony.