This thesis will explore two different perspectives on the urgency of sustainable design in the built environment. The first perspective is Mark Wigley’s call for the imagination of ‘non-extractive architecture’ as outlined in his essay ‘Returning The Gift: Running Architecture in Reverse’. The second perspective is Richard Buckminster Fuller’s lecture titled ‘World Man’, delivered in 1966 at Princeton University School of Architecture.
According to Wigley, ecological responsibility and energy efficiency are not equivalent, which contradicts Fuller’s philosophy of ‘doing more-and-more with less-and-less’ to ensure human survival and evolution. This thesis aims to explore this contradiction by comparing these two perspectives from the past and present and answer the research question: What are the key differences & similarities in conveying the urge for sustainable design in the past & present, studied by the use of two outstanding voices?

The thesis will examine how the different social and political contexts of both figures, as well as their use of language and rhetoric, influenced their messages and empowered their audience. Through discussing the lessons that can be learned from both perspectives, a deeper understanding of the evolution of sustainable design will be gained, and the insights can be useful for developing a sustainable design process for the future.

Although both Fuller and Wigley use language as a tool to communicate their ideas, their rhetorical strategies differ significantly. Fuller’s lecture has a spontaneous and seemingly unorganized style, while Wigley’s essay employs rhetorical questions and vivid adjectives to captivate his audience.
Wigley’s essay ‘Returning the Gift’ appears to learn from Buckminster Fuller’s sustainability approach in architecture. While Wigley agrees with Fuller’s objective of achieving more with less until everything can be done with nothing, he suggests that we should expand beyond Fuller’s technological fix to address sustainability challenges and interact with wider social and economic systems that generate ecological issues. Wigley also illustrates Fuller’s concept of how local activities have global effects. Lastly, Wigley suggests running architecture in reverse to consider what might come after architecture, since architecture is deeply involved in extractive economies.
In order to promote a more sustainable design process, it is crucial to raise awareness about the various perspectives on energy use, sustainable design approaches, and the definition of sustainability itself. By doing so, we can acknowledge and learn from the mistakes we have made in the past. If we trust in Fuller’s philosophy, this increased awareness may lead to a positive shift in our behavior, resulting in more conscious actions and a more sustainable design process in the future.