small,local, open, connected... incited?

            There are many different kinds of designers and they all happen to do various different things. There are product designers, communication designers, information designers, interaction designers, computer designers, software designers and also system designers. One of the new emerging ways of thinking of design is by thinking of systems and processes. This is the notion that no design is separate from the world around it. Posters designed by communication designers operate in multiple fields. They could be a billboard that is on the highway, a poster on a bus stop, an ad in a train or on the side of a bus, in a newspaper or magazine, a book, an ad on a website, etc. What this means is that there are countless ways in which people interact with a design and these methods of interaction need to be accounted for. But it isn’t only the interaction that needs to be thought of. What if the poster is advertising a local farmers market and inviting you to become a member. The poster then becomes the gateway for action asks you to then do something. If one were to get involved one might perhaps then need to look at farming and gardening, and thus one might need to buy or learn to use certain products that are required of gardening. One might need to buy a shovel, some gloves, a rake and perhaps even a book on how to garden. The poster is then the gateway that leads to interaction with products. This understanding of how design and the things that we have in our lives are a part of larger systems is a relatively new way of thinking and these systems need to be designed.

            One of the tools that is used for this new form of design is a scenario. A scenario is a vision of the future and the acceptance of a certain outcome. A designer can follow trends and envision a certain way in which the world is operating and pick a future that is a result of these trends, after this the designer then designs for that scenario to become a reality. Given the situation that we are in right now where we are currently in an environmental crisis, we begin to look for ways in which we can begin to solve the current situation. Manzini proposes a scenario that gives us a way in which to begin to operate. Having looked at trends of new forms of “creative communities” where people have begun to empower themselves in order to change the situation that they are in, Manzini’s scenario states that this is the way people will continue to act. Examples of these creative communities are farmers markets, community gardens, park groups that organize to better their surroundings, communities that structure themselves so that children can walk to school, communities that start their own nurseries. These new ways in which people are beginning to give power to themselves and organize are the crucial support for Manzini’s scenario.

            The next important part of Manzini’s scenario is that of  “Collaborative Networks.”  These networks are the results of the internet age in which we live where new forms of information sharing have become possible. The examples are Wikipedia and social networking sites such as Facebook, Meetup, Couchsurfing, etc. These new forms of communication and connectivity have allowed for new forms of organizing and Manzini’s scenario is that these new ways of organizing will support “creative communities” and create a world that is “small, local, open, and connected.” What this means is that everything will operate on a local scale with information flowing globally. People will have the networked communication of the entire world but will use that in order to create local creative solutions. In Manzini’s proposal small is not small and local is not local. This basically means that small and local are now referred to as nodes in a network where they operate in their node but are actually global and large. Given this scenario and all the supporting infrastructure and examples that exist, Manzini’s final solution was that designers need to begin to design systems that empower people to act. He believes that these creative networked societies will continue to exist and that designers need to design ways for people to adopt these practices. Meaning design a way for a community to start a community garden, design a system that allows for any citizen to become an advocate of his park, design a system that allows for traditional office spaces to disappear and allow for people to work from home. Manzini has given designers the goal of designing systems, and once these systems are in place people will adopt them.

            My own views of this are that it is nothing special and nothing new. This has been the direction that design has been going for a while. Designers have already been aware of the new networked societies and creative communities and have been designing means for them. This is visible on the networked scale in the emergence of new forms of architecture such as the Strata Building at MIT that was designed by Frank Gehry. In the Strata building there is a constant connection to the internet through wi-fi and an understanding that people are becoming more nomadic and moving from place to place. The building was designed so that any place can become an ad-hoc classroom, lunch space, socializing venue or meeting location. This was because of the trend in wired society and networks. This is also visible in the Googleplex where workers can work from anywhere even on the bus that brings them to the office space. The office space is also not a traditional office space anymore but rather one that is multipurpose with spaces for play and recreation intermixed with office environments. Shortly the trends have been there and the design has begun to appear, all Manzini has done was create this vision of a future and given a call to designers to adopt this as the actual solution and group together these creative communities and collaborative networks. The question that I have is where does this faith in people come from? I understand that the examples already exist but I also understand that people are very picky in what they adopt, and what they choose to do. What is there to ensure that the people will adopt these systems? Is he basically stating that we need to design systems so well that people will want to adopt these new behaviors and change their lives? How does he propose we incite people to adopt these systems or is that supposed to be an afterthought once the systems are already there?

Reasons to be Cheerful

We are finally in the age where it is quite obvious that we are in a crisis. This is visible both through the mindset of the people, the policies of the government, the educational programs in higher education, the labels on our products, and many other aspects. It has become quite clear that no one can really deny the state of the world right now and the sense of panic that is approaching. The question is now what do we do, how do we do it and why do we do it?
These questions have many approaches. It is the mindset of many that there is a need for government action, that people need to wait and pressure the government to do something about it. This in my opinion has stemmed from the way the climate crisis is presented to the world. Many people feel that they are almost helpless to do anything about it, that the most that they can do is buy some energy saving light bulbs and save some money on electricity, or buy a hybrid car or take a bus. However for the most part this is a lot of what the information campaigns have argued for. The belief that the general population needs to take baby steps into the climate crisis, work their way slowly upwards till they can begin to make massive sacrifices for the kind of change that really needs to happen. This is because the crisis is presented to be large, foreign, dreadful and unmanageable. As Hobson puts it in his article "Reasons to be Cheerful" "the environment becomes a thing ‘out there’ to feel guilty and responsible about."
How then can we begin to understand that the environment is not something 'out there' but something that is here, small, simple, manageable and comprehensible. Would not that seemingly be the answer? Do we need to find a villain, someone to blame or hate? Do we adopt the philosophies of deep ecologists and begin to live an eco-centric life placing natures needs above our owns, instituting population control worldwide and changing our lives? Do we follow Earth First and start a massive sabotage campaign destroying cars and trucks, oil drills and tractors? Do we begin to understand that we are the villains? How can we begin to understand that the environment is 'in here' when "climate change scenarios and their ameliorative pathways are often framed and experienced as a lack, a sacrifice, a going without that no one really wants to endure. It is also hard for us, whether poor or rich, to imagine the potentially profound changes ahead without feeling overwhelmed and despondent at the potential breakdown of our ways of life" (Hobson P. 6).
And how in the world are we supposed to be cheerful about this? According to Hobson "‘being cheerful’ is a fundamental prerequisite to conducting research into pathways to a healthy and sustainable future." His argument is precisely that we need to be cheerful and that we should be. This is more than just the understanding that we can each do our own little bit and help the world. Some policies try to emphasize imagining that 1000 people did what you did. And yes it does put our little energy saving light bulbs into context and makes us feel that we have some sort of impact but that isn't why we need to be cheerful. It seems we need to be cheerful because we can start from 'where we are.' Hobson states "recent research argues that seemingly ‘ethical’ or ‘green’ consumption practices (e.g. buying Fair Trade goods) do not originate from or exist within a sphere of thought and action set apart from the other, more mundane practices of the everyday. Rather, they are extensions of already existing ‘ordinarily ethical’ modes of being, which are the basis from which a myriad of conscious daily decisions are made. What this means is that people already have an inherent want to live a mindful lifestyle. That we are not putting in our energy saving bulbs because we are making ourselves think about the environment and the impact of regular light bulbs but rather we do it without thinking about it, because it is not something that is foreign to us. I believe that as a people we all have an inherent love of nature, this is visible through the ways in which we create gardens, and lobby for parks, the pets that we own, the trees that we plant. It is visible by the price of real estate on a tree lined block vs a block without trees. It is visible through the advertisements of cars driving through gorgeous scenery, through the houses that overlook the seaside and our wants and needs of them. I agree that 'green' thought is not something that arises from a different part of us but it is rather in us. This means that beginning to understand those problems that we are so scared of is not by targeting through massive numbers, and it is not necessarily through governmental policy but rather it is something that we already know and feel. It is a matter of perspective, we already love nature, we already want nature, we already domesticate the environment and the world around us, it is in us.
This is the answer to our question, that the environment is not something 'out there' but it is rather something that we keep in our minds, that influences our decisions and our actions. The reason that we need to be cheerful is because we do care and love nature, and the ways in which to begin to live in a world that loves us back is precisely by starting 'where people are.' It is not about the energy saving light bulbs, or the hybrid cars, or the Kyoto Protocol and Obama Stimulus plan. It is about the simple fact that we all inherently care and thats what we need to start marketing, that is what people need to realize.

deep ecology and its problems

The environment is a complicated issue. There are many beliefs about how we should be handling the crisis that is upon us, and there are many different views on how significant the crisis really is and whether or not a crisis even exists or not. The study of the environment is dubbed ecology and inherent to ecology are many issues of conservation, however deep chasms exist in ecology, and it becomes clear that many of these chasms have been around for long periods of time prior to many of our lifetimes. Some view the environment as a resource, some view the environment as a creation of god, and some view the environment as a member of their own community whose needs they need to put before their own.

            One good area to dive into in beginning to understand some of the viewpoints that exist is that of Deep Ecology as outlined and explained by Norwegian Philosopher Arne Naess in his writing of “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” Naess describes Deep Ecology as “the ecology movement that questions deeper.”(p. 250) And what this basically means is that there is no reason for definitions, as Naess says “there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any definition, for that matter.”(p. 242) What I find interesting in the way Naess frames Deep Ecology is that he specifies that it is not a philosophy but it is a movement. Movement means that this is not something that is grounded in the realm of theory but rather it is action, it is doing. Deep Ecology seems more a frame of mind or a way of living than it is a belief and there is no way to define a way to live. Deep Ecologists are people that as Naess puts it share similar ideals and many people who think that they aren’t Deep Ecologists may in fact be Deep Ecologists. What Naess argued and started his paper with is the idea that anyone “even those who completely subsume ecological policies under the narrow ends of human health and well being cannot attain their modest aims, at least not fully, without being joined by the supporters of deep ecology.”(p. 241) Because as Naess puts it sooner or later we will all be doing work so deep ecology becomes the premise from which conservation work will stem. This is Naess offering a middle ground, a place where both sides can converge in order to ultimately forward the goals of ecology and conservation. Naess establishes eight points that all deep ecologists agree to unanimously and one of these it that “humans have no right to reduce” the “richness and diversity” of non-human life “except to satisfy vital needs.”(p. 243) what Naess is saying here is that we are not the conquerors of this planet, the earth and life that surround us do not belong to us, we merely inhabit it like we rent our apartments. And so Naess says that when the non vital needs of humans come into conflict with the vital needs of non-humans than humans need to pull away and leave. But Naess makes no effort to define what constitutes a vital need. Are vital needs of humans the same worldwide? If so then what does he mean when he says that “differences in climate and related factors, together with differences in structures of societies as they now exist, need to be taken into consideration.”(p. 246) What are these structures and what exactly does he mean by this? Is Naess implying that not all humans are equal? Are these structures social in context? Are they biological? Naess provides no explanation to what exactly is meant by this rather he says that the goals of non-industrial or 3^rd and 4^th world countries “should not be seen as promoting lifestyles similar to those in rich countries.” And that we need to protect non-industrial countries from “invasion by industrial societies.” (p. 247) What exactly classifies invasion and how is it that these countries should work in order to attain their vital needs. Naess classifies many prohibitions but no solutions nor workable models. And given that we need to classify people by structures of society and that vital needs differ worldwide, who determines what is a vital need to every person in this world and while these needs are being determined what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Naess Presents many interesting and provoking arguments but he gives us nothing that we can grasp in our hands, there is nothing to understand, and he seems to eliminate the middle ground that he calls for in the beginning with every argument that he proposes.

However the most problematic part of Naess’ deep ecology model is something very different than anything that I have touched on thus far. Deep ecology’s most crucial premise I feel is one that Aldo Leopold proposed where the person is not a conqueror but rather a citizen of this planet on equal footing with everything that exists apart from us. This is primarily the belief that we view the world in a very anthropocentric manner and deep ecology seems to be screaming out with every fiber of its being that this needs to cease to exist. Where then does Naess get the justification to use the term “Non-human” to describe nature. It seems to me that the problem with Naess’ argument is one where the very language that he employs seems to undermine his entire belief system and the entire movement he is fighting for.

what in the world is a ppm?

We live in a capitalist society and we around surrounded by numbers. We count the money in our wallet, we count the money in our bank account, the interest rates of our credit cards and we count the days till we have less money in our wallet when the rent is due. Numbers are surrounding us from all sides and we live and breathe numbers. But one wonders how much do we really understand numbers. Joel Best in his article "More Damned Lies and Statistics. How Numbers Confuse Public Issues" says that we barely understand numbers at all. He states that not only are we constantly lied to with numbers but that the people who use these numbers to lie to us don't understand numbers all that well either. When looking at the crisis that surrounds us we see that we are constantly bombarded with risk calculations, and means and averages, percentages and parts per million (ppm). What in the world is a part per million and how am I supposed to understand that our atmosphere needs to reduce carbon in the atmosphere to 350 ppm? We are given these numbers but we don't understand what they mean. If 350 ppm is the number we need then what does smoking one cigarette do? Does a single cigarette put into the atmosphere 1 ppm, .01 ppm, .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ppm, or nothing at all. The entire environmentalism movement has been based on numbers but there has been no clue as to what that means to us. It is strange that although it seems very intuitive to us to use numbers for all of our issues, it is actually counterintuitive for many of our causes. As Best puts it, if a study indicates that diet cola drinkers are 20 percent more likely to have a specific medical condition. People may take that to mean the 20 percent of diet cola drinkers will get this disease. But in actuality if only 5 people out of 10000 have the disease than that would mean that a 20 percent increase in diet cola drinkers would mean that 6 out of 10000 diet cola drinkers would have the disease. 20 percent greater in this case means an additional 1 person out of 10000 and that in the overall scheme of things is almost insignificant. So it becomes increasingly clear that these numbers aren't telling us a thing so then why is it that we rely on them so much? Perhaps what we really need to be doing is moving away from numbers and actually showing people information in a more human way. We weren't born with money in our pockets and we aren't capitalists at 1 year old, so in our hearts we aren't made to understand numbers. Telling me that x number of smokers contract lung cancer does not affect me as much as showing me a smokers lung. 

we care too much or not enough?

When looking at the state of the world now, the accusations of consumer culture and the complete and total excess of things that we live in. One can start to look for a cause, a reason for all of these. Certainly one can look at the industrial revolution and and the invention of the machine as the moments in time when we began to walk down this path. But that would be making an excuse for something that we shouldn't. I believe that it is more important to look at inherent human nature and try to understand why it is that we make. In her book "The Body in Pain" Elaine Scarry produces a marvelous argument that the reason that we make is because we care too much for everything. When looking at the world it is apparent that the world cares nothing for us. We as humans are susceptible to pain from everywhere. We don't have fur to keep us warm and we don't have claws to defend ourselves from other animals. And our skin is too soft so we cut ourselves on rocks and tree bark. This susceptibility to pain is what Scarry calls Sentient Awareness. It means that we know pain and that we are scared of it. And we make because we want to the world around us to be sentient also, we want to the world to understand and acknowledge our pain. Man "wishes or pretends that the inert external world had his or her own capacity for sentient awareness, civilization makes this so." (p 286) Scarry argues that the essence of being human is to acknowledge that one is in pain, but it is not enough to acknowledge that one is in pain, you must also wish for the pain to be gone. As Scarry puts it pain is "something which cannot be felt without being wished unfelt" (p 290) So we start to look at this wish of ours that others not be in pain, and we start to look at material artifacts. The blanket which acts as a second skin, is an embodiment of the human desire that we not feel cold, it is acknowledgment that our skin is not thick enough to protect us, and the delicate fibers of the woven blanket will start to mimic this. The chair is the acknowledgment that we have a problem with weight and that we want to rid ourselves of weight and it does this for us. So it becomes clear that all of the things that surround us, the fridge, the television, the bed, the doors, the laptop, are all embodiments of someone else's wish that we not be in pain. According to Scarry in their essence human beings care for one another and see one another's pain. And seeing pain means understanding it and wishing for it to be gone. So all of these material artifacts that surround us are caring for us anonymously, they know that we are in pain and they want to rid us of it, they want the world to be more loving to us, they want the world to acknowledge our pain. So it would seem that the reason that we have so many things is because we care too much for other people, we want to rid everyone of pain. But it seems to me that the desire in making all the objects around us feel our pain and trying to make them sentient is basically humanities cry that we aren't accepted, we are the black sheep of the family and through making we are trying to fit into the world, we are trying to have the world see us and to see our pain, but the funny thing is that because we try so hard to fit into the world, there is now barely any world left for us to fit into.

thinking ecologically

Our education system as a whole can be brought down to the point that when you follow it from start to end, and you finish high-school and you go to college and get your bachelors, and then you go to grad school and you get your Ph.D. you have a career in academia. Our education system as a whole is meant to pump out college professors according to Ken Robinson. So one thinks about this and as Robinson says our schooling is meant to take out the creativity from kids, we teach them from an early age that imagery is not important and that they should be accountants and lawyers and they need to go to college and get a degree. And this loss of creativity in my opinion is a frightful thing, because it teaches us to not learn, it shows us that there is a need for information to be given to us and that we cannot be creative enough on our own to discover something, it shows us that we will not be able to live a normal life without someone telling us how. We need our computer and our ipod because we cant entertain ourselves, we need the computer to constantly be in reach of information. We are not creative enough to find ways to live our lives without things. So with all of this one then starts to wonder if that is really a problem with out education system. Looking at it more analytically one can tell that the way in which we are used to taking in  information is a linear one. We are reliant on the verbal language to understand a point. Frascara in his article "Diagramming as a Way of Thinking Ecologically" believes that that is our problem. He believes that for many of the things that we are taught diagramming is a much better way in which to understand. "The structure of verbal language, however, offers a limited capacity to convey information. It promotes linear thinking and sequentiality, and is very poor for the presentation of hierarchies, inclusions, simultaneity, distinctions of levels, multiplicity of kinds and complexity of connections."(p 166) And thinking about the problems that we are facing it is clear that it is not possible to think about things linearly. One action affects so many different stake-holders and has a multiplicity of outcomes. Diagramming this becomes a way in which to understand all of these connections and reactions in a much more natural way. The reason that he terms diagramming a way of thinking ecologically is because the kind of thought process that goes through ones head when looking at a diagram is very similar to ecological reactions. It is by no means a linear path. because when examining our environment it is clear that a multitude of things are happening simultaneously and all of these things need to be understood. Diagramming becomes not only a tool for understanding complex systems like ecology but it becomes an internalization of the outside world. We begin to think like the environment around us acts. Perhaps this can give us a much deeper understanding of the world. In my opinion it also fosters our creativity. Not everyone will understand things in a certain way and there is no right way to understand. Looking at the environment there is no start and endpoint to the systems, no one thing happens before another it is constantly happening simultaneously. So that means there is no correct way to look at a system, one can jump in from anywhere and meet someone else along the way who came from a different point and have a mutual language. So what then would happen if our education system fostered this kind of thinking. If it showed you the system and didn't put you in it. If we lived in a world of diagrams and read information in that sense, wouldn't we then be a society rich with vantage points and ideas? Perhaps creativity should be fostered so that we know how to look at the world, perhaps we should be able to see that when we write on a piece of paper a tree is cut down, and a truck is driving it towards us.

Innovation

So i am trying out a new way to blog. i have this new hightech phone thingy called the tmobile g1 and it has this nice little blogging tool that allows me to make posts easily from my phone. maybe this way there wont be 2 month gaps between my posts as i can conveniently post from the boring classes i sometimes have. although this phone is pretty innovative thats actually not the topic of the post. i also need to apologize as i am too lazy to capitalize all the proper letters and fix grammatical mistakes. there is no spell check on this fancy gadget of mine. regardless, i was sitting in a class of mine called environmental history and ideas and we started a conversation about how humans destroy the land that we live on. my argument was that all humans will take advantage of the land and use it to fulfill their needs, often not thinking about the health of the environment. some would argue that this is only something that modern humans do but even the nomadic tribes, burned down vegetation and cut down forests in order to turn them into plains and open space so that they could hunt the buffalo they used as food. this shows that it is something inherent in every single human. the guy that i was arguing this with made a statement that it isnt true, he said that there were many different kinds of people that lived in harmony with the land and didnt destroy it. i replied by saying that he cannot make that statement because we never let the histories of these people play out. because the history of the world is an imperialist one it is not possible to know how these people would have continued to live their lives. by him referencing them it was equivalent to him referencing unfinished history, he made an ending to a book that had no end. and he replied by saying there are tribes of people that live in rainforests that don't have anything to do with the outside world. they are uncivilised and don't destroy the land. and they have been around for centuries. this made me think about innovation. when does innovation happen. and i thought of these people and realized that human beings only invent when their environment makes them. when there is no way to get food but to kill a bison a man will create a weapon as he cannot kill a bison on his own. when there is too large a community to support on bison alone man discovered farming and agriculture. when there was very little rain and water was scarce humans developed refrigerators. human beings began to invent when their surroundings and environment forced them to innovate. the next stage of innovation seemed to happen when man had free time. when civilisation got to a point where men didnt have to be hunting all the time and women had enough tools to have been able to finish work faster and when communities began to make divisions of labor people had an over abundance of free time and they began to innovate. so i realized that innovation only happens at 2 instances, one instance is when the environment makes a direct need for innovation and the second when we have enough free time to not work. that group of people living in the amazon may not have taken advantage of their immediate surroundings possibly because the environment has given them enough support to be able to live comfortably. these 2 kinds of innovation also make me wonder if the reason for our over abundance of things because of boredom? certainly we wouldnt be suffering from environmental crisis if we only innovated when the environment made us innovate. it seems our problem is that we just couldnt work enough.