David, how do you see this open source thing? Not all activities and fields of knowledge can be shared in an open source environment.

For example, I've been following the Open Source Car initiative (OSCar) for years, and this project just keeps failing because there's no structure, no leadership, no movement, and no motivation.

An OS environment is difficult for building real, concrete stuff. And on the other end of the spectrum, OS can become an empty concept, because most good ideas are already open source - but then they are mainly just ideas (like 'cradle-to-cradle'), not concrete applications or technologies.

--------
Also, I have a bit of a problem with the context in which McDonough can be placed. I think it's rather dangerous to pin our hopes on individual technologies, concepts and eco-gizmos, as if they can replace the role of structural social, political and economic change.

For example, there's this worrying trend amongst (mainly Anglosaxon) green designers to think that designing an individual solar power system for rural communities in Africa, or a One-Laptop-Per-Child computer, or a water purification gadget, is good. In fact, these initiatives are totally bad, because they destroy the role and responsibility of the State, which is responsible for providing the infrastructures for electricity, education, clean water, etc... to communities. And the state is responsible for distributing wealth to make these basic services available.

Not designers, eco-entrepreneurs, or 'bottom billion social investors'. These are all fake, Anglosaxon capitalist roles that cause huge amounts of damage and keep the poor poor.

The cradle-to-cradle concept must be seen in this context: it is a nice bourgeois idea for bourgeois designers who speak from within a bourgeois world. It will never help solve the problems of our time, which can only be solved by governments, by intergovernmental institutions and by applying the rigors of social justice.

The most important challenges of our time require extremely boring interventions, not sexy concepts: things like policy and trade reform, institutional capacity building in the Global South, intergovernmental frameworks of negotiation on world problems, etc... Boring stuff, but that's what matters, because it shapes the context and framework within which such cute superficial things like open source tech, One-Laptop-Per-Child PCs, and cradle-to-cradle design make sense.

Anglosaxon creativity and individualism must always be confronted with French etatism and rationalism - the superficial bourgeois eco-designer must always be confronted with the men who think about social structures and deep change.

Newsflash.

McDonough is a great orator and an average businessman.

He wasn't the first and won't be the last "big picture" architect that was a business failure.

Hubris is eventually punished even in today's society.

I would buy tickets for a Hubris morality play with green themes.

Jonas,

My name is James Gray of Linux Journal.  I am writing an article on the OSCar.  Can you email me at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_L6nDsphd9n').innerHTML = output; //]]> ?  I'd like to get your opinion on it.

Thanks in advance,
James