The term circular economy usually refers to an economy which is able to recycle and reintegrate all of its industrial flows, wasting nothing and accounting for environmental costs in the process.
Another, related term, is industrial ecology.
And while industrial ecology is a factor of sustainable and productive societies, the broadest scope of the circular economy should be not just sustainability across industrial cycle, or even an ecology of integrated industrial and biological production, but an integrated design which accounts for human and social factors.
Visualize three concentric circles. The outermost one is technology, the innermost is human development, and in between lies social equality.
Integrating these circles fully is the real meaning of a circular economy, and the ultimate purpose of technological design, as well as human development. A story that begins simultaneously at both ends of the spectrum, and meets in the middle, generating real equality.
Ever since we first started building tools, human development and technological growth have gone hand in hand, but not always in the most balanced manner.
Integrated design would be design that fully accounts for usability factors across the human and social spectrum, building their interplay with the technological interface itself in a sustainable and augmentative manner.
Industrial ecologies are not just technological, but mental ecologies, ecologies of the human mind developing itself and designing its links back to its own environment.
Smart cities, smart homes, blockchain systems of direct democracy and decentralized cooperation, these are the beginning of the technological layer integrating itself with social equality and human interfaces.
The myriad apps that measure performance and seek to empower lifestyles, the data layer that AI will soon be able to assist us in figuring out, and the open knowledge and open education and open connectivity revolutions are the nervous system of human development starting to come alive.
But the whole thing is still struggling.
Social equality teeters on the brink: while in some places it rides an increasing wave of quality of life, in others it is threatened by extractive capitalism and perpetually faster cycles of technological innovation that are not yet integrated with sustainable industrial ecologies. Or not at all.
Systems of social balance, harm prevention, and increase of the beneficial aesthetics of social life, culture and the commons, all these factor very little into the culture of technology, but they are its second application layer, so to say.
Technology is two faced. On one hand, design for social addiction and self-development apps that have little resemblance with human development, and perpetuate a culture of atomized, fragile, unaware beings.
On the other hand, the promises of blockchain, open source culture, peer to peer commons, and everything else that is good and has been developing for the past three decades.
The real risk lies in integrating the technological layer with only the most superficial aspects of human development.
Smart homes and personal assistants that are good at empowering to-do lists and consumerism.
Smart cities that allow for mixed realities and augmented consumption, but do not integrate direct democracy, intelligent knowledge platforms and complex forms of cooperation and social enjoyment.
Open education that may become more and more geared towards micro-courses that answer the latest needs of the corporate ecosystem, but do little to cultivate the real depth of human culture and potential.
These are possibilities. There are many signals that we are headed in a good direction instead. And many negative signals as well.
But the tech layer, not integrated with industrial ecologies, not backed by sustainable food systems, not supported by sustainable energy, is like an artificial nervous system hanging in the air, beautiful and complex, but fragile and unpredictable.
This is where the integrated design part of a real circular economy would kick in. Integrated design tries to account for these things and intelligently generate pathways that amplify the positive signals and reduce friction and danger over time. It would seek to leverage technology using positive relationships with social systems and culture, integrating the two to increase economic well-being and decrease system shocks to both the social and technological layer.
Well-being is a factor of inter-human development. At its core, it refers to the willingness of humans to invest in other humans, and in developing human pathways that increase the common good. Things that amplify positive signals across the human spectrum, and therefore can spread quickly through a population and increase mutual benefit. A human technology of what is inter-beneficial, and also yields maximum results when applied to any one individual.
Human development reverberates across social systems. The more social equality, the more temporally stable the development, and the more increases in cultural innovation and richness.
Out technological layer probably mimics our internal development, and its patterns of spread and social application mirror our stability and equality.
An intelligent design language of technological integration throughout human and environmental dimensions is an utopian proposition. We have the design language we have cultivated, its associated problems, and momentum in a certain direction.
And at the same time we are fascinated by the proposition of a frictionless, decentralized future where technology is an equal interface for human minds and social systems.
And we’re more and more invested in it, financially and in research, which go hand in hand in our current design language.
Like a nervous system hanging in the air, artificial and complex, beautiful and fragile.