- Email: [email protected]
Viewpoint on the environment: The next millennium
Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2000) 103±104
Editorial
Viewpoint on the environment: The next millennium Dr. J. Rodiek Texas A&M University, College of Architecture, College Station, TX 77848-3137, USA
It has only been during the last ®ve hundred years that change has been recognized to be an inherent characteristic of our collective society. It has only been in the last three hundred years that we have come to expect technological change to assist us as we struggle to survive the travails of life. In early times social change took place so slowly that each succeeding generation was virtually unaware that anything was occurring. Today change is the accepted standard by which we measure our progress. One of the byproducts of the last hundred years of social and technological change, for the First World powers at least, has been an unbridled belief in the concept of progress. Pre-World War I in North America was a time of enormous promise. New rail systems were built to link up the Atlantic and Paci®c coasts. New industries were built to accommodate these changes. New social orders, such as labor unions and political parties, were formed to ®nd ways to direct and control this progress. World War I put an abrupt end to the thought that progress was good, but only temporarily. Isolationism became the national policy of the United States. Progress, maybe, but not with other countries, became the mood of the times. Widespread belief in global progress did not appear until after World War II. Now, at the end of the millennium, the `Ratchetof-Progress' era is in full swing and spreading across the globe. This policy has created a globe-sized problem for humankind. Our technocratic societies have produced an energy consumption ethic that feeds off the prin0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 7 6 - 6
ciple of the earth's resources. Our population is projected to peak at between four and sixteen billion people somewhere into the end of the next century. What kind of lifestyle will we have? What kind of environment will we carry out our lives in? What kinds of landscapes will remain? It is commonly understood that most human populations are differentiated on the basis of geography. Despite all the cultural and technological changes brought forth over the past several hundred years, people demonstrate a common biologically based characteristic that is nurtured by their geography and undaunted by change. That characteristic is a basic predisposition to desire contact with their natural world. Evidence of this is found in the shared ethics that promote the protection and sustainability of a culture's natural environments. Unfortunately, this is often an ambivalent desire. Scientists describe our con¯icting behavior as being driven by our need for power and pleasure in exchange for the sacri®ce of those environments that nurture the human spirit and the human species. We are, in our pursuits of grati®cation of earthly pleasures, impacting the future evolution of the environments we depend upon. The new millennium is upon us. What is going to happen to our environment and what response will our disciplines offer in regard to these changes? This question was put to a select group of scientists, planners and educators. The responses fell into several categories. One set of responses challenges the professionals in the ®eld. Dr. Henri Decamps writes on the problem of unexpected environmental issues and
104
J. Rodiek / Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2000) 103±104
the communication of ®ndings among disciplines. He also addresses the problem of cultural rights of tribal minorities. Dr. Ian Bishop looks at how we can manage new and greater quantities of environmental data. He discusses the quality of this information and innovative ways in which it could be used. Drs. Michael Neuman, Peter Jacobs, and Robert Szaro contribute work on the question of appropriate planning. Dr. Neuman presents a set of derived principles for executing regional design. Dr. Peter Jacobs and colleague Roy Mann speak on the need to make meaningful landscapes part of our future environments. They suggest that landscapes in which we descended and established the objects of our desires ought to be part of the landscapes of our future. How and why we do that is central to good planning. Dr. Robert Szaro, David Langer, and Atse Yapi describe the forests as resources that must be considered at a global level. It is not workable to regard their use and maintenance as separate and fragmented entities, the authors write. Our ability to appropriately care for our forests depends upon our collective knowledge and delivery systems regarding this precious resource. Finally, Dr. Diedrich Bruns, Detlev Ipsen and Iris Bohnel present and discuss the dynamic changes occurring in the German landscape. Dr. Makoto Yokohari and associates derive a planning strategy they believe will help convert the Asian megacities of the future into more human spaces.
Perhaps a fundamental issue of any environment created in the new millennium is the question of appropriateness. What guidelines, what standards, what ethics, what values direct our planning and design activities? We have integrated economics, cultural values, engineering requirements, climate variability, wildlife concerns and scenic quality to help us plan a better future. Ultimately each of these considerations focuses on the basic purpose of all planning and design activity. That purpose is primarily the nurturing of the human intellect and the welfare of the human species. What we idealize in nature and strive to recreate in our environments is a re¯ection of the positive in¯uences that shaped the evolution of humankind. Humans conform to a basic principle of the evolution of any species Ð a preference for being surrounded by the environment to which they are best adapted. For us, that is, and has been, the natural world. Our disciplines have been searching for appropriate guidelines that will direct us to make better decisions. One way to improve upon this activity is to learn more about the basic needs of the evolving individual. Do we really know what we need? Can we provide for those needs in meaningful ways? Our separate disciplines should strive over the coming decades to give collective meaning and purpose to our efforts. One good way to judge that will be to measure our efforts in the context of individual users and the natural environment.
Editorial
Viewpoint on the environment: The next millennium Dr. J. Rodiek Texas A&M University, College of Architecture, College Station, TX 77848-3137, USA
It has only been during the last ®ve hundred years that change has been recognized to be an inherent characteristic of our collective society. It has only been in the last three hundred years that we have come to expect technological change to assist us as we struggle to survive the travails of life. In early times social change took place so slowly that each succeeding generation was virtually unaware that anything was occurring. Today change is the accepted standard by which we measure our progress. One of the byproducts of the last hundred years of social and technological change, for the First World powers at least, has been an unbridled belief in the concept of progress. Pre-World War I in North America was a time of enormous promise. New rail systems were built to link up the Atlantic and Paci®c coasts. New industries were built to accommodate these changes. New social orders, such as labor unions and political parties, were formed to ®nd ways to direct and control this progress. World War I put an abrupt end to the thought that progress was good, but only temporarily. Isolationism became the national policy of the United States. Progress, maybe, but not with other countries, became the mood of the times. Widespread belief in global progress did not appear until after World War II. Now, at the end of the millennium, the `Ratchetof-Progress' era is in full swing and spreading across the globe. This policy has created a globe-sized problem for humankind. Our technocratic societies have produced an energy consumption ethic that feeds off the prin0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 7 6 - 6
ciple of the earth's resources. Our population is projected to peak at between four and sixteen billion people somewhere into the end of the next century. What kind of lifestyle will we have? What kind of environment will we carry out our lives in? What kinds of landscapes will remain? It is commonly understood that most human populations are differentiated on the basis of geography. Despite all the cultural and technological changes brought forth over the past several hundred years, people demonstrate a common biologically based characteristic that is nurtured by their geography and undaunted by change. That characteristic is a basic predisposition to desire contact with their natural world. Evidence of this is found in the shared ethics that promote the protection and sustainability of a culture's natural environments. Unfortunately, this is often an ambivalent desire. Scientists describe our con¯icting behavior as being driven by our need for power and pleasure in exchange for the sacri®ce of those environments that nurture the human spirit and the human species. We are, in our pursuits of grati®cation of earthly pleasures, impacting the future evolution of the environments we depend upon. The new millennium is upon us. What is going to happen to our environment and what response will our disciplines offer in regard to these changes? This question was put to a select group of scientists, planners and educators. The responses fell into several categories. One set of responses challenges the professionals in the ®eld. Dr. Henri Decamps writes on the problem of unexpected environmental issues and
104
J. Rodiek / Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2000) 103±104
the communication of ®ndings among disciplines. He also addresses the problem of cultural rights of tribal minorities. Dr. Ian Bishop looks at how we can manage new and greater quantities of environmental data. He discusses the quality of this information and innovative ways in which it could be used. Drs. Michael Neuman, Peter Jacobs, and Robert Szaro contribute work on the question of appropriate planning. Dr. Neuman presents a set of derived principles for executing regional design. Dr. Peter Jacobs and colleague Roy Mann speak on the need to make meaningful landscapes part of our future environments. They suggest that landscapes in which we descended and established the objects of our desires ought to be part of the landscapes of our future. How and why we do that is central to good planning. Dr. Robert Szaro, David Langer, and Atse Yapi describe the forests as resources that must be considered at a global level. It is not workable to regard their use and maintenance as separate and fragmented entities, the authors write. Our ability to appropriately care for our forests depends upon our collective knowledge and delivery systems regarding this precious resource. Finally, Dr. Diedrich Bruns, Detlev Ipsen and Iris Bohnel present and discuss the dynamic changes occurring in the German landscape. Dr. Makoto Yokohari and associates derive a planning strategy they believe will help convert the Asian megacities of the future into more human spaces.
Perhaps a fundamental issue of any environment created in the new millennium is the question of appropriateness. What guidelines, what standards, what ethics, what values direct our planning and design activities? We have integrated economics, cultural values, engineering requirements, climate variability, wildlife concerns and scenic quality to help us plan a better future. Ultimately each of these considerations focuses on the basic purpose of all planning and design activity. That purpose is primarily the nurturing of the human intellect and the welfare of the human species. What we idealize in nature and strive to recreate in our environments is a re¯ection of the positive in¯uences that shaped the evolution of humankind. Humans conform to a basic principle of the evolution of any species Ð a preference for being surrounded by the environment to which they are best adapted. For us, that is, and has been, the natural world. Our disciplines have been searching for appropriate guidelines that will direct us to make better decisions. One way to improve upon this activity is to learn more about the basic needs of the evolving individual. Do we really know what we need? Can we provide for those needs in meaningful ways? Our separate disciplines should strive over the coming decades to give collective meaning and purpose to our efforts. One good way to judge that will be to measure our efforts in the context of individual users and the natural environment.