Earthships as a de-sign process to harmonize with the environment
-
Alec Kozicki
Abstract
The concept of Earthship is a type of contemporary living space that potentially functions as self-sustainable processes within a closed semi-natural ecosystem for its inhabitants through the integration of repurposed commodities and natural local resources. This approach of inhabitation offers a trajectory for co-development with the environment and a creative evolutionary process of Farouk Seif’s de-sign. The research identifies how the object(s) (Earthship and materials used), the subject(s) (creator and inhabitant) and the environment(s) (natural and built) are interrelated during the co-development process for a trajectory of semiosis. What we will see in this research is that the trajective process of an inhabitant aiming for self-sustainable off-the-grid living within an environment requires a competency and balance to resonate with the surrounding ecological system. Within this framework, the concept of de-sign serves as a means to examine how intentionality and deliberate acts within the creative process to live self-sustainably is oriented towards ecological and anthropocentric systems. The purpose of this research is to elaborate how the concept of Earthships as a self-sustainable living space may have a point of centrality focused on human inhabitation and can be further developed to evoke ecological awareness and sensitivity.
1 Introduction
A human inhabitant with the aim to live harmoniously in a balanced state with the surrounding environment is a dynamic process when we start reflecting on living spaces as built environments that require crucial resources for inhabitation and specialized competencies and techniques for construction. The aim and process for humans to live self-sustainably is not only a challenge for individuals in relation to the physical environment but is also a collective response to the resources and competencies within cultural systems. Within the era of the Anthropocene our habits and envision of our future is impacted by unpredictability on a global level. As Farouk Seif expresses, nature and culture are viewed as inseparable by many scholars, including Gregory Bateson, Jean Gebser, Eric Jantsch, Juri Lotman, and Kalevi Kull, and we have collectively experienced “far-reaching and devastating consequences” when nature and culture are separated that impacts humans, non-humans, and their environment (Seif 2022: 298). Linask and Magnus (2016: 8) point out that there are various ways in which nature frames culture, and how culture frames nature, relating to the role of ecosemiotics as “the semiotics of the relationships of nature and culture” (Kull 1998: 350).
The following research examines how the concept of Earthships, as a form of off-the-grid living space, is oriented towards self-sustainable processes that center around the needs of human inhabitation. The article aims to enhance how the processes of creating and inhabiting an Earthship can go beyond being perceived as self-sustainable solely from an anthropocentric perspective and become more of a contributor to what is considered as a shared environment, which resonates with the complexities of the environment that “contain different agents who may have opposing interests and goals” (Mäekivi 2022: 51). Approaching the architectural design process and an inhabitant’s form of living space predominately from a biosemiotics perspective allows each individual to strengthen their agency within an environment, as we will see, the complexities to live in harmony with the surrounding environment is an unfolding process that requires the human umwelt to go beyond our own unique subjective experiences. As conveyed by Tim Ireland regarding the relations between architecture and biosemiotics, “Architecture has the capacity to enrich life, and – in theory – extend it” (Ireland 2024: 383).
Aiming to live in a self-sustainable manner within an Earthship entails ecological awareness and sensitivity towards practical design ideation, implementation, and the continual, unfolding process of co-development with the environmental surrounding that nurtures life. Designing an Earthship as a self-sustainable living space, also viewed as the performance of being in balance within the surrounding semi-natural ecosystem, is a constant unfolding process to adapt and resonate with the local environmental conditions, ecological relations, and socio-cultural conventions. The research expresses that a trajectory is cultivated and oriented, from the perspective of a human umwelt, to describe the functions and outcomes of self-sustainability for Earthships that centers around human needs. However, going beyond the anthropocentric perspective ensures that non-human meaning-making relations within a localized semi-natural ecosystem can be strengthened. Utilizing Seif’s (2019) concept of de-sign, as the fusion of design thinking and the action of signs, serves as a means to engage with the non-linear reiterative processes regarding co-development and self-sustainable actions. Seif (2019) explains that de-sign is a non-linear reiterative process that consists of deliberate acts (linearity) and intentionality (non-linearity) which cause unexpected outcomes to emerge. An individual having a goal to live self-sustainably entails that the individual, as an agent of meaning-making, must aim at the goal towards attaining what is conceived as self-sustainable. Additionally, the notion of intentionality, as the unexpected outcomes that must be navigated through (Seif 2019, 2020, 2022), requires the individual to go beyond what is known, and to orient themselves towards a state of what-is-yet-to-come.
Rather than forming a polemic split of absolutization of reality as a modeling of either-or, the de-sign process approaches modeling as a both-and relation, which aims to incorporate the convivial relations of self and other to establish the grounding for reality of our lifeworld (Deely 2001, 2009; Seif 2019, 2020). Regarding the relations of Uexküll’s (1920, 1982 [1940]) umwelt theory with Husserl’s (1970) notion of lifeworld (Lebenswelt in German), Kati Lindström and Morten Tønnessen (2010: 259) express that, “An Umwelt is an at times species-specific lifeworld, the physical environment configured to be perceived and comprehended by a specimen of a certain life form, and as such it is a potentiality.” Relative to the notion of both-and modeling, Lindström and Tønnesson indicate that the umwelt can be modelled both from an individual and collective level, and “unites the meaningful processes of each organism, all the while being a synchronic totality of them” (Lindström and Tønnessen 2010: 259). This description supports the following research to further examine how constructing an Earthship as a form of living space is aimed towards the implementation of self-sustainable processes, and that what is conceived of as being self-sustainable can go beyond the sole needs of the human inhabitant.
Fittingly, the modeling of both-and, along with the framing of nature and culture, resonates with Murray Bookchin’s expression on how “it is not only we who ‘tame’ nature but also nature that ‘tames’ us” (Bookchin 1982: 32). This research supports the advocation by Bookchin (1982: 345) that humanity cannot afford to lose its sense of ecological direction. A cornerstone of this research signifies that the trajectory for the constant unfolding process of co-development aiming to go beyond the human subjective experience must embrace the notion of transparency, which serves as a means to go beyond a boundary of absolutization (Seif 2019). Transparency as a characteristic of Seif’s de-sign process offers creators and inhabitants of living spaces a deeper understanding and applicability for ecological awareness and sensitivity. Enhancing ecological awareness and sensitivity, both individually and collectively, allows the living space as a built environment to go beyond the perspective of viewing the natural environment as a raw material for human semiosis. Although humans can be modeled as leading agents that can positively or negatively impact the environment, we must take into consideration what we do not know, such as how the changing parameters identified in the Anthropocene (Steffen et al. 2015) are currently impacting non-human lifeforms, and even how innovative self-sustainable technologies and technics in the present may in fact be detrimental for the future of the planet.
Revolutionary change requires actions and solutions that can be harnessed by what Seif (2019) considers as uncommon sense that leads to thinking-out-of-the-box solutions. As Farina and Belgrano (2006: 11) mention, “the habitat is the environmental box in which a species is living”, and with this in mind, a core theoretical contribution of this research is to bring to light how the notion of milieu and Berque’s (2019) description of trajectionalism can aide in the process to go beyond self-sustainability of an Earthship stuck inside the boundaries of an anthropocentric barrier. Additionally, the research incorporates Kull’s (1998) model of semiotic ecology to discuss how human semiosis describes, alters, and reproduces meaning within an environmental system. Approaching Kull’s model as an applicable process within the scope of Seif’s de-sign can lead to suitable design outcomes for co-development processes, the research shows how Kull’s four degrees of nature in semiotic ecology is a method for creators and inhabitants to gain a better understanding on how their semiosis is interrelated with the environment.
The following writing in Section 2 explores the research by Watsuji (1979 [1935]) and Berque (1986, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019) regarding the concept of mesology to introduce as a theoretical lens to closely examine how the milieu associated to the self-sustainable characteristics of an Earthship is interpreted from a human perspective. The notion of milieu provides a depth to take into consideration how semiosis is oriented for the self-sustainability of an Earthship that entails a center and a periphery and is further supported with Berque’s (2019) description of trajectionalism which approaches reality as a trajective process. Section 3 consists of two subsections, the first subsection discusses the origination and characteristics of an Earthship, and the second subsection focuses on the technologies utilized by builders and inhabitants of Earthships to pursue self-sustainable processes. Section 4 consists of two subsections to examine the act of self-sustaining within a process that continuously unfolds, the first subsection incorporates Kull’s (1998) semiotic ecology to gain a deeper understanding from the perspective of creating an Earthship, and the second subsection conveys how the notion of self-sustainability can go beyond the center of the needs for human inhabitation. Lastly, Section 5 is a conclusion to reflect on Earthships and the theoretical contribution of this research.
The dynamic process to live self-sustainably and in a harmonious balance with the surrounding environment requires an understanding of: a) how self-sustainability is oriented for Earthships, b) how the resources used for self-sustainable processes are reliant on environmental characteristics, and c) how our means to endure self-sustainability is a social and semiotic process that orients the unfolding acts on how we co-develop with the ecological system we, as individuals and a collective, live within.
2 Intertwining mesology and semiotics for co-development process of human inhabitant and environment
Diving straight into the concept of mesology, the research and translated works by Augustine Berque extends the contributions of the philosopher Tetsuro Watsuji, serving as a key focus for the continual unfolding process of co-development. Mesology aides in examining how the relations between the environment, an interpreter, and the means in which the environment is understood by the interpreter undergoes a continual unfolding, trajective process that shapes reality. Mesology originated in France by the physician Charles Robin at the 1848 inaugural meeting of the Sociéte de biologie and was described as a science of milieux (plural environments; Canguilhem 1968). The French word, mésologie, derives from the Greek meson, ‘middle, mean’ and logos, ‘discourse, science’ (Berque 2019: 2). Additionally, the word milieux in French has two contradicting meanings, and described as “of both a center or focus and what surrounds this focus” (Berque 2019: 3). This contradictory description relates to Lestel (2018: 432) conveying how milieu is paradoxical due to being “always at the same time elsewhere and in me.” Janz (2011: 180) emphasizes that the overgeneralization[1] of milieu “presents us with the problem of how to account for the fact that milieu itself continually shifts.”
The paradoxical description of milieu relates to what Seif (2012, 2017, 2019) considers as wholophilia (for the love of wholeness), because for something to be whole requires an absence of what is not-yet-known. Seif introduced this term in 1995 during a public lecture titled “Wholophilia: An Epiphany of Design” at Antioch University to express the teleological and metaphysical aspects of design (Seif 2019: 311). The notion of wholophilia and engaging with milieu requires the modeling of A and non-A to establish the grounds for both-and, this approach of modeling assists in uncovering resources within the inexhaustibility of milieu “since there is always something more to be learned …” (Lestel 2018: 434). Campbell et al. (2019) elaborate how semiotic resources are one of the four semiotic components[2] for an organism to co-develop with their environment, and a semiotic resource is something “that can be engaged with semiotically and, as such, leads to the generation (or discovery) of (more) meaning” (Campbell et al. 2019: 358). Additionally, Katre Pärn reiterates that semiotic resources for anticipatory modeling helps engage with the desired future as “something which does not (yet) exist” (Pärn 2021: 116). Utilizing semiotic resources for the generation of meaning (Campbell et al. 2019), and to engage with something that does not yet exist (Pärn 2021), relates to Seif’s (2019: 117) statement that “the future is accessible in the present through the teleological design process of imagining and perceiving what shall emerge.”
As Berque (2019: 2) notes, mesology lost momentum in academia during the late 19th century in France and later gained new traction that transformed into ethology, which is the precursor to biosemiotics deriving from the works of the Baltic-German scholar Uexküll (1920, 1982 [1940]) – cf. Kull (2020) for extensive list of Uexküll’s research in various languages. The theory of umwelt provided by Uexküll “has been the first attempt to link together animal behavior and the environment” (Farina and Belgrano 2006: 11) and allowed scholars to distinguish between the environment (Umgebung) as “a raw and universal datum” (Berque 2019: 2), while the notion of umwelt is depicted as “a singular, concrete reality, valid only from the point of view of the being concerned” (Berque 2019: 2). Uexküll’s contribution of the umwelt theory became “a linguistic and theoretical object” in the early twentieth century in Germany (Chien 2007: 76). The umwelt, as “the way in which the environment is represented to the organism’s mind” (Nöth 1998: 339), provided an approach for researchers to examine “the behavioral milieu that is proper to a given organism” (Canguilhem and Savage 2001: 19). The following excerpt provides guidance on how to engage with the notion of milieu, while also keeping the umwelt theory in mind:
In this sense, the milieu on which the organism depends is structured and organized by the organism itself. What the milieu gives to the living is a function of its demand. This is why within what appears to man to be a unique milieu, several living things draw their own specific and singular milieu. For that matter, as a living thing, man does not escape the general law of the living. The milieu that is proper to man is the world of his perception, that is to say the field of his practical experience in which his actions, oriented and regulated by values that are immanent to his tendencies, carve out certain objects, situate them relative to each other and all of them in relation to himself. This occurs in such a way that the environment he is supposed to be reacting to finds itself originally centered in and by him. (Canguilhem and Savage 2001: 26; emphasis mine)
Within the quote above, it is possible to see how there are similarities between the concepts of milieu and umwelt, the text in italics intends to stress the prevalence of the human umwelt. This passage is significant to reflect upon, as it serves as guidance throughout the research on how techniques aimed towards self-sustainability of an Earthship can go beyond the centrality of the human inhabitant perspective.
Berque (1986, 2014, 2016, 2018) emphasizes that mesology approaches the formulation of reality as trajective and not entirely objective or subjective. The terminologies of trajection and trajectivity introduced by Berque (1986) were influenced by Watsuji’s (1979 [1935]) book Fûdo that examined how the Japanese culture grasped the reality of the environment (Berque 2016: 30). Berque’s research over the decades combined mesology with Nishida’s (1965 [1926]) work regarding the logic of the predicate (Berque 2016: 30). In detail Berque states:
The idea is to go ‘beyond’ (trans, tra-) the respective limits of the object and the subject, by way of a logical operation in which the physical object (i.e. the logical subject S: that which the matter is about) is taken as a certain predicate P (i.e. as something) through the senses, action, thought and eventually (in the case of the sole human) speech of a certain interpreter I, in a ternary (not binary) relation S–I–P (i.e. ‘S is P for I’). The formula of this trajection is: r = S/P, which reads: ‘reality r is the subject S taken as the predicate P’ (for graphic simplicity’s sake, the interpreter I is here only implied, but concretely, the apparent binarity S/P is in fact always ternary: S–I–P). (Berque 2019: 3)
Reality as a ternary relation comprised of substances (i.e., the logical subject), predicates, and an interpreter goes beyond the scope of objectivity and subjectivity, and sheds insight on the trajective process of co-developing with an environment. Berque’s (2019) formula of trajection helps examine the following statement: if an individual, or a collection of individuals, aim to have their reality (r) in balance with the environmental relations for their inhabitation, then what things as substances (S) are understood for self-sustainable purposes? Furthermore, what are the predicates (P) to reinforce the self-sustainable processes beyond the perspective of the human inhabitant? A mesological awareness and description allows “self-sustainability” to go beyond the center of human inhabitation and towards a more dynamic understanding on how sustainable processes may be unsustainable for the natural environment.
Milieu as a both-and relation for self-sustainable goals can strengthen semiosis beyond the anthropocentric perspective. Seif (2010: 244) expresses that an eco-humanistic metamorphosis goes beyond “ecology (which has been reduced to mere environmentalism) and humanism (which while assumes the goodness of humans it emphasizes their existence as autonomous beings).” An eco-humanistic metamorphosis allows human agency to strengthen a transparent boundary on what the milieu offers as a predicate[3] by not only perceiving the centrality on what the objects represent, but also by going beyond the scope of absolutization through evoking imagination and integrating a more empathetic response outside of the self. The center and surrounding periphery of milieu embraces how intentionality includes non-linear acts that must be navigated through (Seif 2019) and how “de-sign intentionality makes our trajectory toward envisioning a meaningful reality go beyond the duality of culture and nature, built environment and natural environment” (Seif 2022: 295).
The trajective orientation for inhabitants to live self-sustainably can generate a pleromatic potentiality for ecological relations when agency is evoked that goes beyond the subjective needs of the human inhabitant(s). Berque (2016: 32) states, “trajectivity never ceases to evolve, since both living beings and their environment evolve, in relation to each other, that is precisely because of the mediance –the structural moment– of that relationship.” The concept of mediance (fûdosei) was introduced by Watsuji (1979 [1935]) which bridges the Heideggerian (1962 [1927]) moment in time of the human subject and their respective environment, leading to the description of mediance as “the structural moment of human existence” (Berque 2016: 30). The unfolding process of humans examining, describing, analyzing, imagining, and creating within an environment requires language, as a primary modeling system, to mediate an interpreter’s subjectivity that orients a trajectory of semiosis with the environment.
3 The concept of Earthship and its fundamental characteristics
3.1 Origination and characteristics of an Earthship
Earthships originate in Taos, New Mexico, USA, during the 1970s from the imagination of the architect Michael Reynolds to create an off-the-grid living space encompassing six human needs[4] (food, energy, clean water, shelter, garbage management, sewage treatment) that could be built with local natural resources and repurposed consumer goods to develop a semi-natural ecosystem in the surrounding environment. Reynolds identified there was a limitation on how designers and inhabitants perceive the building materials required to make a living space. As Sporer and Suemnicht (2021: 147) describes, “the off-grid home provides year-round sustainable food production, comfortable shelter, clean energy, on-site sewage treatment and portable water with less dependence on the socio-material infrastructures of the state and markets.” Reynolds began to consider himself as a “biotect” (Sporer and Suemnicht 2021: 147) since his design intention was not entirely centered on human inhabitation, but rather aimed to help reform an understanding on how materials and design processes can serve the inhabited ecological system. Kratzer (2014) and Booth et al. (2021) point out how there are Earthship structures used as schools, survival shelters, hostels, and homes in forty countries within all the global climatic regions.
The purpose of an Earthship should be viewed as a creative response to the barriers culturally and environmentally faced in the era of the Anthropocene. The aim and continual process to live in a self-sustainable, ecological manner is constrained due to the relations of mass-produced, non-local resources, which requires a complex supply chain of various agents and stakeholders to function. Norman (2023: 229) mentions there should be a trend to reverse the dependency of global companies that serve potentially billions of people, and we should aim to “scale up the number of small, scaled-down businesses and activities: lots of small, personalized businesses, perhaps collaborating with each other in the purchase of raw materials and sharing of ideas.” Reversing the trend to not be dependent on global supply chains “puts power back into the hands of local individuals within their own communities” (Norman 2023: 229). Additionally, Janz (2011: 178) indicates that although globalization provides the means for individuals to communicate[5] and connect with new groups beyond a local physical proximity, the impact of globalization for a physical place can lead to a homogenization of elements that could otherwise be represented as unique characteristics that exists within a specific environment.
An Earthship as a living space can be understood as a mimetic object of the creator’s expertise and individuality that is mediated within the surrounding habitat (Figure 1). Individuals have the potential to design their own variation of an Earthship or purchase blueprints offered by Reynolds’ operation called Earthship Biotecture. Earthships, as a closed semi-natural, manipulated ecosystem allows builders and inhabitants to invoke acts of creativity that can be tapped into by going beyond the scope of purely creating a living space for humans. An anthropological study of Earthships by Harkness (2011: 55) mentions how “no two buildings are the same, and they grow with and reflect their various contexts and their many makers.” Cultural mimesis between the lifeworld and the contextualized living environment establishes an indoctrinated system for the co-developing act of nature and culture (Seif 2010). Achieving self-sustainability requires a linear process of deliberate acts to utilize various substances and descriptions to aim at the goal of the inhabitants living self-sustainably, along with the non-linear process to endure the unexpected outcomes that emerge (i.e., intentionality) to increase awareness on how agency is sustaining and nurturing the ecosystem surrounding the inhabitants’ subjectivity. The reiterative process of de-sign, consisting of linear and non-linear paths, opens the orientation for imagination on how to create a living space described as self-sustainable for the human inhabitant, the other types of organisms and species in the environment, and for the sustainability of the environment as a whole.
Exterior of Earthship in Taos, New Mexico. Image taken by Dameon Hudson, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54583118.
Self-sustainable processes of an Earthship, but not limited only to this type of living space, can utilize biogas digestive bladders, photovoltaic (PV) panels, wind turbines, metal panel roofs to collect run-off rainwater into underground cisterns, and water treatment processes to properly discharge black water and recycle grey water (Kruis and Heun 2007). As Seif (2022: 298) advises, “the tendency of relying primarily on technological advances to mitigate environmental problems has impaired cultural sensitivity; equally disturbing, focusing on cultural practices while discounting environmental sensibility has trivialized the very essence of ecology.” Living self-sustainably is framed in relation to an individual and collective process to describe the impact of meaning-making processes for the surrounding environment. In line with Seif’s statement on cultural sensitivity and ecological sensibility, Bookchin (1982: 259) emphasizes that “[technics] functioned as a highly specific catalyst between the people of an area and their environment.”
Self-sustainability is a social and semiotic process that combines new ideas and resources to shed light for inhabitants on how our understandings, as predicates to describe what is present in the environment, can change and evolve. The means in how we interact with the resources, tools, and knowledge required for creative processes resonates with Bookchin’s notion that “technics itself tended to follow an age-old tradition of nestling closely into a local ecosystem, of adapting itself sensitively to local resources and their unique capacity to sustain life” (Bookchin 1982: 259). With this being said, incorporating the concept of ecosemiotics as the “semiotic framing and interpretation of real-life processes of nature” (Tønnessen 2020: 91) into design processes that aim for self-sustainability can lead to strengthening awareness that our descriptions for what is represented can change, and when we gain more understanding on how to engage with the substances around us in our surrounding there emerges a potentiality to alter the meaning ascribed to the various resources.
3.2 Technologies for self-sustainability of an Earthship
Technology for the living space in the twenty-first century can include a multitude of Internet of Things (IoT) artifacts such as automated vacuums, smart TVs, voice assistants, computers, and so on. However, appropriating technology into the living space is a socio-cultural process that provides inhabitants an aim towards a desired outcome of their daily lives.[6] Utilizing Berque’s (2019) formula of trajectionalism described in Section 2, the ambiguity associated to the notion of technology entails a convention for a human that interprets a substance (i.e., in the mesological sense) which offers a function (i.e., a predicate for the milieu) to lead to a desired outcome, and at times can consist of unexpected outcomes (i.e., intentionality). Relating to the conventions of technologies, Norman (2023: 50) expresses how “Technology by definition is artificial, and its power has constrained and defined the structures of our society.” Bringing the notion of technology closer to the system of a living space, the spatial context of a technological artifact should be understood as a cultural artifact, since the “cultural system that the individuals are a part of has an underlying role of the scaffolding process on how technology can be used within the space” (Kozicki 2023a: 93).
Expanding upon a footnote from Section 2 of the research, Earthship Biotecture describes how six human needs are required for the living space to qualify as an Earthship: 1) growing food within the interior of the living space, 2) generating energy using solar photovoltaic panels, 3) collecting precipitation with a water cistern, 4) heating and cooling processes from the thermal mass of the living space, 5) building materials consisting of at least 50 % of reused and upcycled materials, and 6) processing and treating the wastewater and grey water on the premises. Keeping these six needs in mind can further examine how an Earthship as a self-sustainable living space designed for humans can be modeled as a semi-natural closed ecosystem which impacts human inhabitation in the context of surrounding ecological relations.
Technologies in the surrounding environment can strengthen the awareness of local ecological relations when considering how novel technologies, on a broader level, are orienting the prosperity of self-sustainable living spaces. Distinguishing local versus global technologies enhances transparency and ecological awareness for the relations of designer-artifact-user systems and describes how an individual’s de-sign process is networked via local or global supply chains.
Local technologies are framed as substances that exist in the surrounding environment. For instance, if your neighbor produces leather goods, the scrap leather as a byproduct of the production process can take on new predicates (i.e., understood as something). Perceiving new predicates transforms the substance into a technology for new creative outcomes, whether that means making a chair, a harness, artwork, or anything else the mind can imagine in respect to the characteristics of the scrap leather.
A global technology refers to the substance and a designer that exists beyond the realm of the local environment, typically relying on metacommunicative functions with a digital marketplace that may offer a form of semiotic resource for individuals to learn, engage with and to discover new meanings (Campbell et al. 2019: 358). Semiotic resources within digital environments can take form as FAQ pages, video tutorials, and other texts to be engaged with by individuals (Kozicki 2021). Indeed, local technologies can be framed as global technologies, but this entails there is a physical and digital marketplace grounded for both local and global interactivity – if the neighbor who makes the leather goods list the scrap material for sale on the internet, then this peculiar substance can be framed as a local and global technology.
Regarding this leather production example, the leather hide may have been produced at a tannery outside the local environment, but the scrap material as an outcome produced by your neighbor is a substance within the surrounding local environment. In other words, we may not be fully aware of the precise location and living conditions of the cow, we may be unaware of the working conditions at the tannery endured by the employees, and we might not know where our final product ends up in the world. As individuals, we can become more conscious on our relations to global supply chains, and when we enhance our transparency and awareness towards the environment and the living beings that allow us to create, then we can strengthen the semiotic relations described and assigned to the substances within the surrounding environment.
Framing substances as local and global technologies serve as a transformational process to establish new predicates for the substances that currently exist within the local ecosystem. Perceiving something in the environment based on use-value or exchange-value can cause a tendency to overlook what is hiding in plain sight; one person’s trash is another one’s treasure. Convivially, the waste from one agent (human and/or non-human) can be a treasure for another agent (human and/or non-human) (Figures 2 and 3).
Interior lounge of an Earthship with custom fireplace. Image taken by Jenny Parkins, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earthship-interior6_(17738368139).jpg.
A bathroom in an Earthship connected to a greenhouse. Image taken by Jenny Parkins, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earthship-interior7_(17737022030).jpg.
Technologies for Earthships can be generalized into two structural categories, 1) the individual unit: the singular object known to exist that can function as a semiotic resource and can be understood as a local or non-local resource. Local resources are substances in the surrounding environment, such as natural materials and end-of-life commodities to use as building materials. Non-local resources are related to large supply chains with stakeholders throughout various environments, this leads to an increase of energy consumption during the creation and maintenance of a self-sustainable living space. Non-local resources can include repurposed and end-of-life commodities that exist outside of the local environment, the electronic components and devices integrated into the living space, and natural materials beyond the vicinity of the local surrounding. 2) The collective system: refers to the aggregated substances used for desired affordances within the living space (e.g., air circulation, weatherproofing, natural lighting, and aesthetics) and self-sustainable goals (e.g., electricity, heating, cooling, and water system) relevant for off-the-grid living. Categorizing technologies for Earthships as individual units and collective systems allow the semiotic resources during a creative process to reflect on the lifecycle of a resource, the supply chains, the necessary skills, and the tools and machinery that “can be used either to foster a totally domineering attitude toward nature or to promote natural variety and non-hierarchical social relations” (Bookchin 1982: 267).
Used automobile tires are a common building material for Earthships and are categorized as a global technology. However, the perception of used tires in the local environment raises a heightened awareness for an existent substance, thus allowing creators to establish new predicates for used tires as a semiotic resource. Transforming the teleology of used tires to build an object described as self-sustainable exemplifies Bookchin’s (1982: 310) statement that “products of modern industry are literally denatured.” Although this method for self-sustainability is something that Bookchin would not advocate as being sound, altering the purpose and desired outcome of a used tire represents a cultural response to the substance at hand. Transforming the predicates for used tires in relation to self-sustainable living is emphasized by Harkness (2011: 56) that tires are “transformed from an index of a wasteful, fuel-hungry, and automobile-crazed society, to the crux of a building movement with environmental and social concerns.” Several hundred tires as an aggregated system are used to construct an Earthship, with each individual unit packed with soil and stacked atop other tires to create berms on three sides of an Earthship. Earthships in the Northern Hemisphere have berms as exterior walls facing the west, north and east, and each tire is packed with around 300 lbs. (136 kg) of soil and reaches a height of 8 ft. (2.4 m; Kruis and Heun 2007: 1). As mentioned by Sporer and Suemnicht (2021: 152), “this assemblage captures the heat from radioactive materials decaying within the earth” and the tires preserve heat radiated from the sun and is then transferred to the Earthship during the night. The exterior wall facing the south is a glass wall that generates a positive affordance for natural lighting and solar heating of an Earthship. The glass sided wall provides interior space for food production in the greenhouse, and the vegetation yield varies per climate.
Earthships represent a unique approach for cultures to imagine and engage in building processes with natural materials native to the environment and the resources considered to be at the end of their lifecycle. In certain regions used tires are abundant within a local setting; an Earthship builder could visit local mechanic junkyards and obtain enough tires, potentially only at the expense of transportation. Although, this approach of sourcing used commodities as building materials is not scalable when we begin to model self-sustainability outside the context of a local societal perspective. From an engineering perspective, a teleological transformation is an innovative strategy to redefine the purpose of materials perceived as lacking use-value, but the transformation of what the substance (e.g., a used tire) is understood in terms of predicates (e.g., as a means to provide mobility for an automobile, as a means to reinforce a berm shelter) is still centered around human semiosis. Specialized industrial processes are available to transform end-of-life tires into shredded material used for artificial turf and playground surfaces, which reinforces automobile tires as a global technology and requires additional energy and supply chain relations– cf. Valentini and Pegoretti (2022) for review of options for end-of-life tires. Valentini and Pegoretti (2022: 211) point out that the most preferred option for end-of-life tires is recycling to recover material and create new products, and the process of devulcanization to obtain rubber for new tires.
Tires as a building material is not a common practice in architecture and requires individuals to comply with building codes defined by local legislation. Freney’s (2014) dissertation on Earthship architecture conveys that tires are known to potentially impact the quality of life due to offgassing, leaching, and flammability. These risks require deliberate acts to minimize the potential impact, such as an Earthship needing cross-ventilation to deter the risk offgassing, making sure tires are not stored in a haphazard manner exposed to the natural elements to ward off the risk of flammability, and ensuring there are no roof leaks or water damage to the tire berms that may cause leaching when water comes in contact with tires (Freney 2014: 19–20).
Another type of repurposed commodity as a building material is aluminum cans and glass bottles filled with dirt and stacked into the walls of an Earthship. The translucent characteristic for certain bottles and cans, as a collective system, affords natural light to colorfully radiate within the living space, which is a common feature for the interior walls of Earthships (Figure 4).
A wall for an Earthship using dirt, concrete, tires, and glass bottles. Image taken by Eugene Kim from San Francisco, USA - Bottle and Tire Bricks, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52820786.
Utilizing local, repurposed materials as a technology for living spaces transforms what the commodity as a substance represents, establishing new predicates allows creators to go beyond the boundaries of absoluteness and evoke characteristics of Seif’s (2019) de-sign, such as playfulness, uncommon sense, and uniqueness. Every de-sign context is unique (Seif 2020: 201), and this is persevered via the agency of stakeholders in the construction and inhabitation process with an Earthship to navigate through the unexpected outcomes that may emerge.
Generating and storing electric power are crucial processes for Earthships to be considered as sufficient means to live off-the-grid. Electricity is predominantly produced via PV or wind turbines, but both forms are significantly impacted by environmental conditions, and electricity is stored in battery banks and distributed as alternating and direct current (Sporer and Suemnicht 2021: 153). Another human need for an Earthship is processing wastewater and grey water by installing a water filtration system, the water filtration of an Earthship is a collective system of individual technologies for collecting and storing precipitation and to convert the daily consumed water to nourish the vegetation area within the Earthship – cf. Kruis and Huen (2007) for detailed illustration of Earthship water filtration system. As Reynolds (1993) explains, reusing and the conservation of water for an Earthship is designed to reduce water usage for two people to 38.6 gallons a day, which is attainable from 12 inches of average annual rainfall in northern New Mexico, USA (Sporer and Suemnicht 2021: 152).
Research by Kruis and Huen (2007) analyzed the efficiency of electricity, heating, and water filtration components of Earthships in various climates, such as dry/arid, humid continental, continental sub-artic, and tropical wet/dry. Kruis and Huen (2007: 9) identified that reduced interior heating costs are a primary factor Earthships as a financial alternative with lower operational costs compared to wood framed housing in continental sub-arctic, humid continental, and dry/arid climates. Kruis and Huen (2007: 10) express that the current concept of the Earthship does not fully satisfy the self-sufficient needs of: “(a) a consistently comfortable environment solely through passive solar heating, (b) a consistent supply of water solely through a catchwater and gray water system, or (c) an adequate supply of electricity through a PV power generator at a reasonable price.” Their analysis of comparing the performance of Earthships to wood framed housing in various climates mentions that inhabitants can integrate additional auxiliary resources to improve sustainability and to satisfy the expected comfort of living (Kruis and Huen 2007: 10).
Integrating novel technologies for self-sustainable processes, such as PV energy and water filtration systems, are constrained by environmental conditions that may require inhabitants to utilize local and/or auxiliary resources to not be dependent on grid-distributed resources. Inhabitants must learn to be in balance with the fluctuating environmental conditions, including parameters such as the duration of seasonal sunlight, the yearly amount of precipitation, and maintaining proper humidity levels that can affect the longevity of inhabitants’ well-being and the Earthship structure. Each Earthship offers an aesthetic perspective to blend the built environment with the natural environment, however, attaining self-sustainably in certain climates is inherently linked to the Earthship concept in general. Consequently, builders should have expertise to create living spaces with sustainable practices specifically tailored for the environment at hand. Understanding local building codes is only one aspect of competence for the construction process; identifying any local, natural resources available for creating a self-sustainable living space will enhance the ecological relations between the built and natural environments.
Future design iterations of Earthships can aim to integrate characteristics and processes tailored for the local environment and the specific needs of inhabitants. For instance, an interior greenhouse within an Earthship may provide to a degree some form of nourishment for the inhabitants, but the interior greenhouse alone may not be viable to anticipate that enough food will be produced to live self-sustainably. Off-the-grid inhabitants can install chicken coups on the property, which can incorporate the electricity generated by the Earthship to keep the livestock in suitable living conditions year-round. Creating a small-scale fishery connected to an Earthship’s water treatment system is another option for food production. Although an aquaponic system requires additional space, resources, and competence for the inhabitants, this would be a practical measure to ensure there is a source of protein on the property. With these two examples in mind, and though the hypothetical examples are centered around the needs of human inhabitation, we can reflect on how substances deriving from technological advancements can expand into the periphery in terms of milieu. To further orient the research observations, if the center of an Earthship focuses on six human needs for self-sustainable living, how can this form of living space enhance meaningful relationships in the periphery of the environment that surrounds human inhabitation?
4 The act of self-sustaining within a process that continuously unfolds
4.1 De-sign of Earthships as a semi-natural closed ecosystem
The situatedness of an Earthship in the physical environment is an essential characteristic for self-sustainability and performing off-the-grid. Creating an Earthship that aims for self-sustainable processes, from the perspective of the human inhabitant(s), relates to Nöth’s (1998: 333) definition of ecosemiotics as “the semiotic interrelations between organisms and their environment.” Following Nöth’s contribution, Lindström et al. (2014: 124) express that the concept of landscape is a central theme in ecosemiotics and is centered around any living organism “and the semiosic processes unfolding in that landscape.” The self-sustainability of an Earthship is constrained by the surrounding environmental conditions and social conventions, which is why this research considers Earthships as a closed semi-natural ecosystem. Certain environments may require auxiliary or grid-based resources to support inhabitants when self-sustainable practices are at times insufficient – for instance, climates with long winters that have a small amount of daily sunlight may require auxiliary resources for heating and energy production. Prospective inhabitants experience boundaries that can limit the intended outcome of an Earthship, and the competence and implementation of self-sustainable living processes occur on both the level of the inhabitant and the collective level where the living space is located.
Strengthening the ecological awareness and sensitivity regarding self-sustainable living resonates with the notion of de-sign agency. Seif (2022: 288) expresses that “De-sign agency is a navigational process toward a desired future …” and this process “transcends what has been called ‘moral agency’, simply because of de-signers, as agents acting-on-behalf-of-others, should be capable of performing with a sense of integrity” (Seif 2022: 288). Seif’s description of de-sign agency can incorporate Kull’s (1998) model of semiotic ecology to distinguish four degrees of nature on how human semiosis interprets, alters, and produces with the environmental system.[7] As de-signers, being the “carriers of de-sign caduceus and envoys of intentionality” (Seif 2022: 304–305), Kull’s model of semiotic ecology can assist the means of self-sustainability towards orienting ecological meaning-making processes that go beyond the centrality relative to the needs of human inhabitation. Integrating de-sign agency evokes a sense of imagination outside of our subjective experience and allows the possibility to integrate meaningful relationships (i.e., signs) which “are ultimately qualitative and subject to dynamic change and growth” (Campbell et al. 2019: 356).
Kull’s (1998) model of semiotic ecology consists of four degrees of nature, with each degree representing four semiotic relations between the coupling of human umwelt and the environment. The 0th degree is expressed as the “absolute wilderness” (Kull 1998: 355), this is the nature outside the perception of the human umwelt and contains semiosis unbeknownst to humanity. What the individual perceives, identifies, describes, and interprets within an environment is the 1st degree of nature (Kull 1998: 355), which relates to when meaning is assigned to an environmental stimulus. The 2nd degree, as described by Kull (1998: 355), is a “materially translated nature” consisting of the process to change, alter, and materially produce within a space. The 2nd degree directly relates to the process of humans constructing a living space on a piece of land intended for self-sustainable inhabitation, while at the same time, potentially impacting the ecological relations outside of the human umwelt. The 3rd degree represents a reproduced nature, in which an image of nature emerges within the human mind and is enacted in the process of perceiving (1st degree) and adapting (2nd degree) with the environment. When an individual assigns meaning to something within an environment, the perceived stimuli become internalized as a 3rd degree nature, representing an image of nature (Kull 1998: 355).
Let us take a moment to contextualize Kull’s (1998) semiotic ecology and reflect on the process of building a self-sustainable living space. As prospective inhabitants, we formulate in our mind what constitutes as self-sustainable living, we imagine what it would be like to live off-the-grid and to have our self-sustainable needs met on or around our property. Sketches and blueprints for the layout of the living space help to draw out the needs we imagine for the built environment. Architectural blueprints and design sketches are examples of a 3rd degree that can go through multiple iterations during the design ideation and process. Once the ideal living conditions for self-sustainability and the characteristics of the built environment are defined, we begin searching for a physical location as the possible landscape to create the living space. As an example of the 1st degree, we visit various locations and interpret the characteristics of the environment – this can be an exhaustive task for first-time buyers due to inexperience and lack of competence on what makes a property ideal for self-sustainable living. The process of interpreting the physical space both in terms of present and in relation to future states is vital. For instance, is the space perceived by the monetary richness of property value if the living space were to ever be sold, or by the current ecological richness of biodiversity? Keep in mind these are merely two ways the 1st degree for a particular space can be interpreted and described that can constrain the act of creation. Now, suppose we bought the land with rich biodiversity and start building the self-sustainable living space, since we are manipulating and changing the characteristics of the environment, this relates to the process of 2nd degree. During construction we ensure that every step of the process matches the blueprint characteristics, while possibly making minor adjustments to the schema along the way. Once the living space is built and inhabited the 0th degree of the environment, which is beyond the human umwelt, is imbued during the continuously unfolding chain of human semiosis. As an example of a specific self-sustaining need for the constructed living space, the wastewater treatment on the property may work perfectly for the inhabitants, but the effects at the microbial level within the local ecosystem requires routine water quality testing to ensure compliance set by local environmental regulations. Local regulations set an arbitrary threshold determined by a societal understanding, and an inhabitant can aim to persevere beyond certain anthropocentric semiotic thresholds to strengthen the unique meaning-making relations for the local ecosystem.
The example emphasizes how Kull’s (1998) semiotic ecology relates to the continuous de-sign process (Seif 2019) consisting of deliberate acts that aim to reach a goal, while also integrating the non-linear unexpected outcomes that emerge, which at times may require uncommon sense. The four degrees of nature identified by Kull (1998) strengthens the understanding that nature and culture are inseparable and how co-developing with the environment is a continual unfolding process. The trajectory towards what is aimed as self-sustainable living is in line with a key principle of ecosemiotics that, “Changing signs can change the existing order of things. Living organisms change their environment on the basis of their own images of the environment” (Maran and Kull 2014: 44). What has been shown so far in the research is that semiotic ecology, as the means on how humans interpret and create within the environment, can enrich ecological relations beyond the threshold of human milieu.
4.2 Persevering beyond the human-centered understanding of self-sustainability
Living harmoniously in balance with the surrounding environment may be a goal embraced by an inhabitant, and even as a group of inhabitants, that strives toward self-sustainable living, but we individually and collectively face constraints to harness meaningful relations with our environment. In response to Uexküll’s umwelt theory consisting of a premise that the harmonious flow of nature is stable, Tønnessen (2009: 47–48) conveys how the harmony and balancing acts of nature are at best temporary states. The trajectory of our lifeworld and the milieu in our environment is oriented by social, cultural, and political narratives that frames our knowledge and dialogue, which can limit the field range of potentiality on how we co-develop with the environment. Earthship communities, as a subculture inside of a larger cultural system, provide a way for individuals from different cultural backgrounds to come together and form a community. Harkness (2011: 54–55) mentions how living within Earthship communities “are united by their building practice by a belief in decentralization and the power of people to make changes they want to see in the world.” Being that a landscape, from the perspective of ecosemiotics, “is continuously designed by the communication processes of its inhabitants” (Lindström et al. 2014: 124), a collective aim towards self-sustainable practices allows builders, inhabitants, policymakers, and additional stakeholders to learn new understandings for existing milieu as semiotic resources that can enhance awareness of global resources which impact, positively or negatively, the development of a closed semi-natural ecosystem. Strengthening how we collectively communicate about self-sustainable living harnesses the role of ecosemiotics that brings to action the “environmental perception and conceptual categorization in the design, construction, and transformation of environmental structures” (Maran and Kull 2014: 41).
Orienting self-sustainability towards a societal and/or an ecological system provides a deeper understanding for the dynamic process of co-development. Earthships as a semi-natural closed ecosystem alter the perception and competence, both inside and outside of an Earthship community, on what substances can be used as potential building materials. The term self-sustainability can be summarized as the autonomous process of being independent from a grid for certain resources, such as food, water, and electricity, in order for life to sustain and grow. The “self” within “self-sustainability” implies a source of personal agency and autonomy, which lessens the dependence of grid-like societal relations for life’s essential resources. Self-sustainability can also be framed in terms of ecological relations, meaning that sustainability is endeavored for an ecosystem rather than sustainability centered around personal autonomy in relation to a societal system. In line with Seif’s (2019) de-sign theory and Kull’s (1998) model of semiotic ecology, self-sustainability as a both-and relation involves inhabitants to embrace ecological awareness into their daily actions and imaginative process when engaging with a substance in the environment. Both orientations, from the societal and ecological perspectives, aim to strengthen an inhabitant’s autonomy to sustain life, but what we are aiming to preserve during acts of sustaining can differ regarding societal and ecological relations. The societal thread focuses on empowering an inhabitant to gain more autonomy from societal grid-like dependencies, whereas the ecological thread reinforces the process to strengthen meaning-making relations for the various biological agents within the environment.
Regarding the de-sign process, framing self-sustainability beyond an either-or solution and into a both-and relation results in encompassing the needs of both the environment and the human collective. Navigating the unfolding process that aims for self-sustainable living as a both-and relation allows researchers, creators, and inhabitants to further interpret how the milieu of the surrounding environment can transform due to the ternary relation of S-I-P that shapes reality (Berque 2019), thus affecting how we describe what is presently at hand in our surroundings.
Aiming to go beyond the centrality of our anthropocentric understanding for self-sustainability can collectively enhance essential characteristics of de-sign such as transparency, strength, empathy, love, and integrity (Seif 2019) with our fellow inhabitants and the species that coexist with us. As Seif (2019: 341) mentions, “Semioethical imagination encourages us to go beyond this duality of good and bad, moral and immoral, into a love encounter.” Semioethical imagination strikes a chord with Bookchin’s (1982: 277) expression that ecological technics serves as a practical approach “that would not only enrich the flow between nature and humanity, but also sensitize humanity to the creativity of nature.”
The concept of humanity-centered design written by Norman (2023) discusses the intertwined connections of local agents in tangent with global supply chains leading to challenges and barriers for humanity. Norman (2023: 309) states, “Human behavior is the most critical aspect of today’s difficulties … Human behavior is what drives political behavior, and without appropriate political responses to the ongoing crises, we will fail.” As a call to action for humanity-centered design, Norman (2023: 309) advocates that “we must mobilize to insist on change, so that all political and industrial leaders understand and act on the necessity of changing their policies.” The notion of mobilization serves as a significant affordance for individual and collective agency to endure self-sustainability for both societal and ecological relations. A cultivated trajectory within the constant unfolding process of co-development, as the mediance of humans living self-sustainably with their environment, can harness ecological awareness to discover new meaning-making relations and strengthen our understanding of the inhabited landscape. The infinite chain of semiosis is endured by our understanding and actions that are shaped within each culture and carries the potential to cherish what is remembered from the past, what is presently at hand, and what is imagined for the future. We must remember that even though humans may be at the center of complex design processes on a global scale, we cannot lose focus on the periphery that surrounds and goes beyond our own existence.
5 Conclusions
Earthships as a type of living space aimed towards self-sustainability offer a unique relation with the surrounding habitat due to the semiosis of the inhabitant and the contextualized objects in the environment. As introduced in Section 1, the focus of this research was to examine: a) how self-sustainability is oriented for the acts of creating and inhabiting an Earthship, b) how the resources utilized for self-sustainable practices of Earthships are reliant on environmental characteristics, and c) how the experience to self-sustainably inhabit a particular landscape is a social and semiotic process that orients the unfolding acts of semiosis on how humans co-develop in relation to the inhabited ecological system.
The model of semiotic ecology (Kull 1998) provides a depth to approach how meaning-making is a continual unfolding process of developing with the inhabited semi-natural closed ecosystem of an Earthship, and this gives an opportunity for a de-sign process (Seif 2019) to go beyond the lifeworld of the inhabitant(s). Kull’s (1998) four degrees of nature offers an opportunity for creators and inhabitants of Earthships to apply meaning-making processes beyond the human experience, which is significant for going beyond the centrality of an Earthship that revolves around six human needs. Regarding the 3rd degree in Kull’s (1998) semiotic ecology model, inhabitants of Earthships describe certain end-of-life commodities and materials as potential resources to change the 2nd degree of their living space. A substance within an environment transforms what is represented in terms of predicates, on an individual and collective level, and emerges as the opportunity for each lifeworld to share their expertise and to continue their endeavor of learning. Incorporating the contributions from both Kull (1998) and Seif (2019) are shown to relate to Berque’s (2019) formula of trajectionalism, which is applied in this research towards the process of a human inhabitant aiming to live self-sustainably. As mentioned in Section 2, if an individual and/or a collective aim to have their reality (r) in balance with the environmental relations for their inhabitation, then what things as substances (S) are understood for self-sustainable purposes? Furthermore, what are the predicates (P) to reinforce the self-sustainable processes beyond the perspective of the human inhabitant?
Semiotic ecology is a practical method for an inhabitant to become more aware on how their perception and actions within the landscape of an Earthship impacts the ecological relations that are beyond their personal needs of self-sustainable living. An Earthship to perform self-sustainably entails a continuous process of the inhabitant to engage with the relations of the environment, this relates to the non-linear reiterative process of intentionality (Seif 2019), which allows the inhabitant to navigate through the unexpected outcomes that may emerge within each unique context. Harmonizing with the surrounding environment can be strengthened by incorporating the de-sign process (Seif 2019) with semiotic ecology (Kull 1998) which brings in our own actions and imagination into the meaning-making process on what tones– in the Uexküllian sense of ton (cf. Kozicki 2023b) – the subject wants to be in relation to. Subsection 4.1 of this research conveys how Kull’s (1998) model of semiotic ecology serves as a means to gain a deeper understanding of Seif’s (2019) de-sign process, which consists of linear, deliberate acts that aim at a goal, while also experiencing moments of non-linear unexpected outcomes that may potentially emerge. As creators that can alter ecological relations surrounding our existence, we can utilize de-sign agency, as “a concept to engage with co-evolutionary and co-humanistic metamorphosis of nature and culture” (Seif 2022: 304–305), to go beyond our subjective needs to orient acts of creation for beings within a shared environment.
The transformation on how we can live in balance with the environment requires initiatives by willing entities and institutions to help create a change on how we collectively perceive and understand self-sustainability. For example, having local governments be able to effectively communicate with builders and prospective home owners regarding the process of permits, regulations and zonings related to off-the-grid communities and alternative housing; for credit lenders to see the larger impact on these forms of living spaces for inhabitants to attain a loan or mortgage to begin construction; and for industries becoming aware on how their byproducts can be a semiotic resource that can transform the perception of an end-of-life commodity into an untapped, potential technology. Consequentially, relying on end-of-life commodities to construct a living space considered as self-sustainable may indeed be sustainable for the inhabitants, but this reliance establishes a need for societal waste and the allocation of non-native materials for the ecological system. As conveyed in Section 2, incorporating a mesological approach, more specifically Berque’s (2019) trajectionalism, can assist in orienting self-sustainable processes of an Earthship to go beyond the human-centered relations, and provides a means to engage with reality as a ternary relation that is continuously unfolding.
The concept of Earthship, even as a word, brings together the world we live in (earth) and the vessel (ship) that serves as the grounds for physiological needs to potentially gain self-actualization and transcendence. Through constant clashing of boundaries from various institutional systems and disciplinary branches our individualistic and collective trajectory is at times constrained. However, utilizing mesology to describe milieu, in terms of substances and predicates, serves as a common ground for ecological awareness, which allows inhabitants to gain clearer insight on the ripples and tides that orient the trajective process to co-develop with our environment.
References
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. For a critique of the political economy of the sign, Charles Levin (trans.). St. Louis, MO: Telos Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and simulation, Sheila Faria Glaser (trans.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.9904Search in Google Scholar
Beever, Jonathan. 2013. Baudrillard’s simulated ecology. Sign Systems Studies 41(1). 82–92. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2013.41.1.05.Search in Google Scholar
Berque, Augustine. 1986. Le sauvage et l’artifice. Les Japonais devant la nature. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar
Berque, Augustine. 2014. La mésologie, pourquoi et pour quoi faire? Nanterre: Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest.10.4000/books.pupo.10743Search in Google Scholar
Berque, Augustine. 2016. Nature, culture: Trajecting beyond modern dualism. Inter Faculty 7. 21–35.Search in Google Scholar
Berque, Augustine. 2018. Glossaire de mésologie. Bastia: Éditions Éoliennes.Search in Google Scholar
Berque, Augustine. 2019. An enquiry into the ontological and logical foundations of sustainability: Toward a conceptual integration of the interface “Nature/Humanity.”. Global Sustainability 13(2). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.9.Search in Google Scholar
Bookchin, Murray. 1982. The ecology of freedom: The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire.Search in Google Scholar
Booth, Colin A. Sona Rasheed, Abdul-Majeed Mahamadu, Rosemary Horry, Patrick Manu, Kwasi G. B. Awuah, Emmanuel Aboagye-Nimo & Panagiotis Georgakis. 2021. Insights into public perceptions of earthship buildings as alternative homes. Buildings 11(9). 1–15.10.3390/buildings11090377Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary, Alin Olteanu & Kalevi Kull. 2019. Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 47(3/4). 352–381. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2019.47.3-4.01.Search in Google Scholar
Canguilhem, Georges. 1968. Études d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences concernant les vivants et la vie. Paris: Vrin.Search in Google Scholar
Canguilhem, Georges & John Savage. 2001. The living and its milieu. Grey Room 3. 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638101300138521.Search in Google Scholar
Chien, Jui-Pi. 2007. Umwelt, milieu(x), and environment: A survey of cross-cultural concept mutations. Semiotica 167(1/4). 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem.2007.071.Search in Google Scholar
Deely, John. 2001. Four ages of understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442675032Search in Google Scholar
Deely, John. 2009. Purely objective reality (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 4). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781934078099Search in Google Scholar
Farina, Almo & Andrea Belgrano. 2006. The eco-field hypothesis: Toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology 21. 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x.Search in Google Scholar
Freney, Martin. 2014. Earthship architecture: Post occupancy evaluation, thermal performance & life cycle assessment. Adelaide: University of Adelaide dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Harkness, Rachel. 2011. Earthships. Anthropology Now 3(1). 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2011.11869122.Search in Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1962 [1927]. Being and time. John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson (trans.). New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1970. The crisis of European societies and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy, David Carr (trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ireland, Tim. 2024. From life to architecture, to life. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-45925-2Search in Google Scholar
Janz, Bruce B. 2011. Watsuji Tetsuro, fudo, and climate change. Journal of Global Ethics 7(2). 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2011.590277.Search in Google Scholar
Kozicki, Alec. 2021. A semiotic model for smart home affordances: Trajecting semiotic components in a technological living environment. In Bianca Suárez-Puerta & Inna Merkoulova (eds.), Reflections on paths, scenarios and semiotic methodology routes, 204–226. IASS-AIS, FELS, ASC, GAUGN and International Center for Semiotics and Intercultural Dialogue.Search in Google Scholar
Kozicki, Alec. 2023a. Umwelt in an umwelt: Co-developing within immersive virtual environments and the paradoxical nature of reality and hyperreality. Sign Systems Studies 51(1). 73–100. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2023.51.1.03.Search in Google Scholar
Kozicki, Alec. 2023b. Affordance and Ton: The meaning-carriers of semiosis. In Erik Kõvamees & Oscar Miyamoto (eds.), Concepts for semiotics, vol. 2, 149–165. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, David. 2014. “Earthship” as a model for an urban co-op health clinic? ARCC Conference Repository. 515–525.Search in Google Scholar
Kruis, Nathaneal J. & Matthew K. Heun. 2007. Analysis of the performance of earthship housing in various global climates. In Proceedings of ES2007 energy sustainability 2007, June 27–30, Long Beach, California. New York: ASME.10.1115/ES2007-36030Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 1998. Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 26. 344–371. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.1998.26.15.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2020. Uexküll studies after 2001. Sign Systems Studies 48(2). 483–509. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.2-4.13.Search in Google Scholar
Lestel, Dominique. 2018. From field philosophy to milieu philosophy. Parallax 24(4). 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2018.1546720.Search in Google Scholar
Linask, Lauri & Riin Magnus. 2016. Introduction: Framing nature and culture. Sign Systems Studies 44(1/2). 8–11. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2016.44.1-2.01.Search in Google Scholar
Lindström, Kati, Kalevi Kull & Hannes Palang. 2014. Landscape semiotics: Contribution to culture theory. In Valter Lang & Kalevi Kull (eds.), Estonian approaches to culture theory, 110–132. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lindström, Kati & Morten Tønnessen. 2010. Introduction to the special issue Semiotics of Perception being in the world of the living–semiotic perspectives. Biosemiotics 3. 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9073-1.Search in Google Scholar
Mäekivi, Nelly. 2022. The role of zoosemiotic inquiry in shared environments: Interlinking nature and culture. Cultural Science Journal 14(1). 49–55. https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2022-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Maran, Timo & Kalevi Kull. 2014. Ecosemiotics: Main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96(1). 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12035.Search in Google Scholar
Nishida, Kitarô. 1965 [1926]. Basho [place]. In Abe Yoshishige (ed.), Nishida Kitarô zenshû [Nishida’s complete works], 4. Tokyo: Iwanami.Search in Google Scholar
Norman, Don. 2023. Design for a better world: Meaningful, sustainable, humanity centered. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 1998. Ecosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 26. 332–343. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.1998.26.14.Search in Google Scholar
Pärn, Katre. 2021. Towards the semiotics of the future: From anticipation to premediation. Sign Systems Studies 49(1/2). 108–131. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2021.49.1-2.05.Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Michael. 1993. Earthship, vol. 3. Taos, NM: Solar Survival Press.Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2010. Mutual mimesis of nature and culture: A representational perspective for eco-cultural metamorphosis. Sign Systems Studies 39(1). 242–269. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2010.38.1-4.09.Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2012. The pathless journey of beauty: Experiencing the sublime through the enchantment of eros. In Algis Mickūnas & Agnieška Jezefovič (eds.), The phenomenon of beauty in culture, 82–105. Vilnius: The National Development Philology 2012.Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2017. Erotica and semiotica: What’s love got to do with edusemiotics? In Inna Semetsky (ed.), Edusemiotics: A handbook, 263–275. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-1495-6_19Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2019. “De-Sign” in the transmodern world: Envisioning reality beyond absoluteness. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/b15862Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2020. De-Sign as a destiny of negation: The paradox of sustaining boundaries while traversing. American Journal of Semiotics 36(3/4). 179–2I5.10.5840/ajs202112066Search in Google Scholar
Seif, Farouk. 2022. De-sign agency as the envoy of intentionality: Trajectories toward cultural sensitivity and environmental sensibility. Biosemiotics 15. 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09491-x.Search in Google Scholar
Sporer, Ryan Alan & Kevin Suemnicht. 2021. The prefigurative politics of going off-grid: Anarchist political ecology and socio-material infrastructures. In Martin Locret-Collet, Simon Springer, Jennifer Mateer & Maleea Acker (eds.), Inhabiting the earth: Anarchist political ecology for landscapes of emancipation, 147–166. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.10.5771/9781538159156-147Search in Google Scholar
Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena Bennett, Reinette Biggs, Stephen Carpenter, Wim de Vries, Cynthia de Wit, Carl Folke, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Georgina Mace, Linn Persson, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Belinda Reyers & Sverker Sörlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347. 1–17.10.1126/science.1259855Search in Google Scholar
Tønnessen, Morten. 2009. Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics 2. 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9036-y.Search in Google Scholar
Tønnessen, Morten. 2020. Current human ecology in the amazon and beyond: A multi-scale ecosemiotic approach. Biosemiotics 13. 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09379-8.Search in Google Scholar
Uexküll, Jakob v. 1920. Theoretische biologie. Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Paetel.Search in Google Scholar
Uexküll, Jakob v. 1982 [1940]. The theory of meaning, Barry Stone & Herbert Weiner (trans.). Semiotica 42(1). 25–82.10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25Search in Google Scholar
Valentini, Francesco & Alessandro Pegoretti. 2022. End-of-life options of tyres. A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research 5. 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2022.08.006.Search in Google Scholar
Watsuji, Tetsuro. 1979 [1935]. Fûdo. Ningengakuteki kôsatsu [Milieux. a study of human betweenness]. Tokyo: Iwanami.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
