A lot of merit in that argument. I agree in principal, but see a lot af advantages to hi techy stuff.
Designs for my clients ALWAYS make provisions for manual over-ride, when the computer crashes (not if it
crashes). Just ask HAL, of 2001 fame.
> I have been following with great interest the discussion of the CO2
> controlled air ventilating system. The idea fascinates me (I never herad of
> it before), but I have some problems to make up my mind about it.
> On the one hand are people that are building low-tech houses out of straw and
> wood, because they want an ecological and sustainable house. I believe in our
> world this can only be a marginal approach to todays architecture.
> The other side is high-tech. Using innovation and technology to save energy.
> Just like this idea with the CO2 sensors.
> But all this extreme technology has an ecological price, too. You have to
> calculate the laboratories, plants,.... And you have to think of the costs
> and efforts to maintain a high-tech system, too. Someone calculated that to
> produce a normal car that weighs 1 ton you need 13 tons of raw material, i.e.
> you get 12 tons of waste (unfortunately I don't have any exact numbers). I
> guess that in construction this ratio is not so bad - but when we follow the
> idea of high-tech housing we will get to the same point - or not?? I
> So I am trying to start a discussion about the risks of high-tech - wouldn't
> it make more sense to construct a simpler (but not primitve) architecture
> without making a building so intelligent that it can only be run by a
> computer? Maybe MEDIUM-TECH is the greener way to construct??
> Uli Stehling, Darmstadt
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
> and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
> send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to email@example.com.