Starting from the 1800s, alternative bathrooms were devised and developed to combat the looming sanitation crises and to make waste a communal resource. One can see how the creations of different bathroom systems throughout time reflected their era’s pressing concerns within environmental, economic, and social lenses. Barbara Penner’s detailed account of the alternative bathroom’s timeline, in Bathroom, dives into all of the contexts and effects of such bathrooms.
In Chapter 6 of Bathroom, written by Barbara Penner, the variety of alternative bathrooms reflect the changing priorities of different communities. The complexity of these alternatives’ relationships to people’s needs was further influenced by topical environmental concerns, the desire to capitalize, and even class differences. Not to mention that these were interpreted differently between different countries and time periods, which makes it a very important field of research. The development of these bathrooms continue even today as our priorities are ever-evolving in all parts of the world.
Environmental Effects and Utility
Beginning in the mid 1800s, the first prominent alternative bathroom was proposed by Joseph Bazalgette who detailed a city-wide network of self-sustaining public facilities. While the merit of self-sustainability was concrete, this plan was still set aside because of the greater fear of waterborne systems’ effects on the environment. In many parts of the world, the cost of having a flushing toilet was river pollution and the direction of human excrement to water was also a large loss to workers who sought fertilizer for their land (Penner 242). Out of that fear, research into waste utilities such as sewage farming became prominent.
A large debate between waterborne systems and dry systems broke out, however, arguing the many sides that shared concerns over matters such as epidemic prevention or affordability. For waterborne systems, supporters argued that it more easily transported sewage to farms. During hot summers, the water-transported waste could irrigate dry land. This regular drainage from private and public toilets would ideally prevent epidemic outbreaks too as up to 50 infections, from tapeworms to hepatitis A, could be linked to feces and the unsanitary conditions of bathrooms (Penner 269). On the other hand, dry system supporters argued that all the water would dilute the waste by drainage causing it lose all their valuable fertilizing properties. Alternative bathrooms such as earth closets, patented by Reverend Henry Moulde in 1860, were devised to retain the fertilizing value in waste. By replacing water with earth, flushing these toilets poured earth into the bucket containing excrement thus drying and deodorizing the feces’ smell (Penner 246). Though, a downside to dry systems was that their maintenance and sanitation were more laborious, and it was considered the lowest ranking task within the service hierarchy. Aversion to this task as well as its convenience caused more people to favor water systems and even witness a decline in water sewage.
In the 1970s, the world experienced an environmental movement in which greater innovations in alternative bathroom technology surfaced. While the desire for waste-turned manure remained, skeptics began to turn away from waste sewage. They feared that the sewage, even after being treated to remove harmful toxins and pesticides, would not be purified enough to be safely used on land. Because of this, the emphasis of purification and self-sustainability grew larger during this movement and was a common factor in coming up with alternatives. One example that came to be with these pursuits are Bill Wolverton’s natural waste-treatment environment (1975) made up of water hyacinth, duckweed, bulrush, and water iris. Such environments were believed to treat waste organically and purify them (Penner 260). Another innovation was compost toilets such as Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak’s twin-pit, pour-flush toilet which could create compost out of waste without manual handling. Through using biogas plants and UV ray effluent treatment, the waste could be treated without causing water pollution and could be even converted into energy (Penner 268).
Impact on Economy and Desire to Capitalize
The economic effects of these alternative bathrooms were also a large concern because of their profitability or rather affordability throughout time. The 1860s began to focus on making profit out of utilizing human waste. This meant mechanically or chemically extracting ingredients from diluted sewage and applying them to the fields. In certain areas, like East Asia where the utility of human excrement was greatly valued, gangsters would run businesses that made an income out of selling dried fecal cakes. In China, the communist government later took this business back and enforced their populace to participate in it. Some markets did struggle to sell human waste as fertilizer, though, as guano (seabird droppings) from Peru was cheaper and made a stiff competitor (Penner 241).
With the advent of the great debate between water and dry systems, many businesses would sell both types of systems to increase their market. Walter Macfarlane & Co., for one, sold both systems and even included additional parts such as buckets and carts within their catalog. He even specially designed the “ordure scraper” to extract any waste residue from the dry public latrines that he also sold known as ordure closets. This is where dry systems gained some merit, too, as their parts were more simple and cheap (Penner 245). Other systems that would take advantage of selling pure manure include the pneumatic Liernur system which extracted the waste via vacuum steam pump at set times (Penner 250).
In the 1870s, the affordability of sewage farming rather than its profitability became more noticeable. Chemically treating waste tended to cost more on top of maintenance of vast land.
Class Differences’ Impact on Evolving Bathroom Technology
To study the engineering of alternative bathroom technology also meant to analyze the anthropological and social effects caused by innovation. While the US and Europe grew early accustomed to drainage and sewer systems, it took more time for outside countries to catch on and integrate this technology into their communities. In fact, many areas’ toilet use and preferences were largely shaped by social/caste differences. This is demonstrated in Bombay, India where its caste system has determined many aspects of human behavior in a bathroom setting. To start, upper and lower class bathrooms were separated and faced very different levels of privacy and sanitation. While the upper class (and visiting colonists) could turn to water closets to relieve themselves, the lower class had to use communal facilities like latrines or even settle for open defecation in rivers. Colonists were often convinced that natives were dirty and did not have the capacity to take care of their own facilities, thus they were given lower quality sanitary provisions. (Penner 255).
It’s these kinds of toilet habits, from segregation to viewing people as ‘other’, that continue to divide people by class constructs. Even though developed countries translated technology (i.e. methane digesters and composting toilets) to developing countries, this “unintentional colonialism” still does not seek to provide facilities that low-income people can afford (Penner 267). In the 20th century, providing appropriate, socially liberating facilities for the universal people would become a large focus. Refer to Dr. Bindeshwar’s twin-pit, pour flush-toilet. Among its function of efficiently composting waste, it was also a public facility that was inclusive of low-income communities.
Today, we continue the fight for socially liberating bathrooms and health education. Of course, ideals for waste utility and environmental conservation still hold strong now in the research of bathroom alternatives. However, programs are also being developed to combat modern and future problems. The Gates Foundation, for one, engaged the public to create a low-cost toilet that can adapt to sustainable and social needs anywhere (Penner 272). CLTS programs are pushing communities to build their own toilets out of more affordable parts to educate themselves on the maintenance of sanitation in bathrooms (Penner 270). Because of efforts such as these, which blend the social differences that adversely impact disadvantaged communities, we can look forward to the accomplishments of our long-term sanitation goal: to universally improve lives.
