I think that there is a fascinating discussion around the question of where waste is ‘supposed’ to be in relation to this week’s readings, particularly in relation to the social contract often formed by people and governments. The first thing I find fascinating is how long it took for people to not only become upset by the accumulating waste, but (especially in the case of the United States) actually implement substantial laws that regulated where waste and hazardous substances. However, it is interesting to discuss specific cases of this, how it varies from culture to culture and understanding to understanding. For example, previous discussions of the miasma theory revealed that people only believed they could get sick from substances that emitted an ‘odor’ as opposed to modern theories like germ theory. Perhaps this is why substantial change took so long, as it was only after horrible ecological disasters (rivers setting on fire, love canal, silent spring, etc.) that many more Americans started becoming aware and placing ecological importance on where potentially dangerous substances “should” be. This is interesting from a sociological perspective when you are considering that oftentimes, this more strongly applies to groups with more vocal capabilities to enact any action about where to place it…
Additionally, when the creation of waste is inevitable, it has to go SOMEWHERE. Of course, this often has physical, economic, and safety implications that have often varied and resulted in strife in certain communities and ecosystems. The question of where waste is supposed to be is a complex one, but maybe more interestingly is when it is used in a way which actually serves a purpose besides collecting dust. The history of Boston’s ‘land reclaimation’ when they were using waste to fill in new land, is an interesting perspective on how to use waste in a useful way, which is in a sense recycling as the fill serves its purpose every day supporting the cities infrastructure and economy.