Brownhaus

My third post (second, if you stick to topics), and it's already late. My apologies; I've been trying to fix my sleeping pattern. It's been twenty-four hours (and a 3 hour nap) since I last awoke.

I was sent a link relating to cob houses (from stumbleupon.com) and was simple amazed. For those of you unfamiliar with cob construction, I'll explain it briefly. Cob is a building material made from dirt and clay, mixed with straw, grass, sand and/or mud. It's used variously by itself and with stone to make domiciles. Apparently, people have recently started looking at this as an alternative to modern building materials for houses. It utilizes readily found or easily found materials, is extremely cost effective, is resistant to seismic activity and fire, and can be used to make extremely modern houses (including heated floors).

What is really wonderful is that due to its cost effectiveness, even when combined with modern technology, it seems to be a great alternative to "traditional" houses, and even to underground DIY housing (courtesy of theconsumerist.com). Perhaps the two can be combined in some way as well.

Technology for using "natural" and "infinite" resources such as wind and solar power is becoming more and more feasible on a wide-scale. I really think this is a welcome improvement, but even when things were expensive and not very efficient, people have utilized it for their own homes. Now, with emerging revolutions in hydrogen power (Scientific American) and effective solutions combining hydrogen and solar power (MIT News), it has become extremely beneficial for those who have the resources and know-how to build and utilize these systems themselves. And, with the economy the way it is, every penny saved matters.

The problem? It takes years for these technologies to trickle down to consumers. Just like green rooftops on city buildings and vertical greenhouse farms (both from howstuffworks.com), there's a lot of money needed up front, and with many competing technologies (some still in their infancy), it becomes a risk to invest. Honestly, we need more people thinking long term, like the teams at MIT (of course, just one example), who realize the utility in combining technology and working out the new kinks that come up to really spearhead this problem. When different avenues stop competing, but work together, we as consumers and end-users get the benefit much more quickly. The more quickly we get the technology, the more immediate the effect on the environment.

In my opinion, this is heart of the matter: combining technologies from the get-go. Instead of spending lots of time (and money) waiting for a leader to emerge from each nook of technological development, and then having them combine, time could be spent on experimenting with combining different technologies while they're still being worked out. This can save a lot of time later by tweaking each aspect to work well with the other. Complementary technology, if you will.

Imagine a vision of the future, filled with hybrid-electric cars that use alternative fuels as well as batteries to get us from place to place. Large greenhouses that provide jobs for people, as well as safe, clean, local organic food, acting as boons for their communities. Houses made of "sustainable" natural materials that are as elegant as they are efficient, and just as cost-effective. It will take us time to get there, but once we do, our lifestyles can be as sustainable in the long-run as our environment. And this time, it'll be for the better end.