In recent years we have witnessed significant progress in the debate over architecture＇s responsibility toward the environment, as well as in the clarification of the various problems relative to it. This evolution seems logical in the light of a principle which, though now self-evident, was not so clear in the early years of the debate - that is, the principle which holds that designing and building are acts that comport an implicit responsibility to not create structures or mechanisms which turn against life and human exigency, such that architecture has come to be understood as an intrinsically ecological discipline. However, outside the contexts of academic debate and architecture of the highest caliber, we must have the courage to recognise the grim fact that most architecture as it is practised today that which truly changes the face of the world - reflects a rather different, and retrograde reality. The discipline of architecture, therefore, still has a good deal of progress to make. Architects must recognise the new dimensions their role is assuming, not only with regard to industrial design and production, but more specifically with regard to architecture proper, such that the recovery of a correct conception of building processes reenters among the primary tasks of the architect. Two distinct yet inextricably intertwined premises are necessary for achieving this end: on the one hand, an effort must be made to reeducate and update the entire building sector, including the tradespeople; on the other, we must define shared scientific criteria for evaluating the crucial, controversial and ever more urgent issue of the ecological quality of materials.