‘No company, regardless of what they make, can now just make a product, bung it out there, and then forget about it,’ she said. ‘We all have a duty of care to ensure that from cradle to grave products are being used
appropriately and do not do lasting harm.’
‘She’ in this case is Deborah Allen, director of corporate responsibility for British Aerospace (BAE), one of the world’s biggest arms-makers, which says it has been making major investment in ‘ecologically-sound weaponry’ — investments in creating products that reduce the collateral damage of warfare.
Future trends analyst Sarah Bentley told Culture Shock that she thought the changes to the weapons were a ‘very good thing…. Unfortunately, as much as we hate the idea of war, it is a reality of life and it does happen,’ she said.
‘I think it’s only going to be beneficial if, for example, explosives have a
limited shelf life, which does away with the problem of landmines exploding
anything up to 20 years after the initial deployment has taken place.’
For example, she cited explosives that eventually turn into manure, which
essentially ‘regenerate the environment that they had initially destroyed.’
The price of partial success, I guess — rhetoric adopted but point missed.
‘It is very ironic and very contradictory, but I do think, surely, if all the weapons were made in this manner it would be a good thing.’
Irony noted, but there’s a big difference between a better thing and a good thing.
I’m reminded of Bill McDonough‘s critiques of eco-efficiency (vs ‘eco-effectiveness’). ‘If the Nazis were more efficient’ he asks, ‘would that be better?’ I guess the same question can now be applied to ‘cradle to cradle.’ Sigh.