Old doesn't mean better


In class on Tuesday we debated the merits of older passive systems versus more modern, innovative technological solutions. The comment was made that “well people lived in these hot climates before air conditioning and these new solutions, so clearly the old ones worked.” However, this is not exactly true. The fact is that vastly fewer people lived in hot climates before the advent of air conditioning, especially in the United States. Although it has been around for a long time, AC didn’t really become popular and widespread until the 1970s, when better central air systems began to replace old window units. After this pervasion of the technology, a huge boom in the population of previously harsh hot/humid climates took place. I’ll use my hometown as an example (write what you know, right?). Here are the population stats through the census years:

1970: 3,839
1980: 6,492
1990: 22,519
2000: 27,752
2010: 43,392

As you can see from the census data, my town came close to doubling in size between 1970 and 1980, and then more than tripled in size from 1980 to 1990. While there are other factors involved, this was largely due to AC making what was previously a harsh climate actually livable.

Is this sustainable? No. Is it innovative? Yes. Does it prove that new technologies work better than old-fashioned passive systems? Yes. So we should not glorify old solutions just because they didn’t use any energy. We should incorporate old solutions into the new ones to create something that works better.

Comments

  1. You've pointed out how technological innovations and the accompanying population growth is not exactly sustainable. I think the idea of livability is rooted in culture, where people come from and how they've adapted. I wouldn't describe Charleston's climate as 'harsh' at all. I thought Dubai's climate was harsh, but even there local people still thrived before discovering oil, and all they needed were wind towers, shading screens and high walls framing narrow streets. Even in Clemson, Yage and I rarely rely on air conditioning. (Mainly because we basically live in an old cabin with expensive baseboard heating and no central conditioning.) My point being that the convenience and comfort that we can afford right now is not exactly sustainable in the long run, and that there is value in old passive systems, especially when working in tandem with new innovations and renewable energy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I agree that the old systems and solutions would be considered outdated today, I don't know if relying solely on technology is the answer? I kind of want to play off of Vishnu's comment, and say perhaps we should be challenging the idea of "comfort" (statement inspired by Michelle + Mike's project)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts