The
Paradise Paradigm
by
Dr Ong Boon Lay
Department of Architecture
National University of Singapore
Abstract
The paradise paradigm proposes that human civilization began as a consequence of finding
an ecologically rich and supportive environment and recognizing its value. However, human
occupation of such ecosystems often ended in failure of the ecosystem and led to the
development of nomadic tribes. Over time, however, humans learnt enough about nature to
begin to live in harmony with it. Such knowledge were largely sanctified through the
development of religion and religious beliefs and help to explain both the importance of
religion in pre-scientific societies and the close relationship between religion and the
organization of early societies.
This paper details the paradise
paradigm in greater detail and draws some tentative conclusions about modern 20th
century society.
The first humans walked the earth some 2
million years ago. In contrast, the earliest archaeological evidence of cities is dated
some 5000 years ago, a negligible length of time in archaeological terms. Within the
approximations of archaeological time, we may say that there was a two million-year gap
between the time when the first humans walked on this planet and our first archaeological
evidence of civilization. By all accounts, this emergence of cities and of civilization
seems sudden, almost unaccountably so. What happened during that time?
Even from our scant archaeological records,
our prehistoric ancestors were not idle during the period between the first emergence of
the human species and the first signs of civilization. The usefulness of fire was
discovered over 1 million years ago and by that time, humans had evolved ethnic and
cultural differences in their weapons, tools and art (Leakey 1994). As a species, we were
so hardy that we were able to spread from Africa as far north as Britain, as far east as
Japan and as far south as Borneo more than 1 million years ago. Ancestors to the modern
Australian aborigines built boats that could cross 70 km of sea to reach the island
continent about 60 000 years ago. North America was founded at least 3 separate times -
once about 45 000 years ago, again 30 000 years ago and then again 20 00 years ago. By
about 40 000 years ago, humans may be said to have conquered the world.
Contrary to popular belief, our ecological
record, even during this time, was not good. We did not live in harmony with nature but
destroyed it wherever we went. We burnt forests to make clearings, destroyed ecosystems
and extinguished many species - both animal and plant. Human intervention led to the
extinction of the mastodon and the mammoths in Africa and South East Asia some 40 000
years ago, and in Australia and North Eurasia 13 000 years ago. In the Americas, about 11
000 years ago, there were giant bison (with a 2m horn spread), casteroides, camels, ground
slothes, stag moose, large cats, mastodons and mammoths, and wild horses. Less than a
thousand years later, nearly all were extinct as a result of human activity. Horses had to
be reintroduced to the Americas in the 16th century AD.
Yet, by the end of that era, human
civilization had developed sufficient knowledge and skill to make engineering marvels like
the Stone Henge (circa 2000 BC) possible. Considering the technological capabilities
demonstrated by the earliest cities - the Pyramids of Giza at around 2500 BC, the Great
Wall of China at around 200 BC, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon at around 600 BC, and the
Mayan city at Yucatan at around 400 BC - it is hard to imagine that such technological
knowledge can emerge quite so suddenly.
An Ecological Fallacy
It is somewhat fashionable to suggest that
we were more attuned to the needs of nature during those times. Historical evidence
suggests otherwise. The link between the extinction of several animal species and human
invasion was mentioned earlier. During more recent times, there is reason to believe that
human settlement was the cause of soil depletion and desertification. Cities, in
particular, were never clean nor hygienic. J.D. Hughes wrote of the cities of Mesopotamia
(Wall 1994, pp. 33-34):
" The earliest cities seem to have
shared some of the problems which have become as annoying in their modern counterparts. .
.The evidence of narrow streets and small rooms in houses huddled within the compass of
defensible walls tell us that overcrowding in ancient cities were extreme. Garbage
accumulated in the houses, where the dirt floors were continually being raised by the
debris, and human wastes were rarely carried further than the nearest street. The water
supply. . . was likely to be polluted. Life expectancy was short. . .Flies, rodents and
cockroaches were constant pests. Even air pollution was not absent. In addition to dust
and offensive odors, the atmosphere filled with smoke on calm days."
While there is no denying that modern
society is the source of much damage to the environment and to planetary ecological
balance, it is a mistake to think that we had the solution in our hands sometime in the
past. We did not and this present paper suggests that an ecological understanding of the
history of our cities will provide some answers to our ecological future.
The Origins of Paradise
Our forefathers, two million years ago, were
intelligent beings. They could think and figure things out. Granted, much of their
understanding was eventually to be passed down to us clothed in myths of human spirits and
gods and are like so much superstition to our modern eye. But who is to say that our
current understand will also not be just as much foolishness in the future?
Our forefathers were intelligent enough to
invent tools. They were capable of art and war. They formed societies and developed a
distinctive culture in each. They were certainly clever enough to recognise a basic fact
of ecology - that not all parts of the environment were equally hostile nor equally
advantageous. Certain places, particularly those that were near water bodies, are
especially propitious. Here, in such places, they had easy access to plant food and water.
Small animals that came to drink and feed there were easy prey. The humans had only to
protect themselves from attack from predatory animals or other human tribes and their
future would be ensured. Here, in such places, they did not have to find sustenance, the
environment supported them. Such places were paradise.
The Advantages of Settlement
The advantages of settlement are not
self-evident. Recent anthropological studies found that modern nomadic tribes would
disdain agriculture in favour of a nomadic life (Heinberg 1989, Sahlins in Wall 1994, pp.
24-26). The constraints on acceptable behaviour that are necessary to maintain social
order are difficult to bear, even for many of us today. In a comparison between the hunter
forager lifestyle and village or settled life, many researchers have found reasons to
favour the former. The hunter forager worked on average the equivalent of 2 1/2 days a
week, half the number of days we work today and much less than the pre-industrial
agriculturist. The hunter forager experienced starvation less often than we might suppose,
particularly if the tribal practices were, on the whole, not too ecological destructive.
Being less in number and less laden with possession, they were also better able to seek
newer pastures and survive times of temporary drought. Their lives were generally peaceful
and disputes were uncommon and often settled amicably. Without a strong sense of
possession, nomadic peoples were able to be more generous and accommodating.
Why then did we humans settle down? Why, and
how did this settlement develop into the highly technological and complex societies we
know today?
To understand this, we need to understand
the attraction of settled life. This attraction is not some inexplicable instinct that
evolved irrationally over time. Nor was the attraction so immediate as to be easily
understood. Rather, the attraction can be attributed to certain advantages attributable to
settled life that for many, outweigh the disadvantages of more work and less freedom.
These attractions, on hindsight, were logical consequences of living in paradise. Yet,
they were perceived in such a magical manner that these garden paradises were seen to be
places blessed by the gods.
1. The Accumulation of Possession
The mere tenancy of a particular location
for any length of time leads to an accumulation of property and possession. This
accumulation is particularly significant to a species that recognises the usefulness of
artefacts and inanimate objects. A species able to produce weapons and tools, to build
shelter and defences, to see value in certain material, is likely to accumulate more of
such objects and thus gain an advantage, insofar as such objects give their owners an
advantage, over their nomadic cousins. The accumulation of such valued property and
possessions is the source of human wealth and is as desirable today as it must have been
in prehistoric times.
2. The Prolonging of Lifespan
Within the protection of paradise, and
defended by both structures and warriors from predators and enemies, the aged in a settled
society will tend to live longer. This longevity is not a product of some magical powers
of the water, air or food of the ecosystem but a result of the removal of the need to be
on the move. The disabilities of the aged, and their consequent lack of mobility, would
not be as much a liability as they might be for a nomadic society.
3. Greater Health
For the same reason, the expectant mother,
the suckling child and the sick will find recovery easier within a settled economy and on
the whole, the mortality rate of a settled society will be better than the nomadic
counterpart - for as long as the ecosystem lasts.
There are other advantages to a settled
society, of course, but what makes these three qualities especially significant is that
they translate into ideals we still hold dear in our modern times - wealth, health and
long life. The price we pay for these ideals is the price of a civilized life - order,
work and a regulated behavioural code.
Access and the Growth of Settlements
As such material advantages become visible
and attributable to settlements, other human beings will seek entry to established
settlements. The price of access was not always war or tribal unions. In fact, it is
likely that aggression was the answer only when access is attempted by large groups.
Peaceful access by individuals was easier. Peaceful access was possible if you had goods
to trade, knowledge to share, and skills to impart. The strong and the beautiful will also
be desired and allowed access. As the early settlements grew in strength and size, the
need for greater science and technology - in the aid of defence, for food gathering and
storage, the provision of shelter, and so on - also grew. It is this pressure to prolong
stay that led to the development of agriculture (and not agriculture that led to
settlement). In time, the needs of settlement led to the development and accumulation of
skills, culture, and knowledge. Language evolved because of the needs of settlement. And
the limits to settlement was and has always been defined by the ecosystem and our ability
to exploit it (through technology), rather than the development of technology in and of
itself.
The Fall from Paradise
It is important to understand what happened
when we found paradise. Not surprisingly, and this is evidenced by our history, we often
outgrew and eventually annihilated paradise and were forced to leave it. The most frequent
response to this loss was to look for another paradise. This we were able to do as the
garden paradise needed by prehistoric humans was not hard to come by.
What was significant was that the fall from
paradise was not experienced as a ‘natural’ failure. Where, as a nomadic
creature, the availability of food and the problems associated with a nomadic life had an
immediate causal nature that did not invite deeper investigation, the failure of paradise
was such that it prompted and stirred the human imagination. There we were, living happily
and prosperously in paradise. And then, catastrophe. The river flooded where it used to
flow gently along its banks. A disease that struck one of the inhabitants spread to
decimate the entire village. Something happened that did not just strike one or two but
brought to an end a life only the selected few were able to enjoy.
In this, we can see the mechanics that led
us to contemplate the source of nature, and the beginnings of religion. While living in
paradise, we enjoyed advantages not shared by the nomadic tribes. But, when paradise fell,
the calamity that befell us outweighed the disasters that we understood and were familiar
with when on the move. These extremes of good fortune and high tragedy begged for an
explanation that went beyond observable cause and effect. And indeed, early knowledge was
not easily separated from religious knowledge or the practice of religion. Through
finding, living in and then losing paradise, early human began to contemplate the hidden
mysteries of life and of nature.
The First Paradises
The kind of paradise envisioned here, a
self-sustaining ecosystem that will allow human occupation and provide for their needs, is
fairly easy to find in the wild. However, as humans exploited the ecosystem far more than
our animal counterparts and were, on the whole, more destructive than constructive - then,
as our demands upon the ecosystem grew with time, the harder it became to find ecosystems
to fulfil these needs. A more complex and, in the end, artificial system of maintaining
the permanence of society was needed and developed.
With the finding of each paradise, there was
both internal and external pressure to expand the demands on the ecosystem. The pressures
that existed were complex and are to be found still in our modern society. For it is of
greater advantage both to the outsider and the inhabitants to allow limited access than to
exclude all foreigners. As outsiders with produce to trade, skills and knowledge to share,
wealth and beauty to offer were allowed access, those who seek to disrupt or destroy the
order of the society will be kept out, or if they were insiders, exterminated,
incarcerated, punished or banished. In time, the strength of the settled society would
grow but, at the same time, internal forces within the settled community - strain on the
ecosystem, internal strife, etc. - would also tend to lead to its demise. This tension
between the desirable consequences of a settled life and the constraints it places on its
inhabitants and on the society itself is a fundamental characteristic of cities, even to
this day.
Over time, we evolved knowledge - a deeper
understanding of the environment not just based on observable phenomena but also on
abstractions and imagined constructions of the universe. Such constructions of knowledge
must inevitably be a mixture of accurate conjecture and mistaken superstition. Some of
this knowledge was quantifiable and was able to withstand the test of time and scepticism
but others were unquantifiable and yet of such immeasurable importance that to ensure
their endurance, myths of supernatural powers and spirits were created. One such myth is
the myth of paradise.
Paradise in Mythology
An ecological understanding of place, of the
importance of one location over others, and of the complexity and delicate balance that
holds the ecosystem together, took great intelligence and effort to develop. The best of
the species, those with the leadership, strength and insight to forge the direction the
society should take, and over a period of time, combined to make possible increasingly
large settlements and increasingly complex mythologies and belief systems.
Given this early dependence on ecology, it
is not surprising that the paradise myth should surface so frequently in ancient cultures
and with such consistent common characteristics [Moynihan 1976, Heinberg 1989, Harris
1996]. In almost every culture there is a utopian vision of life lived in harmony with
nature within an Arcadian context. The origin of the species is frequently linked to such
a utopia and there is, often, following from such an origin a tale of some natural or
manmade catastrophe that led to our departure from the paradise. It is useful to note that
such paradises were said to be blessed by the gods, that there were rules to follow which
we break in our folly and to our own detriment. We may see such mythical lessons as
allusions to ecological dependence.
Ecology and the Economy
The relationship between our societal
dependence on the ecosystem and the social structures that were erected to maintain the
society is complex and holistic. Sometimes the link between ecological concerns and the
economy is direct, for example, during times of famine and drought or during a natural
calamity, like a volcanic eruption, storm or flood. Sometimes, however, the link is
tenuous and the benefits that directly accrue, like economic wealth, the gaining of land
and property, and political power, are only indirectly linked to ecological advantage and
may result in immediate or even long-term ecological damage.
Yet, this paper suggests that underlying the
development of civilization is an effort to stay in paradise – to benefit from the
blessings of an abundant ecosystem. It is our desire for paradise that led us to the
construction of a human society based upon our understanding of how nature works. This
understanding encompasses the development of legal and political systems, of educational
institutions, of policies of commerce and economics, of religious and philosophical
beliefs, and of the waging of wars, annexation and colonisation. A detailed account of how
the development of civilization and its corollary, the history of cities, is ultimately
linked to the gaining of ecological advantage lies beyond the scope presently possible but
a brief sketch has been proposed by I. G. Simmons.
Rewriting the history of cities
The ecological history of human
civilization, seen at least from the Western perspective, has been staked out by I. G.
Simmons (1994). The ecological sub-divisions of Western history proposed by Simmons can be
seen as illustrative of how the history of civilization is an expansion of the paradise
paradigm. As our abilities grow, we develop technologies to increasingly exploit the
ecosystem to facilitate our own affluence and population growth. The expansion has grown
until today, where the available paradise is the entire planet and our environmental
crisis a global phenomenon.
A summary of Simmon’s categories is as
follows:
1. Hunting-gathering and early
agriculture
Positioned between 10 000 to 7 500 years
ago, the hunter-gatherers had yet to acquire the knowledge and technology necessary for
long-term settlement. While there were evidence of religious beliefs, culture and art,
their impact on the environment may be deemed to be minimal.
2. Riverine civilizations
These are the great first civilizations -
the Sumer, Egypt, the Harappan, and the Chinese Shang dynasty - which grew around major
rivers whose main characteristic is an annual flooding of their banks. Though highly
dependent on irrigation and agriculture, there were evidence of trade and commerce between
these societies. They lasted from around 4000 BC to 100 AD.
3. Agricultural empires
From around 500 BC to the eve of the
Industrial Revolution (circa 1800 AD), there were a number of empires that rose and fell
which had an agricultural base, a feudal system, and a concentration of power in certain
capital cities. Many attempts were recorded during this period of expansionist regimes
that tried to build large empires spanning the ‘known’ world.
4. The Atlantic-industrial era
From about 1800 AD to the present, "
a belt of cities from Chicago to Beirut, plus a few outlining the shores of Asia as far as
Tokyo, have provided the core area of an economic mode based largely on energy derived
from fossil fuels." (Simmons, p. 2) This is our modern era of technological
growth, of spreading urbanisation and industrialisation, and of a global tendency towards
a Western model of society.
5. The Pacific-global era
This era is the present and, according to
Simmons, future model. There is an economic and political power shift to the Pacific
region and a growing tendency to look at matters at a global level. This tendency is
accompanied by a resurgence of interest in diversity in lifestyle and worldviews.
An underlying progression of increasing
complex ecological models can be read into Simmon’s categories. Taking his analysis
together with the argument presented in this paper, a picture of human civilization
evolving at the expense of natural ecology begins to take shape. Within such an analysis,
the powerplay of politics and war; the development of science, knowledge and technology;
and the distribution of wealth and status, all become subsets of the equation linking man
and the exploitation of nature.
Our ECOLOGICAL FUTURE
The consequence of the paradise paradigm is
that our ecological future is not necessarily an apocalyptic demise of our current
society. Certainly, we cannot continue on as we did before, but learning to live in
harmony with nature, or establishing a new balance with nature, may lead us to a more
abundant and richer future society. The cities of this future society will need to be
fairly stable ecosystems in themselves. The limiting parameter for the development of the
future ecological city will simply be its impact on the surrounding environment. The
degree to which we will be able, in the future, to emulate nature in its recycling and
reuse of its resources, is the degree to which we will progress as a society.
One of the most important opportunities
enabling the future city will be our ability to reproduce within the city, the natural
ecological balance between us (and the animals) and plants.
Partnership with Plants
Without plants, we have no oxygen to
breathe, no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no fire for energy, no roof above our heads.
Plants are the only living things on earth that converts solar energy into usable
resources. We evolved because of plants. Places with plants are attractive partly because
we see in these places an abundance of life, or resources, of food and shelter. But, the
relationship is not one-sided. Plants need us as much as we need them. James Lovelock
(1989), puts it very well:
"I say that only by pollution do
we survive. We animals pollute the air with carbon dioxide, and the vegetation pollutes it
with oxygen. The pollution of one is the meat of another."
The key here is that we have evolved as a
species and as a society through our partnership with plants. This partnership is in many
ways an exploitation of the plants to our advantage, giving preferential treatment to some
plants over others. But in turn, we have given something back: we have worshipped and
revered them, cultivated some, destroyed others, and studied their behaviour and needs.
This partnership with plants, our dependence
on them, is reflected in much of our culture and society. Many of our myths relate to
plants, our aesthetics are often based upon their beauty, we give plants – flowers,
fruits – to show our appreciation and love for one another. The most important and
immediate way we have to formalise a place, to make it appropriate for a wedding, a
ceremony, or any other occasion is to decorate it with plants, flowers.
To think about ourselves ecologically, we
need to remember and understand this relationship between us and plants and how they have
contributed to our present advancement. And to ask ourselves how they can continue to do
so.
Our ecological future will require that we
design with plants, and for plants, to learn to use plants to complete our ecological
equation, to provide the balance that is absent in our present mechanised and electronic
society.
Plants and the environment
The benefits of plants can be roughly
divided into three categories: recycling, resources, and shelter. These three categories
are likely not to be complete but they serve well enough as terms of reference for our
design ideas.
Recycling
This part is fairly well known. Plants
recycle our wastes – taking in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen, extracting
fertilisers from our solid and liquid wastes, purifying the environment in the process and
providing us with solid and liquid food. What is perhaps not so well known is how the
plants work not individually but as part of an ecosystem so that, for example, the
bacteria in the soil is as important as the larger plants themselves. The ecological
process is a complicated inter-dependent, integrated, multi-dimensional system in which
each species of plant and animals play a part, consuming wastes/resources, producing
resources/wastes – inhabiting niches. Each cycle – the water cycle, the carbon
cycle, etc. – is related to the other such that the distinctions made are artificial
and sometimes misleading.
Resource
Plants are also great energy resources.
Dried wood, timber, charcoal, coal and petroleum are plant-based energy resources which
have been used for ages but of late, we have been able to extract energy from plants in
other ways – as biomass, to produce biogas, and even as a petroleum substitute
(ethanol).
Plants are also resources in other ways: as
food, medicine, clothing, building materials. These secondary forms of resources (if we
think of energy as the first, most direct, form of resource) also have architectural
consequences. If, for example, we were to rely more on herbs than on conventional
medicine, then there may be a new industry of herbalists who may dispense herbal medicines
from their own backyard. This is a growing profession in the West. We may, in the
ecological future, have medical centres built around herbal farms. And these farms may
exist several storeys off the ground. Such farms may be wonderful recuperative centres, as
research (Ulrich 1986) has shown that walking in the garden and the smell of some herbs
help hasten the recuperative process.
Families may begin to want to grow more of
their own food. The allotment scheme, currently under trial in Bishan, Singapore, may
become more widespread and we may then perhaps see vegetable plots in each flat, gardens
in the air.
Shelter
By shelter, I mean not only the fact that we
use timber in the building of our shelters but that plants themselves also provide
shelter. We use plants to decorate our balconies. We should also be thinking of using
plants in our balconies as canopies, above head level, providing shade and cooling the
air. Plants on walls keep the walls cool, close to air temperature, and shelter the wall
from rain. Plants can protect us from wind too. Indeed, it has been found that plants used
as windbreakers (Geiger 1966) are more successful than solid walls because they, the
plants, are porous and allow some air through, thus eliminating the eddies that are caused
by the partial vacuum on the leeward side of the solid wall. The effect of plant
windbreakers can be up to eight times the height of the wall.
Plants and architecture
The history of architecture is closely
linked to plants. This is particularly evident when we think of plants in terms of gardens
and landscape architecture. Plants on walls, on roofs, within buildings (in courtyards,
atria), on windowsills, balconies are commonplace. Good architects are often also
concerned with landscape design. As a matter of fact, many good landscape designers began
as architects and many landscape design concepts were drawn from architecture. On the
other hand, there are prominent landscape designers who went on to become good architects
(Colvin 1995). Collaborations between the two professions are almost mandatory for large
and prestigious projects. Feng Shui, the ideology behind much of Chinese architecture and
landscape design, does not differentiate between the two. It might indeed be argued that
in Chinese design, landscape takes precedence over architecture.
Yet, despite all this, we do not in
architecture, study about plants (except in landscape architecture, for those
architectural courses fortunate enough to have that as a subject). And even within those
courses that exist, very little is studied about how plants contribute to the
physiological experience – cooling and humidifying the air, reducing gusts of wind
but allowing facilitating gentle breezes, controlling glare and soothing the eyes, and
cleaning and oxygenating the air we breathe.
The thermal effect of plants
Plants reduce temperatures through
transpiration. Of course, when we stand in their shade, plants reduce the local thermal
experience by reflecting and absorbing radiant light. But what is not sufficiently
realised is that plants actually reduce the air temperature. This is accomplished by
converting water into water vapour through transpiration. The amount of energy converted
in this process is not insignificant.
Recent work by the author (Ong 1996) showed
that under controlled circumstances, plants can reduce air temperatures by up to 5 ¡ C.
Although this work is carried out under optimal conditions, it does indicate that the
cooling loads on buildings can be much reduced with the use of plants. A computer program
has been developed that will allow us to model the effect of plants on most built
circumstances.
Work by other researchers has shown that
homeostatic processes in plants in the tropics enable the plant to maintain a leaf
temperature that is very close to air temperature (Jones 1992). This is particularly
useful here in the Tropics as walls exposed to the sun can gain in surface temperature of
up to 10 ¡ C or more. Much of this heat is re-radiated in the room.
The Ecological City in Context
There are two important points raised as a
consequence of this presentation. Firstly, the human species has always been ecologically
destructive. The story of our evolution to the present day may be seen, from the
ecological viewpoint, as one of continuous exploitation of the earth as an ecosystem. An
exploitation that is increasingly destructive and one which threatens our own survival.
Secondly, the ecological future that we can presently envisage, though dimly, is yet
another level of ecological exploitation to meet our own needs. I do not think we are yet
able to transcend this anthropocentricity.
The saving grace, perhaps, of the future
ecological city is that we may be able to construct our future cities so that they do not
strain the earth’s natural ecology as much as we do today.
A model of the future ecological city may
now be specified. It may become necessary to hold in reserve large tracts of the
world’s oceans and land. Perhaps as much as 50%. This sacrifice will probably be
equally divided into all nations. Within the remaining 50% of land and water, we may
‘freely’ allow human development with the constraint that the resulting
pollution from such development cannot exceed certain parameters. The air and water around
these developments will need to be continuously monitored to ensure the limits are kept.
Within such a context, our cities will need
to operate efficiently as ecosystems. We shall need to find ways to recycle our wastes and
conserve our energy usage to within the level of solar energy falling upon the development
areas. Trade between nations and, hence, the more efficient use of resources will be
possible. In time, we may find another role as keepers of the ‘natural’ world
outside - the other 50% that is in reserve. We will continue to study nature in the wild,
but we may also be able to help keep the wild sustainable - through the preservation of
species, perhaps, and perhaps even encourage the evolutionary process itself.
Which leads us to a final point. Our
understanding of the working of the world today is as yet inadequate to provide us with a
clear view of what role we may play in the course of the earth’s evolutionary future.
We only know enough now to be able to reduce, perhaps halt, our destructive tendencies.
That may not be enough. The earth we live in is dynamic and had undergone changes more
drastic than the ecological crisis we currently imagine. The most likely outcome of our
failure to meet the ecological challenge is our own demise. Life on earth is likely to
regenerate after that event. If its past was turbulent, the earth’s future is likely
to be as turbulent. There is no guarantee that we will not go the way of Mars and the
other planets that surround us. We, as humans, may have to play a significant role in
preventing this demise, just as, as Lovelock (Lovelock 1988) has claimed, Gaia has been
responsible for her own survival.
If we survive this crisis with an attendant
growth in knowledge and technology, and this scenario is a likely one, the next human age
will be an ecological age. But this ecological age is only ecological in that we would
have, hopefully, learnt how to manage our built environment as an ecological system. We
will not have learnt yet how to manage the earth and what our role is within this larger
context. That may be our challenge for the fourth millennium.
Acknowledgements
This paper began as a Ph.D. (Ong 1996) study
at the Martin Centre at the University of Cambridge, UK. My supervisor and intellectual
mentor there was Dr Dean Hawkes, and to him I owe my inspiration and spiritual support. I
also acknowledge the Overseas Graduate Scholarship from the National University of
Singapore for providing the funding and the School of Architecture for allowing me to take
very valuable time off there to study. Portions of this paper are extracted from papers
previously presented elsewhere (Ong 1997, 1997a, 1998, 1998a).
Bibliography
Andrews, Anthony P. (1995) The First
Cities St Remy Press, Montreal.
Ashworth, G. J. (1991) War and the City
Routledge, London.
Benevolo, Leonardo (1980) The History
of the City translated by Geoffrey Culverwell, Scholar Press, London.
Geiger, Rudolf (1966) The Climate Near
The Ground trans. by Scripta Technica, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Gouldie, Andrew (1993) The Human Impact
on the Natural Environment (4th edition) Blackwell, Oxford.
Jones, Hamlyn G. (1992) Plants and
Microclimate (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Harris, Richard (1996) Paradise - A
Cultural Guide Times Academic Press, Singapore.
Heinberg, Richard (1989) Memories and
Visions of Paradise The Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, England.
Isaac, Glynn (1990) The Archaeology of
Human Origins edited by Barbara Isaac, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kaplan, Rachel and Kaplan, Stephen (1989)
The Experience of Nature Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Leakey, Richard E. (1994) The Origin of
Humankind BasicBooks, New York.
Lovelock, James (1988) The Ages of
Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Moynihan, Elizabeth B (1979) Paradise
as a Garden: In Persia and Mughal India Scolar Press, London
Mumford, Lewis (1961) The City in
History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects Secker & Warburg,
London (Penguin publishes a 1991 paperback reprint)
Ong, B L (1996) Place and Plants in
Architecture: An Investigation into the Phenomenon of Place, the Thermal Environment, and
the Significant Role of Plants Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, UK (unpublished).
Ong B L (1997) Paradise and the Ecology
of Cities – Proceedings ICUPHD 97 Cities for the 21st Century
Singapore 22-24 Sept.
Ong B L (1997a) Paradise and the Green
Agenda – unpublished paper presented at Catalyst ’97, Canberra, Australia
5-8th December.
Ong B L (1998) Plants as an
Environmental Filter Design Forum EDITT 98, Singapore, 6 August.
Ong BL (1998a) Paradise & the
Future of Architecture Architectural Design Forum, Kuala Lumpur, November 1998
Simmons, I. G. (1993) Environmental
History - A Concise Introduction Blackwell, London.
Ulrich, R (1986) "Human Response to
Vegetation and Landscapes" Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 13, pp. 24-44.
Wall, Derek (1994) Green History
Routledge, London.
|
