Inspired by that book from the 1860s, I was reminded of my own youth in the 1960s and of the bike I used to ride to the secondary school (HBS), which had been established 100 years earlier. Back then, I thought that bicycles must have always existed. I couldn’t imagine it being a recent invention, so I was utterly surprised to discover it had been conceived only recently. It seemed like such a timeless thing, so simple. But it only truly gained traction around the turn of the century when the chain drive was invented, after earlier, impractical forms had been tried for 40 years. My grandfather, so to speak, came from a time before the bike even existed. Strange, isn’t it, that the bike wasn’t developed earlier? Leonardo da Vinci—or perhaps one of his students—had already sketched something vaguely resembling a bicycle (though that’s highly debated). And yet, for all those hundreds, no, thousands of years that the wheel existed, no one thought to create something like a bicycle.
But for me in the 1960s, the breakthrough had only happened about 60 years earlier!
I had a similar experience recently with a student I was mentoring. I was telling “When natural gas came around in the early 1960s…” and was about to talk about the transition to gas heating, but I was interrupted halfway. “That late?” the student asked, surprised. Indeed, that late. For her, it was a surprise: I, as her mentor, came from a time before gas heating! Back then, we still had a coal stove at home, and it only heated one room. The student reacted in amazement, saying, “I thought gas and central heating had been around much longer.”
But no, it only became common in the 1960s, in the 20th century, mind you! In just sixty years, we’ve completely transformed things: for instance, heating the entire house for 24 hours a day, which has accelerated the climate crisis—warming the world, so to speak, and we squandered the financial gas profits. Now, I have to teach students how to live without gas again—or coal or oil, for that matter. Electricity, yes, but that must also come from somewhere…
“Huh, heating, is that even possible without gas, coal, or oil?” students ask. Certainly, but it’s quite a challenge to get them to imagine that world. They, too, are trapped by the level of prosperity and amenities they grew up with, which seem eternal to them. For them, that’s the baseline they aim to make sustainable! Just as I once assumed the bicycle had always existed. And just as I found the level of prosperity in the 1960s acceptable—after all, that’s what I grew up with, and there was nothing wrong with it.
But the current level? No, that’s not going to work. There’s no such thing as free energy, not even renewable energy from the sun and wind. Producing it requires enormous amounts of metal and energy-intensive, polluting processes. So, as I try to teach students, the first step is to minimize energy use—ideally, none at all for heating. [1] Yes, that’s possible, but many companies won’t like thatt, so it’s unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. It’s not even allowed by law. But if we don’t teach students how it can be done, how will it ever gain traction?
In fact, it should be forbidden to let students design buildings that rely solely on fossil fuels for construction or operation. We already struggle to make existing buildings energy-efficient, let alone build new ones that will also become problematic! And they’re already problematic now because they’re made with fossil-fuel-intensive processes.
There’s also a prevailing notion that when something is replaced, it must be “better.” Usually, this means “better for us.” But what does “better for us” even mean? Is it truly better for us as individuals? Or for us as a species, to ensure our survival? Typically, it’s sold as the former, more comfortable, and we buy into it. But you can question that: the perceived comfort often increases, but so do health issues—like lack of exercise, obesity, or air quality problems.
More importantly, it’s rarely better for us as a species—or for the other species around us. We’ve never defined “better” in the broader context of Earth’s physical systems. It’s always “better for us.” And that’s now working against us, as we see with climate change and biodiversity loss (among other problems). But we often don’t recognize this because every generation grows up with a sense of entitlement to the conveniences around them, seeing them as the norm. At most, they aim to address the drawbacks while preserving those conveniences. That’s understandable, but it’s not enough. Another world is possible—and necessary—but it’s not on their radar.
For instance, that student could hardly imagine that homes used to have only one heated room, and only in the evenings. But that really was, and is, the better solution. Similarly, I couldn’t imagine a world without cars or bicycles back then. It takes time to understand such things—and only if you’re interested. Then you realize: wait, things were different not so long ago, and they can be different again. The next step is realizing that they must be different. Not necessarily identical to the past, but inspired by it.
And that’s the crux: much of what we’ve developed in recent decades has become a problem. We need to step away from it or do it differently because it’s only been possible thanks to enormous amounts of fossil fuels and the massive use of materials they caused.
If we’re serious about sustainability in the sense of long-term viability and avoiding major problems, we must take a few steps back. History offers plenty of examples where things were “better”—not necessarily for the individual but for society and our species as a whole.
It seems, though, that the pressure needs to increase before newer generations realize that the past was different and that many practices from the past could be revived—albeit with modern knowledge. For example, you can still live comfortably with one heated room, and that room doesn’t even need a heater if designed well (and if you’re willing to endure a few colder days occasionally). That saves an incredible amount of energy and materials.
Another typical example I come across is the edging of flat roofs. Nowadays, it’s standard to use energy-intensive aluminum profiles. Could it be done differently? Absolutely—simply with a wooden molding. Huh…?
How to instill this awareness in society, among people raised with today’s expectations, is tricky, and I don’t know the answer—it’s not my field. But at least I’m aware of it, and I can sketch a ‘pre-gas’ world for my students, one without abundant energy (partly even from my own experience) and guide them toward solutions inspired by the past—like the 1960s, before gas and excess consumption. In student projects, I can at least require it, as practice for the future!
