Natural and Artificial

Artificial is defined as formulation of something based on natural phenomenon but is completely lacks the intrinsic value of what is natural. Conservative thinkers postulate that incorporating artificial schema on environmental context is morally unjustified because it violates the natural mechanism of things, and in religious context, it defiles the God’s creation. Conversely, radical thinkers posit that the integration of artificial schema in the environment is morally permissible because it helps in the prolongation and preservation of life, especially that the world is facing a huge problems on natural resources continuous supplies.

Advocators of anti-artificial schema argue that the promotion of ersatz products necessitates the used of modern technology, and if certain technology is not yet available, then new technology must be invented first for the realisation of a specific artificial products. The problems with this is that most of the time, the actualisation artificial schema post threats on the natural resources because, one, a new technology must be applied to natural things before it can be proven, and if the technology fails, new technologies will be created, which means that the threat on environment will also increase; two, the artificial procedures of preserving life in the expense of our natural environment is becoming vicious because of the belief that preservation of life is justified in any given context, wherein our natural environment suffers greatly from this belief because the environment is only seen as resource that must be utilised for the nourishment of life.

On the other hand, proponents of artificial schema conjecture that natural resources is finite and limited, hence the need to manufacture ersatz products in the expense and out of natural resources is permissible because through this, the continually increasing demand for basic human needs will be resolved, as well as, the environment will be preserved. Radical thinkers argue that modern technologies may have repercussions but its benefits are countless. They even stress out that application of artificial schema with the aid of technology is the only way humanity can preserve its environment and its people.

Today the world is embracing the artificiality of things; foods products are being engineered, while natural environment are being photocopied such as lagoon, rainforest, etc. to prevent the continuous deterioration of the environment, and to preserve its present status.

Thus our modern advancements and artificial schemes have created major environmental positive consequences, as well as, risks that threaten the lives and well-being not only of ourselves but of the future generations and of other living creatures. For example, genetic engineering helps in the massive production of foods such as rice, vegetables, fruits, etc. albeit new diseases are being born and a great number of living creatures suffers because of the trial and error practice of such advancement. The point is, artificial schema may help in the preservation of life but the environment must suffered from it because once the natural mechanism of the environment is jeopardised, no one can alter its effect and no technology can fixed its problems.

“Push my panic buttons”

Why do I need to push a button to know or let others know I am panicking? How would pushing this panic button assist me in remaining calm and to act accordingly in a given situation? It is said that the external dangers meet the inner anxiety and are frequently experienced as even more dangerous than they really are. The outer anxiety expresses the ever-present dangers of the public world whereas the inner anxiety reflects the unresolved emotions.

Stress of modern day life, brought about through the advances of technology, pushes us beyond our tipping points. For example, before the 1990’s we weren’t so reliant on our mobile phones and nowadays we seem to store our whole lives into them, making the mobile an extension of ourselves, which leads to the consequences of losing them very dire. When I experienced losing my phone, I became an irrational frantic, immediately thinking the worst and prepared to do the worst at this desperate situation. I immediately found someone to blame, wrongly accusing them from taking my phone and ready to deal with the consequences. We sometimes worry so much about worst case scenarios that are unlikely to happen which impairs our judgement on the real danger that lies ahead.

Design is pushing our internal panic buttons. We seem to offload our contents into an object, which is designed to help us, but if this object fails us, it can cause us to panic. For instance, the computer was invented to store information and has now evolved to such an extent that allowed humans to become dependant on them. It is almost an extension of our brain. Thoughts written down, if lost, reiterating them would not only cause stress but your brain would be unable to write the exact same thoughts again. Losing this information through system error or viruses can cause panic and leads to frustration.

I do believe most panic buttons have their uses and have saved many lives but the practice of their usage needs to still be refined. Avoiding these potential dangers can come as a shock once confronted. Preparing us for the worst, it automatically makes us fear the worst, forcing us to act out of character and irrationally; becoming victims of frequent panic attacks. This is usually due to a build up of emotions, ‘safely’ locked in the back of our minds and the littlest input could trigger the panic button causing and outburst of emotions However, if a person feels fear constantly, there is no signal left for when it’s needed, thus, a person who chooses to worry all the time or persistently chew on unwarranted fears is actually making himself less safe. In a way, you become desensitised and you do not recognise the alarm as a sign of potential danger.

Further Reading- False Alarm, The truth about the epidemic of fear by Marc Siegel

the arts of survival

I think this subjects cool. In a past blog I moaned a little about panic buttons and how designers making objects and products in the event of an emergency can cause people to panic even more, this I guess is along the same lines in the respect that designers are developing “just in case items”. But a lot of these items are being designed for people that may have lost a home due to a natural disaster or those that are on the streets, so this is a subject that is clearly evident in today’s society and is something that is happening.

The transportable hobo homes that we saw in Jennifer’s last lesson I feel are a little bit of a lost cause, yes they serve a purpose, but what is stopping one homeless person stealing another homeless persons home, at least when they salvaged cardboard boxes they were recyclable, easy to dispose of and weren’t simply receiving a handout from the government.

Also I feel it is really important that emergency housing and shelter is built for the environment that the disaster is in, for example in brazil they make their shanty’s out of recycled items and anything they can use around them already in their environment to use as housing. Another excellent example of this site situation housing is Pallet-housing designed by Azin Valy and Suzan Wines for returning refugees in Kosovo. This consists of modular transitional housing constructed from pallets, “but how did those pallets get there?” I hear you ask. Due to aid delivering goods in areas of devastation, medicine, clothes and materials get delivered on such pallets enabling everything delivered being used to help the effort of housing those left homeless. The housing has a lifetime of around 5 years which is the time it would take for a family to rebuild their house out of stone.

The life expectancy is also very important on temporary housing not only to give the occupants an idea of how long they have until they have to re-build but to make them re-build, I know it’s a bit of a cheesy saying, “only help those that help themselves” but I consider it to be very important as there is a thin line between graciously taking someone’s help and taking the piss.



Another example of site specific housing if not temporary is container units. Merchandise gets shipped around the world in those massive containers you see being transported by trains, boats and lorries which means they already have the means to ship mass quantities of the stuff and they are cheap as they just clutter up ship yards and such. This is a method many designers have taken on and are using to make homes out of today, why cant they send these (already built houses) to devastated areas?

This is an interesting subject and is defiantly important, id like to have somewhere to live if some disaster happened in my area and left me homeless and the futures for this subject are challenging as we cant predict where it will happen and on what scale, leaving a lot of room for a designer to solve a pressing issue and have fun.

Vicious circle

When researching the solutions humans have in combating global warming I was amazed to discover how ridiculous some of the proposals seem to be, and not only that but they don’t seem to be doing what is actually necessary.

It seems that most have accepted that we are heading for disaster and, rather than looking for ways to change our ways, we are coming up with solutions to put into effect just at that crucial point before the disaster happens. The understanding that this point is definitely going to happen seems depressing in itself, but more so the solutions that our so called intelligent scientists have come up with. It is not to say that I could come up with anything better but spending so much effort in finding a solution rather than combating the initial problem seems ridiculous.

It has been human technology that is the cause of most of the earths problems, so it is no surprise that the way in which we have decided to tackle the issue if the worst comes to the worst is through technology also. One of the most ‘interesting’ solutions proposed my Roger Angel of the University of Arizona includes putting a fleet of small spacecraft into the atmosphere. Trillions of these objects will form a cloud in which to reflect 2% of the suns light and therefore cooling the earth. Other proposals have been to put a reflective layer over the deserts or filling the seas with plants to suck in all the CO2. I find these solutions fascinating, especially when they are apparently technically possible, although I am still sceptical and am sure there must be a more natural way.

It seems there is a vicious circle, humans have decided they wont change their modern lifestyle and so are combating their already destructive effect on nature with yet more unnatural intervention to solve it. There are of course more natural and sustainable efforts being made but it seems sad that our final stand to save our environment will be yet more technological intervention.

Panic Buttons

‘As more of our sense of what threaten us comes from the news and media and internet, we lose track of our former guides…bright lights of computer screens and TV screens that offer info fragments, alarming us more often then they reassure.’ (Marc MD Siegel, 2006)

No news is good news they say, but as we all know too well bad news sells. The media can impact us in a positive or negative way, it enlightens us but it is also the bearer of bad news.
Before the turn of the millennium the media coverage on the threats of the Y2K bug caused public panic all across the Western world. Government guidelines where issued to prepare the public for the worst, adding to the growth of hysteria. It was predicted that the bug would cause computers systems to crash, creating chaos like a scene out of the film 28 days later, as our basic needs such as water, food and electricity would be affected. Consequently the worried public rushed to supermarkets stocking up on essentials such as water, food and gas, just in case the world did cease operating at midnight. However Y2K never happened and all returned to normality.

Our choice to engage with the news and mass panic may be a reflection of ourselves, bad news taps into an innate, primitive part of us that enjoys the thrill of fear, like an adrenaline junkie to his extreme sport. Scary stories and tales of the unknown captivated our ancestors and served a purpose to these communities who tried to understand their surroundings, warning each other of the possible dangers that nature holds.

Therefore I do not agree with Sebastian that we need to avoid the media, choosing to live a life of ignorance can be bliss and it may resolve modern day afflictions such stress, phobias and panic attacks. However a little bit of fear and panic can be a great tool for survival in the outside world, keeping designers and manufactures of panic buttons busy.


Further reading:
False Alarms, The Truth about the Epidemic of Fear by Marc M.D Siegel
Culture of Fear by Frank Furedi

PANIC BUTTON

I think I need the panic button. I am going shopping; or perhaps I should say I may be causing an ecological disaster. First, don’t let me forget my ecological cotton shopping bag; the consequence of using plastic shopping bags is too dire to contemplate. We know a lot of plastic waste material is shipped to China where poor low paid workers will flake the plastic using their bare hands and teeth, if they survive this they may run the risk of cancer from the toxic fumes caused by incinerating the plastic. Then this lethal concoction will be shipped back in the form of pellets to make more plastic bags.
I daren’t use my car otherwise I will increase the carbon emissions in the already polluted atmosphere .so I walk. Once inside this Aladdin’s cave of potential disaster what do I do? Meat; no better not. I can’t have beef; I might become a mad cow. Chicken or turkey served with bird ‘flu sauce. Pass. How about some pork so I can increase my cholesterol become obese and then be refused a by-pass operation on the National Health on the grounds that it is my own fault. How about fish, tuna perhaps? No, the nets used to fish them could have trapped and killed dolphins. Better move on to the fruit and vegetables. It is all pre-packed in polystyrene trays, which release CFC into the atmosphere when they are destroyed. And what pesticides have been used? I don’t want to buy GM food. Perhaps I’ll just go to my local greengrocer’s where the produce is sold lose and only local goods are sold.
Cleaning fluids are just out of the question, just a bit of vinegar to clean with and leave the lavatory dirty.
So I’ll go for beans and lentils then the cows won’t be the only ones releasing toxic gases into the environment. No biscuits or packed cake or crisps as the packs will go into the already overflowing landfills.
Shall I venture into the clothes and sports section? Will I be tempted to buy cheap Chinese sports shoes or equipment made using child labour? No, better not. I need some comfort food, let me buy some chocolate, oh no it is Nestles! Get me out of here get me a panic button.

The arts of survival

The arts of survival

‘The slum is the measure of civilization’
Jacob Riis

Through trying to understand the severity of ‘slum environments’ we are able to begin to have an ethical stance on the topic of slums.
If western society is able to look from a distance at what has been created or allowed to develop in mega cities, such as Sao Paulo, maybe a twinge of guilt will be felt by western culture. At present it seems that western society has cast responsibility of the existence of the shanty towns on the dwellers that live there. Whereas, Jacob Riis suggests that western culture needs to take the blame for the severe standard of living that is taking place. For, as an ethical society, we should know better than to accept that this type of living exists.
Riis makes an interesting point about ethics which is that shanty towns are a reflection on our ethics and the choices we make as human beings. If we are able to accept and not feel guilt for fellow human beings that live in the mentioned conditions what does that say about our ethics?

How do we get out of this situation?

In the supporting lecture it was questioned whether design is able to help overcome the slum situation. I see the situation as a larger scale issue than design. Problems with less economically developed countries (LEDC’s ) go far beyond town/city planning. LEDC’s economic survival is crucial to whether these particular regions will be able to move out of the slum environment.
This topic is larger than a righteous designer saying how ‘devastating’ the situation is and how they as a designer are going to make a difference. I know this appears a pessimistic view. However, the outlook looks bleak on the subject. This is the difficulty in dealing with a topic as severe as ‘slum environments.’ It is all too easy to say ‘this out of my hands’ as it is also to say ‘make the world a better place’ but that is not to say, let us sit back and do nothing. I may not know of solutions but I know that the current situation is not acceptable to live with.
It was suggested, as Olivier Ward writes, that people began to argue positively for favelas in the class seminar, arguing that there was ‘enjoyment’ in living in such a place or that it would be ‘ok’ because ‘mother earth’ will sort out the situation. I do not believe that either of these suggestions made, were thought about in an ethical manner but it does go to show the extent to which people begin to try and detach themselves from the situation and also end up at ridiculous solutions to the problem.
I know of no answer to solve the problem of slums. It is possible when we look at solving the problem we are actually taking on the entire subject of developing less economically developed countries rather than the one particular aspect of slums. I have not come to any grand conclusion apart from that this is an issue that people need to become ethically engaged with in order for the slum environment to ever be overcome.

Planet of Slums by Mike Davis.
Self interest is why we should help, and why people will. Olivier Ward
Packard, Vance. The Waste Makers (London: Mckay, 1960).Papanek, Victor J. Design for the Real World: human ecology and social change (London: Thames and Hudson, 1995).Hawkins, Gay. Plastic Bags: Living with rubbish (London: Sage, 2001)