reading - environmental adaptability

this reading raises a topic of discussion that has recently become very important to me. the notion of permanence and ephemerality within the environments we create, not just as architects - but as human beings as a collective.

in western culture we like to refer to "sustainability" as a new notion that has gathered a great deal of momentum in the last 20 years especially. however i find this insulting and ignorant of the lifestyles and cultures that inhabited, and continue to inhabit the world today - indigenous cultures that had a strong attachment to the world surrounding them - people that lived harmoniously within the landscape, without exhausting resources and responding to the natural factors influencing them.


"now we reverse the inquiry to discuss, not the adaptability of the organism to the environment, but that of the environment to the changing purposes of the organism."


through technological advancements and the rapid exchange of information - mankind has become able to easily manipulate the world around him. whether it be by the use of a halogen light to brighten a poorly lit room, air conditioning to cool a non ventilated office in the CBD or even the use of a refrigeration unit to preserve our processed meat. in general we are out of sync with what adaptability really is in its purest sense.

Peter Stutchberry discusses the notion of indigenous australians and the way they lived within the landscape as an exemplar of adaptable living.


"the traditional indigenous australian house is the landscape. it is usually temporarily occupied and located near a water source. invariably there is some shelter but essentially it is rooms in the environment for

cooking, talking, making, sleeping. (very much like our big 5 themes)

privacy is not a priority. as the room is big for what is fundamentally sharing - it is not a place for selfish behavior"

under the edge - page 22


one would consider this form of living extremely simplistic in its nature, however as we become more sensitive to the landscapes around us we begin to realise the complex network of systems working even in, what on face value, could seem like a very basic environment - such as an arid desert setting.

the reading talks about the nature of adaptability of environments in terms of levels of complexity...


"from an analogy with biology, it might be suspected that highly specialised forms would be relatively in-adaptable, while forms of little differentiation and low structure would be the ones that from which future development will most easily proceed. thus a simple square house of one room would be more adaptable than a more intricate design fitted about the special habits of a particular client.

but simpson points out the fallacy of this notion even in the course of biological evolution. we are accustomed to associate unadapted, and therefore extinct species with "over-specialised" ones."

also that -

"that specialised organism, man, has so far proved himself to be the most adaptable creature going"


i understand the logic behind the authors statements - but at the same time argue that the adaptability of man hinges not upon his reliance on the complex systems of the environment around him - which for 60,000 years allowed indigenous australians to flourish in this country. but instead on his artificial, and indeed still very complex systems, that work in complete disagreeance with the environment around him.

what we have established in this western model is 2 very complex systems working in complete juxtaposition at all times. in early posts i have discussed the notion of finding low-tech solutions to future sustainability issues... working with the complex systems inherent in the environment around us without forcing against it is the only way to achieve balance i feel. similar to the way the traditional owners of this land did for so long.