The Hypothesis

No good lasting change has ever come from of a sense of fear alone.* Most of the dire predictions for a world catastrophe have evoked fearfulness in people without addressing the root causes of our problems. Crisis is opportunity. We must portray our planetary crisis as an opportunity to transform our way of life into one that is not only more sustainable, but more fulfilling and satisfying as well. We must offer solutions that include a positive role for people in a world that is more sacred and more just than the one we currently inhabit. While fear can be an excellent initial motivating force, if that emotion is not transcended, the actions taken in response to those fears often work to make problems worse. For example, as global warming increases, people may decide to increase the energy expended on mechanical cooling. As more ‘air conditioners’ are manufactured and operated, more of the gases that produce global warming are released into the atmosphere. Systems thinking calls this a reinforcing feedback loop.* Our actions only go to reinforce the original problem. To achieve lasting positive change, a fundamental shift in consciousness is required.* We must change the perspective from which we view our world and from which we interpret the events happening within. If fear increases our problems, then hope will naturally decrease them. Yet how do we increase hope in the world? Throughout history, we have consistently found it difficult to love one another. However, the Earth is something that we all have in common. In the past, a regional identification with place often led to disputes between neighboring tribes and nations. Yet it is clearer now than ever that the Earth is an indivisible whole, and that we are just one nation of people inhabiting her. Cooperation is essential. To increase hope and love in the world, we must look deeper into our human psyche to find what truly motivates us. Politicians seem to know very well how to trigger fear and hate. Why has the study of positive emotions been so neglected? Researchers have shown that both children and adults feel, think, and behave differently in different environments.* Our modern built world usually makes us feel lousy. How can we design a built environment that helps us to feel good? How can we build an environment that supports our longing for community? Artist James Hubbell believes that an exuberance of beauty is the antidote to violence, fear, and addiction.* Lev Tolstoy remarked that “beauty will save the world.” Richard Feather Anderson defines beauty as something that: (1) touches us in a particular way, (2) generates an emotional response within us, (3) connects us viscerally with the universality of life, (4) and produces a feeling of deep resonance.* Perhaps the experience of a beautiful place can touch us so deeply that those positive emotions such as peace, love, and hope are released. Wallace Stegner wrote poems about the power of a beautiful place to diminish our material desires. Many architects have made the connection between our inner psychological world and the outer physical environment.* Vishu Magee suggests that we take this realization one step further and design our houses as vehicles for spiritual growth.* Magee reports that in his practice he continually sees clients abandoning their original intention of a holistic life in order to retain old consumerist habits. He believes that before we can alleviate any of the numerous problems in our outer world, we must address and heal ourselves of inner ailments such as fear, greed, and ignorance.* The importance of Magee’s assertion is highlighted by the realization that most of the technical aspects of sustainable living have already been worked out. The Real Goods Solar Living Institute in Hopland is an example of this predicament. Real Goods demonstrates many of these sustainable technologies. In that regard, it is truly a visionary development. On the other hand, Real Goods was created fully within the capitalist model, put on the stock exchange, and bought by a large outside corporation. Today, the founder and his family live in a massive five-thousand square foot ‘solar trophy home’ while the retail store sells expensive nonessentials for yuppies on vacation. Even the permaculture grounds, which have been turned over to a nonprofit organization, have felt a negative impact from the increasing influence of corporate culture. In the early years, workshops at the Solar Living Institute were well planned, proper space and time were given, and instructors had everything they needed to teach and demonstrate effectively. In more recent years, however, rather than offering one workshop at a time, the Institute has tried to squeeze in two or even three workshops over one weekend. Instructors have been left to fend for themselves. Employee turnover has been high. Participant fees have gone up while staffing and teacher pay have remained low.* Places such as the Real Goods Solar Living Center offer a mixed message. People see possible solutions, but they are wrapped in the corporate package. The implication is that a ‘sustainable life’ must be bought on the open market. Who can afford it? Will we need to compete to obtain it? If so, how can it be considered sustainable? So once again we ask how can a place be designed so that feelings such as hope and contentedness along with cooperation and community are awakened inside of us?

An Asterisk denotes where there was a footnote in the original thesis. If you would like our reference materials, please feel free to contact us for them.