Visionaries of Regenerative Design III: R. Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983)

Daniel Christian Wahl

Follow

Age of Awareness

--

Affectionately and respectfully referred to by many as “Bucky”, he was one of the most influential design polymaths of the 20th century. Fuller has been described as an inventor, architect, engineer, mathematician, poet, cosmologist, visionary humanist, inspirational orator and the 20th-century Leonardo da Vinci (Baldwin, 1996; Kibert, 2005).

[This is an excerpt from my 2006 PhD Thesis in ‘Design for Human and Planetary Health: A Holistic/Integral Approach to Complexity and Sustainability’. This research and 10 years of experience as an educator, consultant, activist, and expert in whole systems design and transformative innovation have led me to publish Designing Regenerative Cultures in May 2016. I am sharing this series of excerpt on Visionaries of Regenerative Design, as the field is gaining in practitioners and ‘co-creating the future without knowledge of your history and lineage is like planting cut flowers.’]

Buckminster Fuller’s work contributed significantly to the emergence of the natural design movement. In particular through the role he took in inspiring many young ecological designers during the nineteen sixties and seventies. His engineer’s perspective predisposed Fuller to mechanistic, technological metaphors, yet a deep understanding of complexity informed his holistic, ecologically conscious approach to design.

“His list of accomplishments is long, among them the design of the aluminium Dymaxion car in 1933; the design of the autonomous Dymaxion House in the 1920s, one of which was built in Wichita, Kansas in 1946; and of course the geodesic dome in the 1950s.” Kibert has argued the Fuller was “at heart, an ecologist. His designs emphasized resource conservation: the use of renewable energy in the form of sun and wind; the use of lightweight ephemeral materials such as bamboo, paper, and wood; and the concept of design for deconstruction” (Kibert, 2005, p.111). In his “bold blueprint for survival that diagnoses the causes of the environmental crisis”, entitled Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, first published in 1969, Fuller wrote:

“The fossil fuel deposits of our Spaceship Earth correspond to our automobile’s storage battery which must be conserved to turn over our main engine’s self-starter. Thereafter, our ‘main engine,’ the life generating processes, must operate exclusively on our vast daily energy income from the powers of wind, tide, water, and the direct Sun radiation energy. The fossil-fuel savings account has been put aboard Spaceship Earth for the exclusive function of getting the new machinery built with which to support life and humanity at ever more effective standards of vital physical energy and reinspiring metaphysical sustenance to be sustained exclusively on our Sun’s radiation and Moon’s pull … We cannot afford to expend our fossil fuels faster than we are ‘recharging our battery,’ which means precisely the rate at which the fossil fuels are being continually deposited within Earth’s spherical crust. We have discovered that it is highly feasible for all human passengers aboard Spaceship Earth to enjoy the whole ship without any individual interfering with another and without any individual being advanced at the expense of another, providing that we are not so foolish as to burn up our ship and its operating equipment by powering our prime operations exclusively on atomic reactor generated energy. The too- shortsighted and debilitating exploitation of fossil fuel and atomic energy are similar to running our automobiles onl on the self-starters and batteries…”(Fuller, 1969, 111–112)

The language Fuller used to communicate his ideas and concepts more precisely, takes a certain effort to penetrate and get used to. He said himself: “I made up my mind as a Rule of Communication that I wouldn’t care if I was not understood — so long as I was not misunderstood” (in Baldwin, 1996, p.10).

While the multi-perspective worldview formulated by the diverse contributors to the ecological or natural design movement transcends certain aspects of Fuller’s language and approach (the one’s in which he was a child of his own time), other aspects of Fuller’s work remain deeply instructive and deserve our continued attention.

One of Fuller’s devotees, and a long-time student and collaborator of his, J. Baldwin, more recently trie d to draw attention to the unexplored potential that still lies in the work of this extraordinary visionary of design, in a book entitled Bucky Works — Buckminster Fuller’s Ideas for Today. Baldwin describes Fuller’s concept of ephemeralization in these words:

“Design is at its best the closer it approaches the purely metaphysical… Ephemeralization is not something you add to a design, it occurs naturally as the result of applied natural principles. It’s more of an attitude than a strategy” (Baldwin, 1996, p.15)

Baldwin’s delightful book explores most of Fuller’s fundamental design concepts devised from natural principles. It is richly illustrated with Bucky’s own sketches of 4D ephemeral tower- block buildings with integrated wind-generators and zeppelin air-ships cruising above. In many ways Fuller’s work opened a window onto a future that many of our contemporaries are still unable to glimpse. Fuller was a true visionary. He was probably the first to call for a “design science revolution” as the necessary means to move humanity out of the dead end street it still is heading down. Baldwin explains his mentor’s vision:

“Comprehensive anticipatory design science demands maximum overall efficiency with the least cost to society and ecology. Being comprehensive is a direction (Bucky called it ‘comprehensive prospecting’) that implies extensive, omnidisciplinary research, a task recently made easier by the Internet. The goal is to optimise, rather than to compromise. … A well-designed product represents thousands of years of refined human experience. Nature is not to be conquered or opposed, but she is to be regarded as a model of applied principles: Nature always does things in the most efficient and economic way. We need to learn how nature makes design decisions. …To be in tune with Universe, our designs should be regenerative. The current, overworked word ‘sustainable’ comes close” (Baldwin, 1996, p.63)

Among the most far-reaching achievements of R. Buckminster Fuller is his development of the theory of Synergetics, which he published in two volumes with a combined 1300 pages! The term itself is an amalgamation of the words ‘synergy’ and ‘energetic’. While synergy is referring to the “performance of the whole unpredicted by an examination of the parts or any subassembly of the parts,” the word “energetic refers to energetic geometry.” Fuller recognizes that the entire universe is interrelated and in constant motion or transformation. Therefore describing the world within the three dimensional confines of the Cartesian grid system of x, y, and z axis, omitted at least one dimension: time. Fuller explained: “In fact, experiment shows that we see and comprehend very little of the totality of motion. Therefore society tends to think statically and is always being surprised, often uncomfortably, sometimes fatally.” He emphasized that “lacking dynamic apprehension it is difficult for humanity to get out of its static fixations and specifically to see the great trends evolving” (in Baldwin, 1996, p.69). In Critical Path, Fuller writes:

“Fortunately the mathematical coordinate system that has been and as yet is employed by science is not the coordinate system employed by the physical Universe. Nature is always most economical. Science’s coordinate system is not most economical and is therefore difficult. Nature never has to stop to calculate before behaving in the most economic manner. Scientists do. Also, fortunately, we have discovered nature’s coordinate system, which is elegantly simple and popularly comprehensible. (See Synergetics, vols. 1 and 2 — Maclillan, 1975, 1979)” (Fuller, 1981, pp.xxvii).

Rather than being based on the 90 degree coordinates of the Cartesian grid, synergetics works with 60 degree coordinates. J. Baldwin explains: “no insubstantial points, straight lines, or infinite planes are employed. Synergetic mathematics is based on experience rather than physically impossible axioms.” Synergetics presupposes that “everything physical must have a shape and structure,” which according to Fuller follow certain laws. “Synergetics describes and models those laws. Like angles, they are unchanged by scale. In physics, synergetics explains the apparent paradox of electromagnetic phenomena being both wave and particle. In design, synergetics reduces or eliminates compromise” (Baldwin, 1996, p.69). A full exploration of synergetics certainly goes beyond the scope of this thesis. The intention here is to highlight its potential significance in the challenge of re-thinking and re-designing the human presence in the world. Synergetics may yet prove to become an important tool for the emerging natural design movement.

One example of applied synergetics is Fuller’s famous geodesic dome. Baldwin points out: “nature often employs geodesic structure for maximum strength and protection.” Fuller understood his geodesic domes as “irrefutable pedagogical demonstrations of the correctness of his synergetic-energetic geometry.” He understood time “as the shortest distance between two points,” and demonstrated that “synergetics can physically model relationships with four or more dimensions, making the visible comprehensible for the first time” (Baldwin, 1996, p.69). For a more in depth, but nevertheless easily understandable introduction into Buckminster Fuller’s synergetics, I will have to refer the reader to J. Baldwin’s book. It describes and explains what Fuller referred to in Critical Path as “nature’s fundamental structuring principles of discontinuous-compression-and-continuous-tension as employed in all geodesics and synergetics” (Fuller, 1981, pp.189–190).

“Teaching and learning are what we are here to do. Bucky said that biology balanced entropy. Humans were the most powerful (known) antientropic forces of all, because we accumulate and purvey knowledge, adding local order to Universe in the same way that a plant synthesises air, sunlight, and soil nutrients into botanical life. Bucky’s definition of Universe did not permit the discouraging concept of an overall entropic ‘winding down’ into total disorderliness. There is always a building-up of orderliness someplace else in nonsimulatneous Universe. Because anti-entropy is a double negative, Bucky called it ‘syntropy’. Our purpose and duty as humans is to be syntropic” (Baldwin, 1996, pp.226–227).

J. Baldwin explains that Fuller “considered now to be the Dark Ages compared to what we could accomplish.” He suggests that Fuller “worked 50 years ahead to give us some of the tools we would need to ‘graduate’ into being a wholly successful species.” Fuller believed that “nature is trying to make us a success, that nature is readying us for an important function.” In his old age Fuller tried to educate a critical mass of people to recognize and take advantage of humanity’s potential for synergy.” He was in hopeful expectation of a necessary and immanent design science revolution (Baldwin, 1996, p.227).

Fuller wrote shortly before his death: “Human integrity is the uncompromising courage of self determining whether or not to take initiatives, support or cooperate with others in accord with ‘all the truth and nothing but the truth’ as it is conceived by the divine mind always available in each individual.” He predicted: “Whether humanity is to continue and comprehensively prosper on Spaceship Earth depends entirely on the integrity of the human individuals and not on the political or economic systems. The cosmic question has been asked — Are humans a worthwhile to Universe invention?” (in Baldwin, 1996, p.228).

The following paragraph may help to illustrate the above comment about the way Fuller used language and communicated. The paragraph is worth re-reading, as it expresses in his words what I refer to, throughout this thesis, as appropriate participation in natural process, the essence of sustainable, salutogenic, scale-linking and natural design. Appropriate participation in natural process and salutogenesis as guiding principles for design is what Fuller called acting “in support of integrity of eternally regenerative Universe” (see below).

“…humans have always unknowingly affected all Universe by every act and thought they articulate or even consider. Fortunately the unrealistic thinking of humans has had little effect on Universe and evolution whereas realistic thinking has cosmic effectiveness in pure principle. Realistic, comprehensively responsible, omnisystem-considerate, unselfish thinking on the part of humans does absolutely affect human destiny. If the realistic thinking can conceive of technically feasible options facilitating satisfactorily effective human fulfilment of its designed functioning as local Universe information inventorying and local Universe problem-solving in support of the integrity of eternally regenerative Universe, then the accomplishment of that realistic conceptioning is realistically effective in satisfying Universe that human mind is accomplishing its designed evolutionary role” (Fuller, 1981, p.47)

In Fuller’s understanding of the Universe, “there are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle, and principles are eternal.” His understanding or what constitutes a principle was very different from the narrow definition of modern science. Fuller believed that “principles can never contradict principles,” rather they can inter-accommodate one another.” He argued: “Everything the brain deals with relates to high-frequency thingness. Mind, and mind alone, deals with understanding the interrelationships existing only between and not in any one principle, considered only by itself.” Fuller emphasized: “Principles themselves are often subsets of interrelationships existing only between principles” (Fuller, 1981, pp.158–159). Trans-disciplinary design dialogue could become a process to become conscious of these interrelationships.

What Fuller expressed as the need for considering the ‘omnisystem’ or as an ‘omnidisciplinary’ approach, is what this thesis calles for in its repeated emphasis of the need for trans -disciplinary integration and synthesis. Once human designs are salutogenic, contributing to both human and the planetary health, once they are synergistically linked into cooperative networks at every and across every scale; and once they follow nature’s design principles, humanity will begin to fulfil the full potential of its syntropic role in the universe — the universe becoming fully conscious of itself through humanity’s conscious participation. This is the essence of sustainability — the arrow of evolution arriving in the eternal now of conscious and appropriate participation, responsible co-creation, and creatively adaptive design.

[To continue reading other parts of this doctoral thesis, take a look at the chapter on ‘The Natural Design Movement’, from ‘Design for Human and Planetary Health’ by Daniel Christian Wahl 2006. … For my more recent writing see Designing Regenerative Cultures, 2016]