[Greenbuilding] reaching a conclusion

[David Seth Melchert]

Picking up on Keith's comments, yes it would be terrifically convenient 
if we could be so elegantly simple. But things are not so simple. In 
fact we live in a complex world with competing factors, complex 
interactions of multiple systems interacting and multiplying, not to 
mention the bewildering array of human needs and desires.

Sure, you can come up with a number of nice guidelines (and many have) 
for the best practices, but apply them rigidly and it becomes 
ineffective or irrelevant.

I am reminded of quantum physics compared the simple Newtonian physics. 
The latter was fairly straightforward, even if it was not always simple. 
But it could be reckoned with with calculations and  formula. Quantum 
physics involves interacting probabilities and varying unknowns that 
fluctuate.

There are many in this world who decry moral relativism and despise 
context-sensitive consideration. But I think of green building in 
particular and environmentalism in general as arising from the same 
conundrum that gave rise to quantum physics: the old simple analytical 
(and moral) ways of looking at things start to fail when you push the 
limits or start to look at things very very closely. Indeed we are 
pushing numerous limits.

Unfortunately we have not derived our own Schroedinger Equation for 
green building, and thus we discuss and consider and debate and study 
and go on and on. I suspect that the answer does not lie in some 
ultimate formula, but really in the cultivation of human wisdom and our 
capacity to embrace paradoxes and mysteries and overwhelming suffering 
and boundless joy without faltering.

best wishes,

Seth Melchert
Oakland CA

Michael lough wrote:
> hello …
>
> For some time now I have wondered about the "mission statement" of a 
> forum ostensibly devoted to "green building" and whether or not its 
> primary purpose is to establish what materials and procedures are the 
> most "green". (by and large)
>