The main theme behind the articles seems to be summed up best by “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism”. “Do you, then, wish to waste all your best powers in this eternal and futile worship of the past, from which you emerge fatally exhausted, shrunken, and beaten down?” In other words, why remain stuck in the past when the future is what will save us?
In “Incinerators vs Zero Waste: Energy to the Climate”, it’s understandable to want to move toward the future to protect the earth’s environment. By ultimately getting rid of landfills and incinerators and replacing them with “waste to energy” plants quite a portion of greenhouse gases can be decreased. “Fuel from Waste, Poised at Milestone”, is very similar in that it offers a new efficient way of making fuel that will release fewer greenhouse gases and are made from compost.
It is also understandable that architecture be made to help improve our living style. However, it seems that the author of “Manifesto Futurist Architecture,” is not so concerned with this. In fact, more or less, he is preoccupied with the art of future architecture. What I find hard to understand is, why is this so important? The author seems to think that architecture now is just a copy of the past. The only difference is the new materials used. He insists that a new style of architecture be started to “invent and rebuild the Futurist city like an immense and tumultuous shipyard agile, mobile and dynamic in every detail.” How is the image of a building going to improve our society by being environmentally friendly? Is there any point to this argument? Is not the copying of old architecture styles through the use of different supplies a type of art in itself?