The Daily Conundrum

"Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen". There is no right life in the wrong one. (Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia)

The sun keeps rising in the east, birds are singing and spring provides a sea of flowrering mountain laurels. The grandchildren continue to be a joy, the days spool down in their regular order, week by week, joyous moments arise here and there as if nothing would be amiss. 

Can we encapsulate ourselves in this private bliss without thinking about the many species that will be extinct this year thanks to human thoughtlessness, the mountains of trash released in the oceans, the toxins causing cancer and Parkinson, the starving babies in Gaza, the bombing victims in Ukraine, the less told atrocities somewhere in Africa, the San Salvadorian US resident deported by accident and against the law and held there in spite Supreme Court orders to bring him back, the foreign Harvard students whose visas are suddenly revoked, the artificial intelligence rushing forward without any control towards a future we can't even imagine? 

All this is removed enough from our daily life that we can ignore it, even though the news reach our ears. 

But what about what about our daughters in government telling us about what became of their jobs in light of a government that holds both early childhood education and climate research for dispensable and forces whole departments to spend months on justifying their existence to some higher power that resides in an obscure space outside NOAA or DHHS, of which we know nothing but the fact that this force won't be able to read all the reports, let alone understand them. 

Which, of course, was never the intention anyway, just an effort to gum up the machinery that this regime hates and that before, cumbersomely, but nevertheless, churned out the safety and security system we all had come to rely on, which made us rely on it. 

All this is too much to keep at bay for longer than a few hours; then it comes crashing into our conscience, our gut and our dreams. 

What to do in the face of this? Where is the leverage, where the counter weapon? The sense of not having the power to move the needle into another direction causes agony. 

People nod knowingly when the conundrum is mentioned, for almost everyone experiences it, except for those for whom the destruction is reason to rejoice, regardless that this tsunami that will wash them away first. 

Is it bad enough to flee or wouldn't it be far better to resist? We know that autocracy, plutocracy and oligarchy fears the people and is in the face of resistance far more vulnerable than it appears. And yet. Where are they, the people? "Pueblo unido jamas sera vincido". 

The chant makes us nostalgic. Yes, if the people were united, but instead they are divided, and yes, the return to the status quo ante is not only not possible, but also not desirable. 

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA 

Leuchttürme im Nebel

Der Artikel ist aus dem englischen übersetzt und bezieht sich auf die USA

Fehlende Leitplanken und Wegweiser

Es wurde viel über die Leitplanken gesprochen, die die Regierung in Schach und die Demokratie intakt halten. Weniger diskutiert wird jedoch die Orientierungslosigkeit der Menschen, nachdem vertraute Wegweiser und Meilensteine ​​über Nacht verschwunden sind. Fachleute bilden da keine Ausnahme. Ihre Projekte orientieren sich bei Planung und Bau an Regeln, Vorschriften und Regelungen, die auf wissenschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Werten basieren.

Fest im Zentrum des Aufruhrs: Der Nordstern (Bild: NASA)

Projektentwickler verlassen sich auf diese Rahmenbedingungen, um ihre Investitionen zu lenken und sie letztlich zum Erfolg zu führen. Unsicherheit, Verwirrung und Mehrdeutigkeit sind die Feinde von Investitionen, und der aktuelle Blitzkrieg gegen den Status quo bildet hier keine Ausnahme.

Ob wir nun Architekten, Projektentwickler, Ingenieure oder sonst jemand sind, der an der Gestaltung und Gestaltung der gebauten Umwelt beteiligt ist, wir sind es gewohnt, uns durch ein Labyrinth von Gesetzen und Vorschriften zu navigieren, oft in der optimistischen Annahme, dass die meisten dieser Gesetze und Vorschriften, obwohl sie umständlich sind, edlen Zwecken dienen. Es stellt sich heraus, dass vieles, was unsere Projekte leitet und finanziert, auf Bundesebene entsteht.

Die tektonischen Verschiebungen in Washington haben viele Markierungen verschwinden lassen, die wir Fachleute verwenden, um sicherzustellen, dass wir auf dem richtigen Weg sind. Wenn Ziele wie Nachhaltigkeit, CO2-Fußabdruck, Vielfalt, Gerechtigkeit und Inklusion – um nur einige zu nennen – plötzlich für überholt erklärt werden, ist das ebenso desorientierend wie verschwindende Autobahnschilder, nicht funktionierende GPS-Geräte oder Tankstellen entlang unserer Route, die plötzlich geschlossen werden.

Werte jenseits von Vorschriften

Fehlende Zeichen: Wenn Nachhaltigkeit
zum Schimpfwort wird

Natürlich lassen wir uns nicht nur von Regeln und Vorschriften leiten, sondern auch von Berufswerten und unserer Kreativität. Unsere Berufsverbände pflegen diese Werte. Wie werden sie auf den Umbruch reagieren?

Ich bin Mitglied des American Institute of Architects (AIA), des Urban Land Institute (ULI) und von Lambda Alpha International (LAI). Diese und andere Organisationen vertreten Hunderttausende von Architekten, Ingenieuren, Entwicklern und Fachleuten für Landnutzung, die lokale, nationale und internationale Veranstaltungen besuchen, nicht nur um ihre Fortbildungspunkte zu erhalten, sondern auch um ihre Fähigkeit zu schärfen, ihre Projekte in einen größeren gesellschaftlichen Kontext einzuordnen. Die Anleitungen dieser Organisationen sind nicht so präzise wie „Ausfahrt zur Innenstadt von DC in 800 m“, sondern fungieren eher als Reiseführer, der Informationen zur Auswahl des Reiseziels liefert.

Universitäten mit ihrer akademischen Reichweite und Freiheit sind sogar noch wichtiger für die Gestaltung der Werte, nach denen zukünftige Fachkräfte ausgebildet werden. Werden sie unabhängig genug bleiben, um als Leuchttürme für Fachleute zu fungieren?

Unsere Berufsverbände brauchten etwa ein halbes Jahrhundert, um sich von Netzwerken, Marketing und Hilfestellung bei den praktischen Fragen zu Kosten, Materialien und Machbarkeit zu einer breiteren Ressource zu entwickeln, die uns helfen, unsere Arbeit in den Kontext sozialer Verantwortung und Leistungsstandards stellen kann und die über klassisches Kosten-Nutzen Analyse hinausgehen.

Im Zuge dieser langsamen Transformation erkannten Designfachleute zunehmend die verborgenen Unterströmungen unserer Gesellschaft, gegen die auch Fachleute nicht immun sind. Ob beabsichtigt oder nicht, unsere Berufe haben manchmal Ausgrenzung unterstützt oder ermöglicht und zu einer Umgebung beigetragen und diese geformt, die oft menschenunwürdig, ungesund, nicht nachhaltig und nicht resilient ist. Diese Erkenntnis hat uns die Augen für die Notwendigkeit und den Nutzen von Vielfalt, Gerechtigkeit und Inklusion in unseren Personalentscheidungen, unseren Handlungen und der Art und Weise geöffnet, in der unsere Projekte mit ihrem gesellschaftlichen und natürlichen Umfeld in Beziehung stehen.

Während ich Architektur und Planung unterrichtete, habe ich beobachtet, wie die Lehrpläne erweitert wurden, um diese vielen externen Aspekte von Planung, Ingenieurwesen und Architektur zu berücksichtigen.

Nachhaltigkeit, Vielfalt und Inklusion

Da Gebäude und Transport die größten CO2-Emittenten sind, ist die Art und Weise, wie wir unsere Gebäude, Städte und Dörfer gestalten, entscheidend für das Klima, in dem unsere Kinder und Enkelkinder leben werden. Verantwortungsvolles Handeln erfordert nicht nur die Reduzierung der Emissionen, sondern auch die Entwicklung von Strukturen, die zunehmenden Wetter- und Klimawidrigkeiten standhalten und so eine lebensfähige Umwelt für die kommenden Jahrzehnte schaffen. Nachhaltigkeit kann daher kein Maßstab sein, den wir einfach beiseite lassen. Ohne die Berücksichtigung der Nachhaltigkeit würden unsere Gebäude, HLK-Systeme, Aufzüge, Verglasungssysteme, Fahrzeuge und Züge international weniger wettbewerbsfähig werden, als sie es in vielen Fällen bereits sind.

Überschwemmungen wie die in Ashville kommen immer häufiger vor und erfordern
andere Planungsansätze (Webseite)

Alle Berufsverbände erkennen die Rolle der gebauten Umwelt bei der globalen Erwärmung, dem menschlichen Wohlbefinden und dem angemessenen Verhältnis zwischen dem vom Menschen Geschaffenen und der Natur an. Städte haben erkannt, dass ihre wirtschaftlich wichtigsten Viertel diejenigen sind, die Künstler, Minderheiten, Flüchtlinge und die LGBTQ-Gemeinschaft akzeptieren und unterstützen, und nur diese vielfältigen Gemeinschaften können die Talente anziehen, die für eine gut ausgebildete Belegschaft erforderlich sind. Unternehmer und Investoren haben festgestellt, dass sich nur nachhaltige Produkte im Ausland verkaufen lassen.

Ab den 1970er Jahren praktizierte ich zehn Jahre lang in Deutschland und England, bevor ich in die USA kam. Mir fiel sofort auf, wie viel mehr Frauen in führenden Rollen bei Besprechungen und Entscheidungsprozessen mitwirkten, wie viele Kollegen und Kunden aus unterschiedlichen Kulturen und Rassen kamen und wie diese weniger homogene Zusammensetzung unsere Projekte bereicherte. Diese Kultur förderte ein Umfeld, in dem unterschiedliche Meinungen willkommen waren, im Gegensatz zu dem Ansatz „Ich habe Recht, also liegst du falsch“, dem ich in deutschen Diskussionen über Denkmalschutz, Stadterneuerung oder Verkehr oft begegnete. Nach einem Jahrhundert des gegenseitigen Kampfes homogener Nationalstaaten hat sich das auf Vielfalt basierte US-Modell als überlegen erwiesen – genau wie uns die Natur gelehrt hat, dass Vielfalt die Widerstandsfähigkeit erhöht.

Ayn Rands Howard Roark im Kino: Einsamer Held

Neben der Hinwendung zu Zusammenarbeit, Vielfalt und Mitbestimmung haben Architekten einen langen Weg zurückgelegt, von Ayn Rands „Fountainhead“-Einzelkämpfer Idol, der seine persönlichen Überzeugungen gegen gesellschaftliche Einwände durchsetzt, bis hin zur Erkenntnis, dass Architektur mehr ist als nur ästhetisch ansprechende Gebäude, die von einem einzelnen Künstler entworfen wurden. Architekten haben erkannt, dass die Verwirklichung von Projekten ein Mannschaftssport ist, bei dem ein viel größerer Kontext berücksichtigt werden muss als nur ein Gebäude und sein Grundstück. AIA und viele andere Berufsverbände haben erkannt, dass sie für die umfassende Gestaltung von Projekten eine Mitgliedschaft haben müssen, die  ihre Klientel und die Demografie des Landes selbst widerspiegelt 

Ebenso haben Bauträger von einem rein projektbasierten kurzfristigen Fokus zu einer längerfristigen Sichtweise gefunden, die Betriebskosten, mögliche Hindernisse für Benutzer und ihren ökologischen Fußabdruck berücksichtigt. Als ich in Baltimore ankam, hatte ich das Glück, für einen jungen Bauträger zu arbeiten, der ein Projekt nicht nur „machte“, weil er es konnte, sondern der auch eine Vision für die umfassendere Umgestaltung dieser postindustriellen Stadt hatte. Er war nicht allein. In ganz Amerika findet man aufgeklärte Entwickler und Planer, von der Wiederbelebung der einst verlassenen Innenstadt von LA über die Neupositionierung von Portland, Oregon, bis hin zur Revitalisierung von Detroit. Die Veranstaltungen und Materialien des ULI spiegeln diesen Wandel wider, von den "Advisory Panels", diezur Beratung  vor Ort bestellt werden, bis hin zur Publikation „Urban Land“ und dem Online-„Knowledge Finder“, wo Materialien zu den Themen „grüne Finanzierung“, „faires Wohnen“, „Widerstandsfähigkeit“ und „Stadtentwicklung mit OPNV“ sowohl für Designer als auch für Investoren Orientierung bieten.

AIA-Forum 2023: „Designing for a World in Flux“ (Foto: Philipsen)

Verkehrsingenieure haben ebenfalls erkannt, dass eine autozentrierte Monokultur viele unbeabsichtigte Folgen hat, und haben begonnen, andren Fortbewegungsmoeglichkeiten und der Tatsache, dass nicht jeder ein Autofahrer ist, Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Auch ist eine globale Urbanisierung ohne vielfältige Mobilitätsoptionen nicht machbar. Heute veröffentlicht das National  Transportation Research Board  viele Dokumente zu Kohlenstoffemissionen, öffentlicher Beteiligung, Mobilitätsintegration und Gleichberechtigung.

An Universitäten haben die Fakultäten für Architektur, Planung und Ingenieurwesen mehr Frauen und Minderheiten angezogen und nutzen neue Zeichen-, Modellierungs- und GIS-Technologien, um die gesellschaftlichen Kontexte ihrer fiktiven (oder manchmal auch realen) Projekte umfassend zu analysieren und Entwürfe auf Klimaverträglichkeit oder auf Gleichberechtigung und Zugang in ihren Gemeinden zu testen.

Während die Fortschritte in all diesen Bereichen langsam waren, sind immer mehr Leute, auch in unseren Berufen unzufrieden – nicht nur ältere weiße Männer, die ihren Einfluss in Gremien und Führungspositionen verloren haben. Umweltschützer beklagen, dass sich Gesetze aus den 1960er Jahren zu einem Dickicht von Vorschriften entwickelt haben, mit dem sich multi disziplinäre Teams herumschlagen müssen, was zu Umweltverträglichkeitserklärungen und Planfeststellungsverfahren führt, die dicker sind als altmodische Großstadt Telefonbücher, ohne die Projekte wesentlich zu verbessern. Projektentwickler beklagen, dass die lokale Flächennutzungsplanung so kompliziert geworden ist, dass sie spezielle Flächennutzungsanwälte und -beschleuniger benötigen, um  das Labyrinth zu navigieren, und dass Projekte häufig in langwierigen Rechtsstreitigkeiten stecken bleiben. Unternehmen, die Hochschulabsolventen einstellen, beklagen sich, dass ihre neuen Mitarbeiter nicht ausreichend mit den Grundlagen des Designs vertraut sind. Kreative fragen sich, ob DEI-Initiativen die Kreativität ersticken oder durch Konsens ersetzen würden. Die sogenannte „Wokeness“ begann jenen auf die Nerven zu gehen, die es leid waren, dauernd an ihre tatsächlichen oder vermeintlichen Privilegien erinnert zu werden. Kurz gesagt: Dreivierteljahrhunderte relativen Friedens haben eine Gesellschaft hervorgebracht, die als zu komplex, zu bürokratisch und zu langsam wahrgenommen wird, um auf sich ändernde Bedürfnisse und Umstände zu reagieren.

Zunehmende Vielfalt im Beruf: Studierende der
Morgan State University in Baltimore (Foto: Philipsen)

Das schleppende Entwicklungstempo hat reale Konsequenzen: eine bundesweite Wohnungskrise, da immer weniger Wohnraum zur Verfügung steht, und selbst grüne Projekte wie Windturbinen, Stromleitungen, Solarparks und der öffentliche Nahverkehr fahren sich fest in Umweltauflagen. Die innovativsten Entwicklungen in der gebauten Umwelt fanden im Ausland statt, darunter Hochgeschwindigkeitszüge.

Unsere wirtschaftliche Wettbewerbsfähigkeit wurde nicht durch eine schnell alternde Bevölkerung, einen Mangel an gut ausgebildeten und gering qualifizierten Arbeitskräften, eine Pandemie und Kriege, die bis vor kurzem undenkbar schienen, behindert. Über Parteigrenzen hinweg sind sich viele einig, dass Strukturreformen in zahlreichen Bereichen unvermeidlich sind.

Die Wahlen im November spiegelten einen Teil dieser Unzufriedenheit wider, aber nur wenige glaubten, dass ganze Teile der Regierung abgebaut werden sollten oder dass massive Desorientierung und weitere Spaltung die angehäuften Probleme lösen würden. In einer Zeit rasanter technologischer Innovationen ist ein Beruf, der per Definition die Zukunft gestaltet, prinzipiell nicht aufgestellt  um Antworten in der Vergangenheit zu suchen.

Spaltung

So gespalten das Land auch ist, es gibt sicherlich Designer und Projektentwickler, die sich über eine starke Hand freuen, die alles wegwischt, was sie belastet, bedroht oder ängstigt. Sie haben sich lange dagegen gewehrt, dass Berufsverbände die gebaute Umwelt weit über ihre ursprüngliche Mission hinaus mit aktivistischen Neigungen in Bezug auf Umwelt oder soziale Inklusion beeinflussen wollten. Die Kritik an „Social Engineering“ war lange Zeit eine konservative Strategie. Viele Kreative sehen den aktuellen Umbruch als Chance für Innovationen und glauben, dass das Zerstören von Dingen Teil des kreativen Prozesses ist.

Umgekehrt nimmt eine beträchtliche Gruppe von Mitläufern, die DEI-Bestimmungen in ihre Richtlinien auf, wenn sie in Mode sind, und verwirft sie genauso schnell wieder, wenn der Trend verblasst. In einigen Fällen könnte man argumentieren: Gott sei Dank. DEI als bloßer Aufkleber ist unproduktiv; der Kampf für tatsächliche Vielfalt und Inklusion ist jedoch unerlässlich, um das Potenzial unserer Bevölkerung zu maximieren, sei es für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit oder für Menschen- und Bürgerrechte. In dieser Angelegenheit ist der Nebel besonders dicht.

Etwas zu bauen kann lange dauern, aber es kann in Sekundenschnelle eingerissen werden. So schwer es auch war, Jahrhunderte der weißen Vorherrschaft zu erkennen oder zu ändern, ein Rückfall kann sich im Handumdrehen ereignen.

Oder doch nicht? Wenn man erst einmal weiß, dass die Erde rund ist, gibt es kein Zurück mehr – zumindest nicht für lange. Manche Dinge sind einfach keine Ansichtssache. Das gilt insbesondere für unsere Berufe. In den Bereichen Gebäude, Transport und Raumplanung ist die Unterscheidung zwischen Fakt und Fiktion nicht trivial. Sie ist sicherlich größer als geschlechtsneutrale Toiletten, Papier oder Plastik oder Glühlampen versus LED. Die gebaute Umwelt, die wir heute schaffen, wird kommende Generationen weit über den vierjährigen Wahlzyklus hinaus begleiten, . Es sollte möglich sein, Einverständnis darüber zu erzielen, was nötig ist, um eine Umwelt zu schaffen, die viele Jahre lang ihren Wert behält. Es sollte auch möglich sein, kostspielige Sackgassen zu beseitigen, ohne das Kind mit dem Bade auszuschütten. Leider ist es genau das, was derzeit in Washington passiert.

Diagramm der globalen Temperaturen 1940-2024

Viele Werte sind in den Bundes-, Landes- und Kommunalvorschriften verankert. Sie ändern sich nicht schnell. Als die Leugnung des Klimawandels und die „Woke“-Politik das letzte Mal im Fadenkreuz der Bundesregierung standen, haben die Kommunal- und Landesregierungen ihre Anstrengungen im Sinne dieser Politik verdoppelt. Dieses Mal jedoch setzt die Regierung einen Hammer ein, der bis auf die lokale Ebene reicht – nämlich die Mittel für alles zu streichen, was nicht in das neue Paradigma passt. Die Schreiben, Erlasse und Kürzungen betreffen Bundesstaaten, lokale Gerichtsbarkeiten und sogar private Projekte, die von Zuschüssen, Subventionen oder irgendeiner Bundesunterstützung abhängig sind. Dieser Ansatz wird wohl kaum zu kreativen neuen Lösungen führen.

Egal was wir denken, eine viele unserer Projekte werden stark betroffen sein, vom Verkehr über den Schulbau bis hin zum Gesundheitswesen und Wohnungsbau. Von „Zuschüssen zur Wiederanbindung von durch Verkehr abgetrennten Statdtteilen“ über Projekte zur „grünen Infrastruktur“, „alternativen Transportmitteln“ bis hin zu Programmen zur Verstärkung von Gebäuden gegen Stürme, Überschwemmungen oder Feuer. Sogar Projekte ohne jegliche öffentliche Finanzierung werden von Zöllen und Handelspolitik beeinflusst. Vieles von dem, was wir tun, hängt vom internationalen Handel ab. Universitäten sind oft auf staatliche Zuschüsse und Forschung angewiesen, die zwangsläufigen Lehrplanänderungen unterliegen könnten. Vieles davon liegt außerhalb unserer Kontrolle, was Machtlosigkeit zu Orientierungslosigkeit hinzufügt. Aber müssen wir das neue Paradigma in den Bereichen übernehmen, die wir beeinflussen können? Schließlich werden wir die Zukunft weiterhin gestalten, solange es Projekte gibt, die umgesetzt werden müssen. Wir bleiben Teil einer treibenden Wirtschaftskraft: Dem Bauwesen. Wir besitzen immer noch unsere kreative Phantasie.

Werden unsere Berufsverbände den Social-Media-Oligarchen folgen und ihre DEI-Richtlinien streichen? Werden sie auf eine „reine“ technokratische Reaktion zurückziehen und versuchen, die Planung und Produktion von Gebäuden, Verkehrssystemen und Flächennutzungsplänen von den eher gefühlsmäßigen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen zu isolieren? Werden wir unser Verständnis von gutem Design ändern?

Atombomben und Eugenik haben uns gelehrt, dass es keine „reine“ Wissenschaft gibt, geschweige denn Reinheit beim Bau der Umwelt. Der Bereich der Wissenschaft und mehr noch der Bereich Design und Konstruktion sind untrennbar mit Politik, Werten und Ethik verbunden. Die Arbeit in den Bereichen Design, Ingenieurwesen, Bau, Entwicklung und Verkehr kann nicht in einem „Elfenbeinturm“ ohne Vorurteile, Meinungen, Emotionen oder Ideologien erfolgen. Diese Erkenntnis hat Jahrzehnte gebraucht, um zu reifen. Hoffentlich kann man sie nicht so leicht wieder verlernen. Diese Erkenntnis geht in beide Richtungen: Politik kann Werte stärken oder zerstören.

Der Nordstern

Wenn die Wegweiser entfernt werden, ist es hilfreich, einen Kompass oder Nordstern als Orientierung zu haben. Für Seefahrer kam die Orientierung vom Himmel; für Fachleute, die in politische Turbulenzen geworfen werden, muss der Nordstern von innen kommen: Orientierung durch Informationen, Wissen,und Ethik.

Ethik, Naturrecht und ein Nordstern

In schwierigen Zeiten hilft es, langfristig zu denken. Westliche Denker suchen oft in der Antike nach Antworten. Architekten zitieren gern Vitruvius und seine „Zehn Bücher über die Architektur“, die normalerweise in nur einem Satz zusammengefasst sind: Ein Gebäude muss nützlich, solide und schön sein. Eine leicht abgewandelte Version, die ebenfalls Vitruvius zugeschrieben wird, führt eine Reihe von Substantiven auf: 

Architektur beruht auf Ordnung, Anordnung, Eurythmie, Symmetrie, Angemessenheit und Sparsamkeit (Vitruvius, *de ​​architectura*).

An Vitruvius’ Erklärungen dieser Begriffe lässt sich sofort erkennen, dass Architektur nie eine rein technische Angelegenheit war und auch nie reine Kunst. Sie ist weder einfach ein datengetriebenes Derivat, das genauso gut von KI erstellt werden könnte, noch ist sie das Produkt isolierter und „absoluter“ Kreativität eines Einzelnen.

Als Orientierungshilfe in Sachen Werte wird oft Aristoteles herangezogen, der sagte, dass alles Handeln ohne Tugend vergeblich sei. Thomas von Aquin entwickelte diese Ethik weiter und ging davon aus, dass der Mensch unabhängig von den gerade herrschenden Mächten ein angeborenes Verständnis grundlegender, unveränderlicher moralischer Prinzipien besitzt. Vor und während des Zweiten Weltkriegs entwickelte Hannah Arendt viele tiefgründige Ideen über die Ursprünge des  Totalitarismus und betonte dabei die entscheidende Verbindung zwischen einer autoritären Figur und den Handlungen des Volkes. Beides kann nicht getrennt betrachtet werden – eine Erkenntnis, die Platon in seinem Dialog Der Staat weiter ausführte  . Mit anderen Worten: Echte Autokratie braucht Menschen, die sie ermöglichen.

Urbane Windkraft: Antwerpen, Belgien (Foto: Philipsen)

Informationen, Vernunft und Wissen sind die Grundlagen der Aufklärung. Die Quantenphysik hat zwar die Hypothese alternativer Universen eingeführt, doch wir  müssen wir uns mit der einen, der praktischen Realität auseinandersetzen. Selbst wenn wir uns darauf einigen können, dass einige Vorschriften vereinfacht und die Bürokratie abgebaut werden muss, wird der Nordstern nicht rueckwaerts in Richtung ungehinderter Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe, Autos mit Verbrennungsmotor, Toiletten mit hohem Wasserverbrauch oder Glühbirnen, weisen, ebenso wie wir keine Röhrenradios oder von Pferdetrambahnen mehr sehen werden. Ein moralischer Nordstern wird uns auch nicht auf Rassenüberlegenheit,  Gier oder Ausgrenzung verweisen.

Wir muessen uns von Fakten leiten lassen, die nicht nur unbestreitbar, sondern für jede langfristige Überlebensstrategie unerlässlich berücksichtigt werden müssen:

• Die Klimaveränderungen sind bereits jetzt so gravierend, dass neue Gebäudeentwürfe erforderlich sind.
• Sogar lokales Bauen wird zunehmend zu einer internationalen Angelegenheit.
• Die globale Migration wird nicht aufhören 
• Die Weltbevölkerung wird noch um 1–2 Milliarden Menschen ansteigen, bevor sie schrumpft.
• Mehr Menschen werden mehr Energie, mehr Mobilität, mehr Wohnungen und mehr Nahrung benötigen.
• Fossile Brennstoffe, der Weltraum und viele andere Rohstoffe sind endlich.
• Die Vielfalt der Flora und Fauna hat bereits ein bedrohliches Ausmaß erreicht.

Keine Ideologie oder Parteizugehörigkeit kann diese Wahrheiten ändern. Die Verantwortung von Fachleuten für die Schaffung einer Umwelt, die Jahrzehnte überdauern soll, erfordert die Anerkennung dieser Realitäten. Fachleute, die in der gebauten Umwelt tätig sind – ob wir nun darüber lehren, sie finanzieren, entwickeln, bauen oder regulieren – müssen weiterhin Informationen sammeln, die Fakten anwenden, Perspektiven entwickeln und unsere Werte als Nordstern verwenden. Auf diese Weise können wir trotz der umgebenden Verwirrung weiterhin einen verantwortungsvollen Kurs für unsere Projekte auf der richtigen Seite der Geschichte einschlagen. Dazu sind Informationen, Mut und Beharrlichkeit erforderlich.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

North Star

 Missing Guardrails and Signposts

There has been a lot of talk about the guardrails that keep government in check and democracy intact. However, there is less discussion about the disorientation of the people after familiar guideposts and milestones disappeared overnight. Professionals are no exception. Their projects are guided through design and construction by rules, codes, and regulations based on science and societal values.

Firm in the center of turmoil: The North Star (Image: NASA)

Developers rely on these frameworks to direct their investments and ultimately see them come to fruition. Uncertainty, confusion, and ambiguity are the enemies of investment, and the current blitzkrieg on the status quo is no exception.

Whether we are architects, developers, engineers, or anyone involved in designing and shaping the built environment, we are accustomed to navigating a maze of laws and regulations, often with the optimistic assumption that, albeit cumbersome, most of these serve noble purposes. It turns out that much of what guides and funds our projects originates at the federal level.

The tectonic shifts in Washington have removed many markers that we professionals use to ensure we are on the right path. If objectives such as sustainability, carbon footprint, diversity, equity, and inclusion—just to name a few—are suddenly declared obsolete, it is as disorienting as disappearing highway signs, malfunctioning GPS, or gas stations along our route being suddenly shuttered.

Values Beyond Regulations

Missing signs: When sustainability becomes
a bad word

Of course, we are not only guided by rules and regulations but also by professional values and our creativity. Our professional organizations cultivate these values. How will they react to the upheaval?

I am a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and Lambda Alpha International (LAI). These and other organizations represent hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, developers, and land-use professionals who attend local, national, and international events, not only to obtain their continued education credits but also to sharpen their ability to place their projects in a larger societal context. Guidance from these organizations isn't as precise as "exit for downtown DC in 1/2 mile"; instead, it functions as a travel guide that provides information for selecting one’s destination in the first place.

Universities, with their academic reach and freedom, are even more important in shaping the values in which future professionals are trained. Will they remain independent enough to act as lighthouses for professionals?

It took our professional organizations half a century or so to mature from places of networking, marketing, and assisting with the nuts and bolts of cost, materials, and feasibility, to becoming broader resources that help us place our work in the context of social responsibility and performance standards that go beyond a classic pro forma.

As part of this slow-moving transformation, design professionals increasingly realized the hidden undercurrents of our society, from which professionals aren't inoculated either. Intentionally or not, our professions have, at times, assisted or enabled exclusion, contributing to and shaping an environment that is often inhumane, unhealthy, unsustainable, and not resilient. This realization has opened our eyes to the need for and utility of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our staffing, our actions, and the manner in which our projects relate to their societal and natural settings.

While teaching architecture and planning, I have observed how syllabi have expanded to address these many externalities of planning, engineering, and architecture.

Sustainability, Diversity, and Inclusion

Since buildings and transportation are the biggest emitters of carbon, how we design our buildings, towns, and cities is critical for the climate in which our children and grandchildren will live. Responsible action requires not only reducing emissions but also developing structures that can withstand increased weather and climate adversities, thus forming a viable environment for decades to come. Sustainability, therefore, cannot be a metric we toss aside. Without considering sustainability, our buildings, HVAC systems, elevators, glazing systems, vehicles, and trains would become internationally less competitive than they already are in many cases.

Floods like the one in Ashville become more frequent requiring
different design approaches (Webpage)

All professional organizations recognize the role of the built environment in global warming, human well-being, and the appropriate relationship between the man-made and nature. Cities have recognized that their most economically vital neighborhoods are those that accept and support artists, minorities, refugees, and the LGBTQ community, and only those diverse communities can attract the talent needed to maintain a well-trained workforce. Entrepreneurs and investors have found that only sustainable products can be sold abroad.

Starting in the 1970s, I practiced for ten years in Germany and England before coming to the U.S. Right away, I noticed how many more women were participating in leading roles in meetings and decision-making, how many colleagues and clients came from different cultures and races, and how this less homogeneous makeup enriched our projects. This culture fostered an environment where differing opinions were welcomed, contrasting with the "I am right, therefore you are wrong" approach I often encountered in German discussions surrounding historic preservation, urban renewal, or transportation. After a century in which homogeneous nation-states battled each other, the U.S. model of diversity has emerged as superior, just as nature has taught us that diversity increases resilience.

Ayn Rand's Howard Roark in the movies: Lone hero

Along with the shift to collaboration, diversity, and participation, architects have come a long way from channeling Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" lone hero imposing personal convictions against societal objections, to recognizing that architecture is more than just aesthetically pleasing buildings designed by a solitary artist. Architects have come to realize that bringing projects to fruition is a team sport, requiring consideration of a much larger context than just a building and its lot. AIA and many other professional organizations have recognized that to design projects comprehensively, they should have a membership that reflects their clientele and the demographics of the country itself.

Similarly, developers have shifted from a project-based short-term focus to a longer-term view that considers operational costs, potential barriers for users, and their environmental footprint. Arriving in Baltimore, I had the good fortune of working for an up-and-coming developer who didn't just "do" a project because he could, but who also had a vision for the larger transformation of this post-industrial legacy city. He was not alone. Enlightened developers and planners can be found across America, from reviving the once desolate downtown of LA to repositioning Portland, Oregon, to revitalizing Detroit. ULI's events and materials reflect this shift, from the roving Advisory Service Panels to the "Urban Land" print publication and the online "Knowledge Finder," where materials regarding "green finance," "fair housing," "resilience," and "transit-oriented development" offer guidance for designers and investors alike.

AIA forum 2023: "Designing for a World in Flux" (Photo: Philipsen)

Transportation engineers have likewise realized that a car-centric monoculture has many unintended consequences and have begun paying attention to modal diversity and the reality that not everyone is a driver, nor is global urbanization feasible without diverse mobility options. Today, the National Transportation Research Board publishes many documents on carbon emissions, public participation, mobility inclusion, and equity.

At universities, architecture, planning, and engineering departments have attracted more women and minorities, utilizing new drafting, modeling, and GIS technologies extensively to analyze the societal contexts of their fictional (or sometimes real) projects, testing designs for climate performance or for equity and access in their communities.

While progress in all these areas has been slow, growing segments of the professional community have become unhappy—not only older white males who lost influence over boards and leadership roles. Environmentalists complain that laws from the 1960s have evolved into a thicket of rules that require extensive professional teams to navigate, resulting in environmental impact statements thicker than old-style big city phone books, without significantly improving projects. Developers lament how local zoning has become so byzantine that they need special zoning lawyers and expediters to navigate the labyrinth, often seeing projects mired in lengthy litigation. Companies hiring recent graduates have expressed concern that their new hires are insufficiently versed in the basics of design. Creatives wonder if DEI initiatives would stifle creativity or replace it with consensus. The so-called “wokeness” began to grate on those weary of being reminded of their real or perceived privilege. In short, three-quarters of a century in relative peace have produced a society perceived as too complex, too bureaucratic, and too slow to respond to shifting needs and circumstances.

Increasing diversity in the profession: Students at
Morgan State University in Baltimore (Photo: Philipsen)

The sluggish pace of development has had real consequences: a nationwide housing crisis, with less and less housing available, and even green projects like wind turbines, power lines, solar farms, and transit getting tangled in environmental restrictions. The most innovative developments in the built environment have occurred abroad, including high-speed rail.

Our economic competitiveness has not been aided by a rapidly aging population, a lack of well-trained and low-skilled workers, a pandemic, and wars that until recently seemed unthinkable. Across party lines, many agree that structural reform in numerous areas is inevitable.

The November elections reflected some of this discontent, but only a few believed that entire sections of the government should be dismantled or that massive disorientation and further division would remedy the accumulated problems. In a time of rapid technological innovation, a profession that, by definition, designs the future is, for the most part, unwilling to seek answers in the past.

Division

As divided as the country is, there are certainly design professionals and developers who rejoice at strong hands slashing everything that burdened, threatened, or frightened them. They have long opposed professional organizations influencing the built environment far beyond their original mission, sometimes with activist leanings related to the environment or social inclusion. Critiquing "social engineering" has long been a conservative strategy. Many creatives view the current upheaval as an opportunity for innovation, believing that breaking things is part of the creative process.

Conversely, a substantial group includes DEI provisions in their policies when fashionable and discards them just as quickly when the trend fades. In some cases, one might argue, good riddance. DEI as a mere sticker is unproductive; however, fighting for actual diversity and inclusion is essential for maximizing the potential of our population, whether for competitiveness or for human and civil rights. In this matter, the fog is especially thick.

AIA CEO Lakisha Ann Wood: ongoing hostilities

Take AIA: After the 2016 election, the longstanding white male executive director wrote a conciliatory note to the new President, signaling the Institute's collaboration. He faced heavy backlash from members but survived. In 2022, he was succeeded by a much younger Black female, who raised eyebrows for her management style and was even accused of mismanagement and corruption. Although cleared of wrongdoing by an independent investigation, she was so damaged by the efforts to discredit her that she resigned even before the re-elected President was sworn in. The ensuing discussion on the online forum of the "College of Fellows," a group representing less than 3% of the approximately 100,000 AIA architects, illuminates the discomfort with the expansion of traditional architectural responsibilities. Those elevated to this illustrious status are almost entirely older white males.

Building something may take a long time, but breaking it can occur in seconds. As hard as it has been to recognize or change centuries of white supremacy culture, sliding backward can happen in the blink of an eye.

Or can it? Once it is known that the earth is round, there is no going back—at least not for long. Some things are simply not a matter of opinion. This is especially true in our professions. In the fields of buildings, transportation, and land planning, the distinction between fact and fiction is not trivial. It is certainly bigger than gender-neutral bathrooms, paper versus plastic, or filament bulbs versus LED. The built environment we create today will affect generations to come, far beyond the four-year election cycle. It should be possible to find agreement on what is needed to create an environment that will provide value for many years. It should also be possible to eliminate costly distractions or misguided dead ends without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in Washington right now.

Chart of global temps 1940-2024

Many values are ingrained in federal, state, and local regulations. They do not change quickly. The last time climate change denial and "woke" policies appeared in the crosshairs of the federal administration, local and state governments doubled down on implementing these policies. This time, however, the administration is using a sledgehammer that reaches down to the local level—particularly effective in cutting off funds for everything that doesn't fit within the new paradigm. The missives, edicts, and cuts affect states, local jurisdictions, and even private projects dependent on grants, subsidies, or any federal support. This approach seems unlikely to yield creative new solutions.

Regardless of our positions, a wide range of our projects will be deeply affected, from transportation to school construction, healthcare, and housing. From "reconnecting communities grants" to "green infrastructure" projects, "alternative transportation" to resilience programs aimed at fortifying buildings against storms, floods, or fire. Even projects with no public funding at all will be influenced by tariffs and trade policies. Much of what we do relies on international trade. Universities often depend on federal grants and research, which could be subject to forced curriculum changes. Much of this is outside our control, adding to the sense of powerlessness amid disorientation. But must we adopt the new paradigm in the areas we can influence? After all, we will still design the future as long as there are projects to execute. We remain part of one of the driving forces of the economy: building and construction. We still possess our creative power.

Will our professional organizations follow social media moguls and strike their DEI policies? Will they resort to a "pure" technocratic response, attempting to isolate the design and production of buildings, transport systems, and land use plans from their "messy" political and societal implications? Will we change our understanding of what constitutes good design?

Atom bombs and eugenics have taught us that there is no "pure" science, let alone purity in building the environment. The realm of science and, even less, design and construction are inseparable from politics, values, and ethics. Practicing design, engineering, construction, development, or even transportation cannot occur in an "ivory tower" free of prejudice, opinion, emotion, or ideology. This insight has taken decades to mature. Hopefully, it cannot be easily unlearned. This insight strikes both ways: politics can enhance or destroy values.

The North Star

When the wayfinders are removed, it helps to have a compass or North Star for guidance. For sea-farers, guidance came from the sky; for professionals tossed into political turmoil, the North Star must come from within: guidance from information, knowledge, and ethics.

Ethics, Natural Law and a North Star

In troubled times, it helps to take the long view. Western thinkers often look to antiquity for answers. Architects tend to quote Vitruvius and his "Ten Books on Architecture," typically summarized in just one sentence: A building must be useful, solid, and beautiful. A slightly different version also attributed to Vitruvius lists a series of nouns: 

Architecture depends on order, arrangement, eurythmy, symmetry, propriety, and economy (Vitruvius, *de architectura*).

In Vitruvius' explanations of these terms, one can immediately see that architecture has never been a strictly technical affair, nor has it ever been pure art. It isn't simply a data-driven derivative that can just as easily be produced by AI, nor is it the product of isolated and "absolute" creativity of an individual.

Aristotle is often referenced for guidance on values, stating that all action is futile without moral virtue. Aquinas further developed this ethic, proposing that humans possess an innate understanding of basic, invariable moral principles independent of the current powers in charge. Before and during WWII, Hannah Arendt developed many insightful ideas about the origins of totalitarianism, emphasizing the vital link between an authoritarian figure and the actions of the people. The two cannot be considered separately—an insight that Plato elaborated on in his dialogue The Republic. In other words, real autocracy requires people to enable it.

Urban wind-power: Antwerp, Belgium (Photo: Philipsen)

Information, reason, and knowledge are the foundations of enlightenment. While quantum physics has introduced the hypothesis of alternative universes, in practical reality, we must account for what we know to be true. Even if we can agree that some regulations need simplification and bureaucracy requires thinning, the North Star will not point backward toward unfettered use of fossil fuels, combustion engine-driven cars, high water usage toilets, or filament light bulbs, just as we won’t see tube radios or horse-drawn public transit again. It will also not point to the ideology that some races are superior to others, or that absolute greed or exclusion are acceptable.

The facts guiding us to this point are not only undeniable but essential for any long-term survival strategy:

• The changes in climate are already severe enough to require new building designs.
• Even the seemingly local built environment is increasingly an international affair.
• Global migration will not cease, and the modern world requires mingling.
• The global population will increase by another 1–2 billion before it shrinks.
• More people will need more energy, more mobility, more homes, and more food.
• Fossil fuels, space, and many other commodities are finite.
• The diversity of flora and fauna has already reached perilous levels.

No ideology or party affiliation can change these truths. The responsibility of professionals for creating an environment designed to last for decades requires acknowledgment of these realities. Professionals active in the built environment—whether we teach about it, finance it, develop it, build it, or regulate it—must continue to gather information, apply the facts, develop perspective, and use our values as a North Star. This way, we can still chart a responsible course for our projects on the right side of history, regardless of the surrounding confusion. It will take information, courage, and persistence.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Entangled in history: Schneewinkel and I

There is my very own personal history of Schneewinkel Lehen, the estate with a full on view of the Gruenstein and the Watzmann, alpine mountains in the Berchtesgadener Land, the County of Berchtesgaden. There was the dirt road winding through the woods, passing by the house of the Brandner's and Dr. Laue whom we called Ruebezahl after a German fairy tale figure.

Then the steel gate which was always open at that time, the curved approach to the main house and the servants house, lower and in a right angle left to the main house. The wooden bridge over the brook. I dammed up the brook occasionally until the meadow flooded. The meadow which Luckei Tauernsteiner mowed with a scythe. Then I helped him to put the hay into a small wagon that we had to pull ourselves. This was a real meadow with wildflowers, bees and all.

Of course, there was grandmother Christa, who I called Apa. That is why I was here in the first place. She lived on the second floor in the apartment on the right, looking from the outside. To the left lived the Bevers. Below the photographer Steger. The Tauernsteiner's servant's house had a dirt floor in the kitchen, the wash was done on a stone sink outside under the roof overhang in front of the kitchen. Luckei had no teeth. He couldn't read or write. In the summer he was a lot on the alm, guarding cows or goats. 

I was only 4, 5 or maybe 9, those were the years I spent summers with the motherly grandmother who she cooked a lot of macaroni with white sauce and ham for me. It was my favorite meal and one of the few she could manage without stress. She didn't grow up cooking, you see. She was a Prussian Noble, she had a cook and a nanny for the children. But then, in WWII her high ranking military husband was pulled out of his retirement and recruited by the Nazis. At the end of the war he was captured and eventually executed for war crimes by a Russian tribunal, while she was a refugee who, after long ordeal, eventually found shelter and a home here in Berchtesgaden. 

 There was a pond and a swamp where I wasn't supposed to go to, according to the rules. There was a secret steel door in the basement that was locked and led to a tunnel, I was told.

The attic had a few rafters with burn marks, the result of a lightning strike which the residents extinguished with a bucket chain, I was told and was impressed. Mr Bever had two dogs, German shepherds, the younger I recall was Gyp, she lived longer, so I would remember. Mr Bever told me how to train a dog and not be afraid. He called me Nebuchadnezzar, I have no clue, why. But I have been trying to rebuild Babylon ever since, first on my train set, then as a student and now in real life.

I know now, and slowly learned then, that Schneewinkel had been Himmler's residence during the war. That wasn't surprising since his boss had even two summer residences near Berchtesgaden. Later when I learned that these figures constituted Germany's original sin. It became clear that Schneewinkel had been a summer residence of the Berliners who lived in Munich. And because they were Jewish, their home was stolen from them and occupied by a Nazi leader since they all loved the Alps. The Berliners had survived the war,  the Bevers were somehow connected and through that connection moved into the estate after it had been returned to the Berliners after the war. And that Apa somehow had known the Bevers from her time when she lived in Kolberg, a city that is now Polish.

But it was only after I unearthed a radio documentary about Schneewinkel that I learned that the estate  had been quite the place in the "roaring twenties", when the Berliners owned it. Sigmund Freud wrote an entire treatise here and the German composer Max Reger had been a guest there, too. I learned that the Bevers were at least half Jews as well, since a Bever had married a Berliner. And that, in spite of my grandfather's involvement with the Nazis they had helped his wife to find a roof over her head after the war. Her husbands transgressions were not minor: He had become the commandant of Belgrade and before that had helped Hitler prepare an invasion of England while in Brussels. Back when I was visiting in Schneewinkel, the grandfather's positions and his fate were not exactly known to us, not even his wife knew about the execution until she received a document from the Red Cross much later. The term my grandmother used was that her husband had been "lost" or "kidnapped" (Verloren oder verschleppt).

I never thought that my post-war generation was unblemished by what a later German chancellor would call "the grace of the late birth." In fact, the German Nazi history has become part of my DNA, hard to shake and influencing much of what i have done and believe. But only now do I see how directly I was entangled with the German/Austrian history, good and bad. My childhood playground in Berchtesgaden was quite the fulcrum.

Klaus Philipsen

There would have to be also, the story of my other grandfather, whom the English pulled from his farm field to make him mayor of his village, since the villagers had vouched for his character and passive resistance against the Nazi regime.

The course of civilization

This article explores in a more philosophical than scientific way if the quest for knowledge drives civilization and what the connection between knowledge science, technology and productivity is and whether those depend on growth population growth. The exploration culminates in the question if knowledge would flatline without growth or if we need to revisit what we call knowledge. 

“The future is open. It is not predetermined and thus cannot be predicted – except by accident. The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say 'It is our duty to remain optimists”, this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty, not to prophesy evil, but, rather, to fight for a better world.”

Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework

What drives civilization? 

 Any attempt of trying to describe the course and drivers of civilization is as audacious as it is treacherous. Too much is depending on cultural heritage and perspective to allow the unbiased view that some extraterrestrial observer might have; it is also an open question if there must be any rhyme or reason at all. 
Historically mankind has created many narratives to explain civilization, purpose and objectives, some teleological (steady progress), some cyclical.  Some focus on fate, some on faith, the divine or on science. No explanation can claim to be the truth since even science is influenced by culture, technology, resources and even threats, whether of competing nations, nature or the universe itself. Each aspect provides a different angle from which to analyze civilization. Any attempt of a 360 degree view becomes terribly unwieldy. It has been tried, though. Will and Ariel Durant completed 11 volumes over 40 years containing thousands of pages before both died in 1981, the oeuvre still incomplete. Probably the last attempt before one day artificial intelligence  may give it another try, possibly with the help of quantum computers

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" (Ariel Durant, volume 3, History of Civilization)

My interest is much simpler. Is there some overarching motif that drives us to get up in the morning to plant vegetables, chop wood or erect some shelter?  Survival seems to be a plausible answer. But humans always excelled beyond that. Are there other reasons why so many are trying so hard to get to work? The extraterrestrial observer would see little purpose in most activities unfolding on our planet and may see us like we see the ants on an ant hill: Chaotic and without a decipherable purpose, but with tangible outcomes, nevertheless. Many of our hectic activities don't even yield money, shelter or food.  Having children, play, reading poetry, romance, singing or playing an instrument? Civilization seems to have bigger drivers than just survival.
 We are so used to the daily cacophony unfolding each morning that we might have given up on trying to make sense of the daily toil. Still, the search for purpose and meaning is as old as mankind. Once in a while, some of us rub our eyes in wonder and puzzlement begging for a bigger explanation, an understanding of the forces that make us all operate as we do? Is it to "find ouselves, God or is it to shape the future? Some took extreme measures, such as Diogenes of Sinope, the ancient philosopher who is said to have lived in a barrel so he could limit his life to contemplation. He defied all the norms and didn't even refrain from insulting Alexander the Great when he asked him coolly to get out of the sun. What would our civilization look like look like from his perspective, or that of the observer in the universe with a view across the millennia, i.e Spinoza's "perspective of the eternal". Is there a force that explains "everything" other than the concept of a timeless god's with a big plan? 

The eternal quest for knowledge?

I will posit the thirst for knowledge and curiosity as one of the engines of civilization. Every small child when it is done eating and sleeping is energetically discovering things. Christian belief gives curiosity and knowledge a high perch for mankind as well. Right there in paradise the serpent is challenging Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

It didn't end well. The expulsion from paradise ripped humans from preordained cycle and sealed humans' fate to fight for knowledge about nature making decisions. Unlike those of our fellow animals our decisions could be be good or evil. We acquire knowledge to make better decisions. In the Quran, the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden is referred to as the "tree of immortality", this, possibly the ultimate quest. Religious belief to this day has a very ambivalent attitude towards knowledge. 

It is no wonder, then that knowledge has been quite stagnant over long periods of history when religion ruled life of what we often call the "dark ages". Not much new was known during the course of generations and knowledge was cloistered, literally, in the libraries of monasteries. Today, knowledge is said to be on an exponential growth trajectory, doubling every year, maybe faster. Whether we agree that mankind is making progress or not, we have to agree that there is more knowledge today than there was yesterday, at least in a strictly quantitative way. The prevailing western explanation puts progress at the feet of science, technology and productivity and explains it with freeing the collective mind from the restrictions of  religion and superstition that happened with enlightenment and the age of reason. The result are a flight to the moon, a vast reduction of diseases, hunger and unprecedented insights into the universe, matter and the workings of nature. 

It is noteworthy, that in spite of these achievements large parts of the world don't celebrate this explosion of knowledge any longer. Even in western societies superstition, conspiracy, and irrationality are gaining ground combined with deep suspicion of technology, science and education alongside cultural misgivings. Was enlightenment only a temporary period? Could knowledge begin to stagnate again? The questioning of technology, science and "progress" comes at a time when the benefits of a global liberal economy have reached some limits and the critique of the relentless growth in resource consumption, production and the resulting pollution and degradation of the natural environment is elevated by the threat of devastating climate change.

 

All this begs the question if science, technology and productivity need growth or whether progress and increased knowledge are possible without growth in population and economic output. It is worth noting tyhat neither the belief in growth nor doubting it are necessarily a matter of "left" and "right" politics. Interestingly Marxism and capitalism share the belief in growth and both systems are guilty of ransacking nature. Marxists call it growing "production forces" and market economists call it Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

Did we experience economic growth because there are ever more people on this planet to conduct science, and develop technology, resulting in productivity to thrive? Or are there more people because growth in productivity allowed to sustain a larger population? It may not be a clear cause and effect question, the two factors could also reinforce each other in a dialectic and initially mutually beneficial way. 

What if this linkage comes to an end either because population stops to grow (Some demographers predict that global population growth will come to an end in a few decades) or because the resources in vital commodities are exhausted and material growth will slow or stop? What if the attempts of managing climate change stifle this quantitative growth that has been the "golden calf" of economists for at least 150 years or so?

Many countries with very high productivity have already reached a point in which population stopped growing or even began to shrink. 

The United Nations Population Division projects that numbers will swell to more than 11 billion by the end of this century, almost 4 billion more than are alive today. Where will they live? How will we feed them? How many more of us can our fragile planet withstand?
But a growing body of opinion believes the UN is wrong. We will not reach 11 billion by 2100. Instead, the human population will top out at somewhere between 8 and 9 billion around the middle of the century, and then begin to decline. The Guardian: What goes up: are predictions of a population crisis wrong?

Is knowledge tied to growth?

 If growth, science, technology and productivity are not only inseparably linked with each other but also to growth, a decline in growth could ultimately mean that knowledge would stagnate or decline. This would be a rather alarming prospect even for those who critique growth, natural degradation and resource depletion.  

To untangle this ball of questions we want to first see if the traditional GDP can grow with a stagnant or sinking population and then investigate if growth could be defined in a more qualitative way than GDP is currently measured. 

Is GDP growth dependent on population growth?

In spite of economists' frequent assertion that a growing GDP) needs a growing population we can see nations with shrinking or stagnating populations  such as Japan and some countries in Europe managed to keep GDP stable or slightly growing and their economy vital.  Historically population growth occasionally resulted in collapsing eco systems that in turn sank entire civilizations, as it is said about the Mayans. If knowledge thrived under the Greek and Roman empires and was followed by counter revolutions, famine repression and stagnation during the "Middle Ages" it has little to do with population size. Today, analyzing GDP, we see that countries experiencing rapidly growing populations can have simultaneously a shrinking GDP, including Pakistan and several nations in sub-Saharan Africa like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Angola where high birth rates contribute to population surges and economic instability. The matter remains in dispute though.  Some scholars maintain that inverse correlation between population growth and a thriving economy exist only locally and for relatively short periods of time.  In Spinoza's global view over eternity, though, the positive correlation between population growth and GDP appears to hold. At least that is what Angus Maddison maintained when he compiled data for population and GDP for all countries in the world from year 1 to 2008 CE and graphed the resulting GDP per capita over time.

A closer look at the Maddison data, however, reveals that over a long period in history neither population nor "GDP" grew very much and essentially flatlined until they shot up in the industrial revolution (the curve known as the hockey-stick). Fluctuations in GDP per capita in the flat period are explained by what economists call the Malthusian trap.  In a zero sum economy in which static metrics such as the amount of fertile soil in a geographic area ("country") or a benign climate control production. When the population drops thanks to calamity, such as the plague, the result is almost automatically a higher per capita income. When and if the riches are not the result of a larger number of people working, a smaller number of people with whom to share the bounty leads to increased wealth. This type of economy pretty much describes the entire flatlining period of history. Only in the Renaissance the GDP took off so that GDP could grow even when the population grew. (Our world in data).

Academicians remain cautious, as Peterson notes in an article that provides an overview of research on productivity and population growth:

The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial. [...] The relationship between population growth and growth of economic output has been studied extensively (Heady & Hodge, 2009). Many analysts believe that economic growth in high-income countries is likely to be relatively slow in coming years in part because population growth in these countries is predicted to slow considerably (Baker, Delong, & Krugman, 2005). Others argue that population growth has been and will continue to be problematic as more people inevitably use more of the finite resources available on earth, thereby reducing long-term potential growth (Linden, 2017). Population growth affects many phenomena such as the age structure of a country’s population, international migration, economic inequality, and the size of a country’s work force. These factors both affect and are affected by overall economic growth. [...] 

In spite of extensive literature on these relationships there is little consensus on the actual effects of population on economic growth.  

Some authors offer theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to show that robust population growth enhances economic growth while others find evidence to support the opposite conclusion. Still others find that the effects vary with the level of a country’s development, the source or nature of the population growth, or other factors that lead to nonuniform impacts. "The Role of Population in Economic Growth E. Wesley F. Peterson"

This somewhat inconclusive picture regarding GDP and population begs a closer look at GDP which we used as a proxy for growth in science, productivity and ultimately knowledge. GDP was only introduced in the 1920s, in part because GDP pretends to be "value free" and can't distinguish between "bad" growth from calamity and "good" growth. GDP can't make the critical distinction between good and evil that was so central in the story of the tree of knowledge. The definition of GDP flattens discontinuities, social strife, war, economic collapse and break throughs in productivity. It is a system in which any production accrues as a plus. 

If we replaced GDP with more qualitative metrics, such as green growth or quality of lige growth, couldn't we not only solve the environmental crisis but also guarantee that knowledge would remain on an upward trajectory?

We see, under the hood the population/GDP/knowledge machine it is much more complicated than one would first think. There are long periods when per capita GDP did not increase because population growth and whatever small increases in knowledge, technology and productivity cancelled each each other out, a far different story than the argument that population growth fuels productivity.

Do we need new definitions?

The confusion about the role of population growth in relation to productivity and science and the issue of GDP's growth in relation to knowledge and progress points to the need for better definitions not only for GDP but also for knowledge.

There are plenty of ideas on how the coarse metric of GDP could be refined to better distinguish between good and bad growth. Redefining knowledge is another matter. Between gaining knowledge by sitting in a barrel (Diogenes) or trough thought experiments (Einstein) and the smashing of protons in the large Hadron collider or flying to Venus, gaining knowledge about the essence of matter, the universe, ourselves and the meaning of life take many forms, some using lots of "stuff", some entirely immaterial. The cultural critics would probably say that the prevailing culture has erred too far into building huge gizmos to gain knowledge at the cost of better self awareness and ultimately happiness. 

This would also be a good place to introduce AI. If quantum computers and generative AI could think better and faster than the human brain, the material side of research and science could potentially diminish, even if these devices themselves use huge amounts of energy. Possibly discovery on the very large scale could be linked directly to discovery on the very small, the dream of a unified field theory would become true and gigantic rockets like Space X would become obsolete vehicles of discovery. 

"Better" knowledge vis a vis of just "more" knowledge could potentially resolve the conundrum that technology often has such diminishing benefits especially when it comes to productivity, defined as time spent over output. We usually see less time spent to make something as a benefit in the sense of having more "free" time for other things. However, huge parts of those efficiencies are used up to maintain the complex systems with which we surround ourselves from health care to education, to mobility to name just a few. Yes, in the post Malthusian economy GDP per capita grew exponentially, but benefits may still be elusive if we look at qualitative measures, such as "free time" or fulfilment. For every invention that makes things faster or easier we do just more of it more often until the time advantage disappears, whether it is cooking, washing laundry, traveling, growing food or building stuff. Quicker shopping on Amazon? Let's shop more! Efficiency of e-mail? Multiply the communication events! Easier to keep up with friends: Multiply the number of "relationships". Efficiency from a washing machine? Wash garments daily instead of weekly or monthly. This list could be expanded indefinitely.

“The ‘tempo of life’ has increased, and with it stress, hecticness, and lack of time … In almost every sphere of social life there are enormous gains in time by means of technology, [but] we don’t have any time.” Hartmut Rosa  Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity, 

Is that outcome just the result of bad habits or is it a "natural law" that whatever benefits get neutralized? Is it the fate of civilization that "the ants" keep toiling? Surely does it require incredibly complicated and time consuming processes to keep the 8 billion or so people on earth fed, accommodated and connected. In other words, the current complexity is not easily disposable in exchange for the promise of simpler life. But if human ingenuity combined with AI would finally find a way to consistently need less effort to satisfy the basic needs without eating the benefits immediately up through waste, complexity and foolishness would we then finally be in a position to really focus on gaining knowledge instead of stuff? In this scenario people would need to work ever less to sustain themselves. We would, indeed, look at a society beyond work, one in which people don't derive their sense of self from the value of things they make and buy. Automation, robots and artificial intelligence have already triggered such a scenario. That scenario foresees a wealth of resources with little effort to maintain the system. Current day highly developed shrinking nations are a petri dish in which to explore these options. 

A world in which efficiency gains are used to reduce waste, destruction, depletion and increase quality of life for the entire eco-system is a tall order to achieve but it also a great promise that overcomes the simplistic choice between growth and stagnation. Nature teaches us some processes are glacially slow, some are accelerating, possibly exponentially. In nature most processes are not endless, except maybe the expansion of the universe. Nature knows tipping points, phase transitions and other sudden events in which a linear process reverses, ends or transforms. Even in the universe, instead of steady endlessness, there was the big bang, there was "inflation", there continues to be the collapse of entire galaxies, black holes that swallow everything in their reach and a possible ongoing creation of subsystems (The Multiverse).

If we see current disruptions through this lens the entire course of civilization may look less futile and more hopeful.

What decoupling knowledge form growth would mean

Decoupling  growth from knowledge could  be a spectacular reassembly of a the mechanism which has fueled civilization for a long time, if not forever. 

xxx

Two Scenarios:

So we see two options: Population as well as knowledge and productivity would stagnate or decline simultaneously over a long period (longer than the dips mankind has seen before), the trajectory of civilization of the last few thousand years would come to an end. The nexus between population and KTP would be confirmed.  When knowledge, technology and production would shrink proportionally to each other the occidental history and its teleological philosophy would come to an end in a dramatic way. It would be an affirmation of the cyclical concept of the world which is found in eastern philosophy, even though physics and astronomy insist on an "arrow of time"  that knows some type of beginning and many irreversible processes, even though quantum mechanics suggests that it is theoretically possible that the milk could be unmixed from the coffee, even if this is highly unlikely.

The other option is an enduring reversal of population growth in which population decline would not automatically mean a shrinkage of knowledge and technology, even it may mean shrinkage of production. What if good education, a high quality of life and plenty of leisure time would allow knowledge, technology, and productivity to continue to expand?  Aren't there plenty of studies that show that at least creativity and inventiveness require leisure and opportunities of unplanned accidental cross-overs and contacts?

Knowledge growth without growing population

In this scenario, the question would arise what to do with the surplus capacities and with the people who would no longer be needed to cover the basic needs; Where productivity and output clearly exceed what would be needed to sustain the shrinking population and the associated systems the nexus to growth could be smashed. To imagine this scenario, it is helpful to remember that history has many examples in which people did not derive their sense of self from work on sustenance. 

People could ramps up their needs with wants they currently suppress. To imagine this scenario, it is helpful to remember that history has many examples in which people did not derive their sense of self from work on sustenance.  In ancient Greece or Rome the upper class had the luxury of a life of leisure and contemplation thanks to slaves and servants. With robots, automation and AI this model may be less repulsive if the gains of knowledge and productivity benefits  would spread across all segments of the global population so that life for everyone would be defined by pursuit of choice activities rather than activities of necessity..  

One possible outcome could be that more effort goes into areas that do not increase productivity or production, in other words, outcomes would be qualitative in nature. Art and to some extent entertainment, travel, education and other currently seen as "unproductive" activities could belong into such a category.

For all this to be unpacked one has to carefully separate the ethical and moral questions from those that would try to describe the laws under which population growth and shrinkage operate and in which way they could be unlinked from knowledge growth. 

In all, a revolution could be on the horizon, one that shifts quantitative linkages into qualitative ones. A revolution which would finally relieve "man" from the toil of survival and allow the pursuit of happiness and knowledge instead. Even if dystopia from the tipping of natural systems may appear more likely, a Herculean effort of averting collapse and achieve a reconciliation of paradise and knowledge instead is certainly worthwhile. 'It is our duty to remain optimists” as Carl Popper says.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

This is a completely revised version of an earlier article with the same title