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)

Self interest is why we should help, and why people will.

To continue the class discussion, and further debate why should we help slum dwellers and improve living conditions in slums.

In his book Planet of Slums, Mike Davis proposes that slums are one of the roots of terrorism, and that the scale of economic exclusion that occurs when slums are formed will inevitably lead into violence, drug taking and smuggling, as well as other forms of illegal activities. I for one cannot accept that slums are the only cause of these issues nor that by getting rid of Favelas we will win this so call “war” on terrorism. After all Osama Bin Laden didn’t grow up in a slum, nor was his family poor (on the contrary). However I can believe that slums provide a more productive breeding ground for those who want to recruit and train people to join extremist causes, or simply into drug trafficking or prostitution.

To follow the line of thought that was voiced on Tuesday that these illegal activities are a cause of slums, and that we should accept it as a natural consequence until “mother earth” sorts it out with some sort of mud slide or perhaps even bubonic plague is highly dangerous. It would be like saying, let the heroin addicts do there thing, I’m sure HIV will wipe them out eventually. Furthermore to suggest that we should spend the money on relief funds for when the terrorist attack/ armed robbery/ drug trafficking/ prostitution ring reveals its ugly outcome is naïve. This would clearly be a false economy, as the price of dealing with these outcomes will inevitably rise as the slums continue to grow. Far cheaper would it be in the long run to attempt to find a solution to the causes.

It is easy to get carried away in this line of thought and start believing that all slum dwellers are prone to becoming involved in illegal activities, that all slum dwellers live in total squalor, surrounded by pollution, excrement and decay- and this is simply not true. There are many people who live in shantytowns who work in the public sector, and are reasonably happy with their situation. However this is further reason why we should help improve infrastructure, sanitation, schooling etc…

I will concede that by continuously offering to “improve” slums the international community (donor countries, NGOs and multilateral agencies) run the risk of wanting (and trying) to impose a way of life, aspirations and rules of social behaviour on people, that are inappropriate, unwanted and maybe not needed. This should be avoided at all costs and it is exactly this criticism that has been raised against the World Bank institutions, international donors and NGOs in relation to many of the grand scale ideas and projects that have been promoted and financed over the years. It is not up to the “international community” (whoever they may be) to impose a way of life on people; it is up to those people to create one for themselves. I see the giving of a Noble prize to the founder of the movement for “micro-finance” and the growth of and support given to this form of very basic financing for individuals and communities who are otherwise cut off from the capital they need to self-improve as a sign that there is a recognition that we need to do things differently.

I recognise the moral obligation to at least attempt to ensure that no person should have to go without basic amenities (such as clean water and sewerage) or live and sleep in total squalor under the fear that things could get a lot worse tomorrow. If by doing this and improving the worst slums, we by result help reduce crime, terrorism and other forms of extremist antisocial behaviour, then that should be supported and encouraged. The moral obligation then becomes a matter of self-interest and self-interest usually motivates people more than their morals.

Massive Change; A New Type Of Design.

“The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered by future generations not as an era of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective.” (Arnold J. Toynbee, 1889-1975).

It was clear in Tuesday’s lecture that this was not a notion shared by most. Personally, I believe that design is everywhere; it can concern anyone and anything. Most of the individuals referenced below do not consider themselves as designers, but they speak of “designing systems, designing organisations, designing organisms, designing programs. We must admire and participate in the efforts of these thought-leaders or risk losing them.”

“Most of the time we live our lives within invisible systems, blissfully unaware of the artificial life, the intensely designed infrastructures that support them.”

“Accidents, disasters, crises. When systems fail we become temporarily conscious of the extraordinary force and power of design, and the effects that it generates. Every accident provides a brief moment of awareness of real life, what is actually happening, and our dependence on the underlying systems of design.”

In considering alternative housing for slum-dwellers, Katy suggested the need for affordable design that is also appealing. Carol Burns of Taylor and Burns Architects also maintains a similar position and argues that “it’s true that manufactured housing too often has looked cheap and has been stigmatized in various locations because of it. But I believe that good design need not cost more than poor or inattentive design.”

Currently, a solution to the ‘slum problem’ seems impossible, especially when the Third World consists of “entrepreneurs who struggle to build informal urban environment by hand. What if we were to design a property system that supports this?” Individuals such as Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist who redesigns property law to grant property rights to the poor, show that problems like these can be solved.

It has become a common misconception that “if people have a roof, they have shelter.” De Soto argues that “people need more than a roof. You need that roof in the system.” Olivier mentioned a project in Shanghai that aimed to eliminate slums. Unfortunately, the solution considered the province of Shanghai in separatist terms; the system should have been implemented throughout the whole country to create a full effect, and not just in one provincial area. Instead of “isolated parcels of land…it’s now a matter of considering an entire city infrastructure and its connected environs.” Architects tend to build pieces of city without regarding their relationship to the whole. Perhaps change is required in the design practice and in the thinking (of designers) before global change itself can be realised?

As far as the issue of money is concerned, “we now bare witness to an emergence of social entrepreneurs with ethics as powerful as their conviction to do the greatest good for all.” In 1999, Slovakia saw an increase from 10 to over 10,200 citizen groups in 10 years, whilst Brazil increased its citizen groups from under 5,000 to over 1,000,000. There are many citizen groups, nongovernmental organisations and non-profit associations (such as Bill Drayton’s Ashoka) that share the same goal.

Poverty reduction through design rejects the binary notion of the client/designer relationship, and observes current events. Problems are adopted everywhere, whilst ideas are developed and tested against other solutions. The effect of this is “to imagine a future for design that is both more modest and more ambitious. It is critical that the discussions go beyond the design fields themselves and reach out to the broadest audience” i.e. to those directly affected by the work of designers. Only then can we bring about Massive Change.


References and Further Reading:

• Massive Change by Bruce Mau and the Institute Without Boundaries, especially the Urban Economies and Wealth & Politics chapters.
• Taylor and Burns Architects, Carol Burns.
• The Institute for Liberty and Democracy (Lima, Peru), Hernando de Soto.
• Ashoka, Bill Drayton.
• It's Not How Good You Are, It's How Good You Want To Be by Paul Arden.
• Planet of Slums by Mike Davis.

Change one thing!

As you may know, with the powers of persuasion and regulation the Aussie Government have recently introduced a ban on incandescent light bulbs, persuading the public to switch to fluorescent bulbs which use less energy and omit less green house gases. In incandescent light bulbs, electricity flows through a filament to create light, but much of the energy is wasted in the form of heat.

Australian Prime Minister, John Howard’s approach is to unite Australia in this potentially huge global change to the environment, this seems like an obvious route to take, but its a first to create a ban on light bulbs, something seemingly so trivial.
Howard’s been quoted as saying “Here’s something practical that everybody will participate in”
This statement enforces a feeling of ‘follow the leader’.
When it comes to making a change in the environment, it has usually taken a minority of environmentalists to test the water to induce a change.
But it now seems a ‘trend’ for being eco-friendly has been born! No longer is it a stereotyped job for ‘hippies’ to fight for change on behalf of the environment, now the average Joe can join in, and be respected for his contributions too!
Many of us Brits have already jumped on the ‘eco- friendly’ band wagon, but the English “I don’t care, I won’t be around when that happens” approach still feels like we have too much choice, there should be more pressure from our government, to crack down on this climate problem.
And could we feel more climate-self-assured if Tony Blair followed in Howard’s footsteps? Blair has swapped his light bulb above No.10 to a florescent one! Surely he can promote the importance of changing to florescent bulbs nationally, by contributing to the incandescent bulb ban.

However, Australia still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol; an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The Kyoto Protocol covers more than 160 countries globally, including the UK.
Isn’t it rather embarrassing that a country as un-green as Australia is showing up Britain?
It is said that Australia’s switch to fluorescent bulbs could prevent 4 million tons of carbon emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, and would cut household power bills by 66%, by 2012.
If this turned into a global fashion 16 Billion tons of gases would also be prevented from harming our environment.

Cuba had launched the same scheme, two years ago, but more so to prevent electrical blackouts around the island. California is now considering a similar ban on the light bulbs, hopefully the remaining states of America could consider this too!
By changing this one simple element in the household has Australia created an international panic button?
And although florescent bulbs are slightly more expensive than standard bulbs, it seems a small price to pay on our part! Change your light bulb and help save the world!!

www.msnbc.msn.com
The Guardian

Panic Button

Inhale.

Take as much air in as you can.

After you give up television and newspapers, the mornings are the worst part: that first cup of coffee. It’s true, that first hour awake; you want to catch up with the rest of the world. But my new rule is: No radio. No television. Cold turkey.

When the newspaper comes I just recycle it. I do not even take off the rubber band.

You never know when the headline will be: “Third World War broke out!”

Or: “London flooded!”

Where the television used to be, there on the counter, I put an aquarium with the kind of animal inside which does not make waves, suites the wallpaper of the living room and matches the décor. An aquarium which when you turn on the heat lamp, does not tell you that the rainforest is felled, does not mention the increase in nuclear armament, nor the fact that new terrorist attacks are expected or that London’s crime rate has peaked a higher level than ever before.

You get all this anyway by just glancing at a newsstand or getting into a cab with the radio turned on too loud…but if you buy a glass tank filled with water instead of the TV and all you get is a bunch of illuminous guppies.

It is called Cocooning, when your home becomes your whole world.

Prehistoric man used mass panic as a weapon when hunting animals, especially ruminants. Herds reacting to unusually strong sounds or unfamiliar visual effects were directed towards cliffs, where they eventually jumped to their deaths when cornered.

Humans are also vulnerable to panic and it is often considered infectious, in the sense one person's panic may easily spread to other people nearby and soon the entire group acts irrationally.

Maybe, in a society which surrounds us with panic triggers, we all should get aquariums instead of TVs and radios or throw away our newspapers to make this world a better place?

Now you can take a good deep breath.

Because I still have not.

Further reading:

Neil J. Smelser's, Theory of Collective Behavior

art-nat

In reference to Shola’s art-nat, I was interested in the argument of how future technologies can be used in conjunction with natural gases (and I assume sustainable energy’s) to better nature and prolong the climate change epidemic. But I am interested in the necessity for future technologies such as the LG notebook.

I totally agree with Shola when it comes to alternative use of energy’s such as natural gases to coal but are these energy’s being misplaced. In our house at uni we recycle plastic, glass, paper, metal and have a compost in the garden, but there’s still an era of guilt when I hear the 6tonne lorry chug down the street collecting all the renewable materials.



I’m sure the recycling of tonnes of “rubbish” outweighs that of the pollution of the truck but I still can’t help but wonder how much pollution is caused through the collection of our do-gooderness. Some of the collection trucks along with London busses (RV1 to Covent Garden) are now powered by hydrogen fuel cells but not all of them are.

The notebook in Shoal’s blog looks quite tasty and is fuelled well but at what cost? Were the materials recycled such as the laptop Shola mentions after and if so were the materials sourced locally. Do we need more technology to write some notes down. The chalk and slate was abolished when paper was readily available but you could get more use out of a slate compared to that of several pieces of paper. Maybe in an instance like this we should go back and look at more rudimentary technologies such as the etch-o-sketch and save all sorts of materials without needing an energy source to operate them.

I was also intrigued at the statement that climate change also has a risk on the natural which is true don’t get me wrong, but what about the natural having effects on us. We as a species are predators and to fill this gap we have to make sure that there is enough to go around, but did you know that cows contribute more to climate change than cars do!! With a little of our help of course, the deforesting for grazing land, fertilizer being burnt off and of course cow fart, account for 18% of recent greenhouse gases. Stupid I know but if we (humans) were to vanish from the planet and all technology abandoned, C02 levels will still be contributed to at a rate the planet would still have a hard time handling.



We are the ones to blame for the situation we are in and many sacrifices will have to be made to counteract that, but I feel making new technologies such as note books powered with gas isn’t the way to go, I realise this is an example of what can be done with natural energy source’s but maybe we should step back and wonder if we really need some of the technologies we already have.

Reading:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/cows_and_climat_1.php
also check this out, anti recycle!!!: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/is_recycling_ut.php

Design Takes On Risk.

In his blog entry titled “Chill Out,” Russ discusses the emergence of a niche that “people are exploiting,” a preparation for “the results…concerning the planet’s predicament.” I assume Russ is also referring to designers in this statement?
After browsing the SAFE website (introduced to us by Jennifer in last week’s lecture), one thing became apparent: designers are increasingly using their work to comment on the world around them and are becoming less concerned with functionality (though, of course, functionality still remains).

Recently, there has been an intense focus on Muslims and Islam in the American and Western media, most of it “characterized by a more highly exaggerated stereotyping.” One of the larger ‘risk societies’ that dominates the headlines is the so-called threat of terrorism. Speculations about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial airliners, and poison water supplies seem to play on Western consciousness; simultaneously, this has opened up a new playground for designers. Tobias Wong (featured in Icon #41), for example, has created a range of products that reference the 9/11 terrorist attacks, including “Box Cutter” and “NY Pocketbook.” He has resorted to this type of work because he is “frustrated that other designers don’t.” In addition to these statement pieces, the SAFE website also sees designs such as a metal headscarf by Galya Rosenfeld.

“Design Against Crime,” a workshop initiated by Central Saint Martins, focuses on the role of the woman’s handbag in crime prevention; fliers such as “Keep Your Bag Safe” (by Sean O’Mara) compliment designs such as the “ZipZip” bag by Georg Hansis and the “Karryfront Screamer” bag by Adam Thorpe. Similar explorations into ‘keep-safe’ handbags have also been explored by Miriam van der Lubbe; her piece “Me and my Beretta” is a leather handbag moulded into the shape of a gun; “we made this because we didn’t feel safe on the street and wanted to express this,” comments van der Lubbe.

Returning to the issue of “the planet’s predicament,” a series of projects have also emerged in response to climate change. Toby and Dave from &Made, for example, undertook this theme for their self-initiated project, “Climatised Objects,” in which “the flagship piece, Either Oar, a solid timber dining table was inspired by recent spates of flash flooding in the UK. In times of need, the deceptive contemporary dining table transforms into a life raft; the legs and partial table tops are removed to offer themselves as oars.”

Perhaps Russ is right in suggesting that such products are unnecessary, but maybe they become necessary as indicators of what is taking place in our world today. In a world where the media has become completely useless at providing a balanced account of global events, it might be quite possible that design fills this space. However, it is not so much the expression of the government (and what they want the masses to believe) that is being projected, but more so the valuable expression of the individual designer’s perceptions.

The immateriality and invisibility of ‘risk societies’ means that all knowledge about it is “mediated and…dependant on interpretation.” The mass media provides a visual presence for the hazards associated with dilemmas such as terrorism, crime and climate change. The inescapability of interpretation makes risks “open to social definition and construction, putting those in a position to define risks – the mass media, scientists, politicians and the legal profession – in key social positions.” Perhaps now is the time to include the profession of “the Designer” into this list?


References and Further Reading:

• Safe: Design Takes On Risk, MoMA.
• Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World by Edward W. Said.
• Icon Magazine, #41.
• &Made, Toby and Dave.
• The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory edited by Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck and Joost van Loon.

No Exit

“Another day, another climate-change story. All of this leads to a deaf audience.” [1]

Andy, MI, USA

It might seem astonishing that in times of global warming and environmental catastrophes somebody like Andy from Michigan, USA can still allege an opinion like this. So what is it that bores us when it comes to environmental issues? Is it the fact that we are not (yet) directly affected? Is it because we do not realise that the world we live in, faces fundamental changes?

The problem of global warming is that it is not an individual problem; it is a problem that is communal.

But presuming there would be no ‘exit of an inconvenient truth’ is fundamentally wrong. Our daily life embodies various ways of exiting situations we don’t want to face up to. Lame excuses for example. Ignorance. Idleness. Economic interests.

Maybe the worst of all exits one can take from the inconvenient truth of global warming is the disrespect towards things which are not human-made. Set the case; If I went to Vatican City and smashed the precious Pietà sculpted by Michelangelo Buonarroti I would probably not get free from jail ever again. Imagine I would go to Mecca and destroy the Kaaba - the chances of surviving this would equal zero. The same would apply if I broke off a stone from the Western Wall in Jerusalem…

However, nobody would care if I went into the rainforest and chopped down a thousand year old tree. The problem with us is that we treasure only what is made by humans. Our disrespect towards nature is rooted in the fact that we take it for granted. Rather than appreciating it we sell it for profit. Rather than seeing it as something special and unique, we see it as a resource we can exploit and waste.

But to stick to the truth: By changing the earth’s climate, by extinguishing various kinds of animals, by polluting the air and by wasting water, we do not essentially harm our planet. The planet earth will still rotate around the sun. The only thing that will change are the conditions for life. Nature might not be concerned with the fact that for the next three million years only bacteria might survive on our planet.

Primarily, we just wipe out ourselves (and animals and plants depending on similar living standards).

Thomas Hobbes once wrote: lupus est homo homini. Maybe he was never more right.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

Chill out...

Designing a Panic button

Right, we’ve clearly entered this planet at an awkward time.

It’s the time where anybody can have access to anything to better their lives, it is also the time when people have to start changing their behaviours to better the future.

But there is a niche where people are exploiting, creating or maybe just preparing for the results of what we are all hearing about concerning the planets predicament.

Due to years of wrecking the planet with fumes and what not (although we all complain, its made your life more comfortable!) we are now being told that the world is going to be flooded, burnt by the sun, terrorised as well as other natural disasters. Well holy shit! Lets all abandon ship and grab a life jacket.

This whole panic button idea is stupid, fair enough, if you live on a fault line, its good to prepare for earthquakes. But I doubt creating some emergency bunker is going to help in the event of a nuclear attack; if you don’t die from the blast the radiation will get you. 2, what makes you think other people will be looking for you, I’m sure they will be wanting to look after themselves. 3, your going to be stuck in a bloody hole with the same 3 people for the rest of your remaining days, no one needs that!!

The same “just in case” scenario can be said for climate change flooding the planet. There have been products by designers such as N55 who built the Snail Shell System. A portable home that you can roll around suitable for one person. This product may not be aimed directly at emergency survival but its products like these that make people say “shit, we better get one just in case”.



Also, these people that have prepared for major catastrophes have done them selves a mischief from the offset, if you know someone with a boat and you heard the worlds going to flood, what do you do? You go up to that person with the boat and a couple of beers and try get on it with them and so does everyone else because there panicking, rendering the boat useless.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all up for sustainable energy and living on this “beautiful” planet for as long as possible, but if people spent as much time averting these catastrophes as they do anticipating and preparing for them maybe we might get some where.

One more thing, maybe if there wasn’t so many Panic buttons such as warning signs, life jackets and rubber corners, people will be more chilled out resulting in a friendlier planet, then we can all concentrate about getting it back to how it should be… clean.

Artifical Natural

Evergreen City

Until very recently, I lived and worked in the London Bridge area. During work I would always take my lunch to eat between the new buildings near City Hall. It was hard to find comfortable, private, peace and quiet anywhere else in an area so purposely conceived, as it will not afford comfort where it did not plan for you to rest. For example the area is less than sparsely fitted with benches.

There are half a dozen or less infant trees planted between two building faces that cause an alleyway down onto the river front. They cry from the brickwork as if infiltrating weakened pores in an otherwise tightly woven fabric. Captured, restrained and ultimately 'unnatural'. This display is one of attempt, rather than execution in 'incorporated' design. Also among these infants is another tree. Much larger and dominate over its siblings; David Batchelor's Evergreen installation is nothing more than two shrub shaped green light boxes interlocked atop a stainless steel trunk. Its an abstract but an accessible form. Its singular colour and unmistakable top heavy construction offers the growth associated with plants. There is perhaps no more widely recognised referent system than nature.


I like Evergreen, or 'The Tree' as it is otherwise known (it had become a community focal point). It may have just been a somewhere among anywhere to sit and eat but I was consciously drawn into its form. I assigned a positive association to its collective shapes and colour.

As the real trees stagger aside, Evergreen appears a symbol of perfection. A reduced minimalism of all that is essential in replicating form. The plastics and metals it is built from connote a new evolution and at night it fluoresces a brilliant green as if to defy the natural daily cycle of life. It is captivating in its simplicity and reminds me of Olafur Eliasson's Weather Project at the Tate Modern, where a huge sun crescent, mirrored into a perfect circle in the ceiling was hung in the main hall. People would lie below engrossed in it's glow whilst waving at their reflection. I remember walking down the entrance ramp convinced by its light and warmth. I would assign the same emotions to this installation as I would to the real center of our solar system.

If my emotions react to these signs rather than truths, I am apparently satisfied by the substitute and furthermore, there may appear to be advantages in recreating nature. Although the tree would never flower, seed or grow, the sun would also never set. However, despite my best efforts to imagine these technologies positively, I can't help but picture a neuromantic scene of depression; the post-climate reconstruction of a once sustainable ecosystem.

I fear our grasp of reality has already shifted somewhat. We conceive Disneyland to be fake but at what point does urbanity cross beyond the realms of real? Would we even notice? Baudrillard claims such imaginary worlds conceal the changes in reality, or rather conceal the fact that “the real is no longer real”.[1]

From traffic to television, an ambience of distraction surrounds the city. They say it never sleeps, thus we are already astride the rhythms of the natural world. I would suggest those concerned by our 'new' efforts to manipulate the weather, by means such as cloud seeding (as mentioned by Katy), be consoled in this is not a new thing, so do not worry. We started dictating the weather long before we started to mimic it.



[1]Baudrillard, J. quoted in Birch, T. (1990) The Incarceration of Wilderness, p18.

See also: McLaughlin, A. (1993) Regarding Nature. New York University Press.

Artificial Natural

I want to feast on fish all my life!

I disagree that we (humans) are somehow more important than other animals in the eyes of anything other than ourselves. I would argue, as does James lovelock, that we are of no particular significance.

In his book Gaia, James Lovelock proposes his theory that the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

Transforming conditions on Earth, are also shaped through the alteration of living organisms. Lovelock describes how Algae thriving on severe cooling of the earth many thousands of years ago, multiplied to such an extreme that they formed a layer on the oceans surface, their dark colouring absorbed the suns heat, warming the Earth.

Climate Change is causing accelerated changes to Gaia and reducing diversity. How will ‘Gaia’ respond to a reduction of diversity? Will it narrow its conditions favorable to us, creating extremes the likes of which we are beginning to see today (draughts, flooding, desertification).

I do not think we should respond to Climate Change for any other reason than our own selfish desire. I do not want fish to be abundant for their sake; I want them to be available to satisfy my desire for Sushi. I do not suppose that our actions will have a registered effect on Gaia, but they will on us.

Reading
Gaia, James Lovelock
The Boundaries of Humanity, James J. Sheehan and Morton Sosna

Artificial Natural

When some of my friends talk about global warming, most of the time they talk about how the weather is getting humid and how annoyed they are because the heat waves makes them extremely hot. What many of us forget is the effect the heat and other factors of global warming are having on the animals and plants, that have been on this earth longer than us. The use of technology has risk not only to the human race but also to the natural.

According to scientist it is because of the escalation in use of technology, global warming is now a big problem. From the effect of global warming and in turn climate change, there is a large rise in the number of death of animals. “Climate-induced changes in the ocean have never been more dramatic than in the past three or so decades…sea surface temperatures in this part of the Atlantic Ocean in northwest Africa declined by 1.2 degrees Celsius during the 20th century.” (Roger Highfield, Telegraph). This reminds us of the cycle of life, and how much we need to preserve the natural.

Our constant use of technology to live our everyday lives, suggest we are killing of defenceless life forms. Driving to the shops or leaving the lights on, uses energy. The use of energy causes carbon emissions that are released into the atmosphere which helps form global warming. As people live longer there is an increase in the use of technology and carbon emissions, it is because of this that the natural is suffering. It is our obligation to repay the natural (being plants and animals) by finding a way to protect them from the effects of climate change. I say protect because even if there was a large drop in the amount of carbon emission released into the atmosphere today, there would not be any recognisable change until 100 years has passed. An example is the dying coral in the earths oceans. They do not have that long to wait for the amendment of global warming. Therefore something needs to be done now to reserve the natural that we have left.

We as designers can do this by taking into account the life forms that we may affect because of what we may design. “In an age of mass production when everything must be planned and designed, design has become the most powerful tool with which man shapes his tools and environments (and, by extension, society and himself). This demands high social and moral responsibility from the designer” (Victor Papanek, Design for the Real World)

LG has recently designed a “e-book” (shown below) as in ecological notebook. It uses fuel cell batteries, which work on natural gas, methanol, and other economical kinds of liquefied fuel. This could be extended by creating the laptop from recycled materials. We simply need to remember that it is not only humans that is affected by global warming, but the natural world needs help to survive.

Bibliography:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/02/05/ecfish05.xml

http://g3.commongate.com/post/LG_e-Book_Laptop_Concept_Features_Fuel_Battery_and_OLED

Victor Papanek, Design for the Real World

Artificial Natural

( home constructed with 6000,000 lbs of recycled materials
from "future-forward design for the world you inhabit")


(Rana Creek's " these giant metal wall panels deal with integration of greenery into built environments" - inhabitat )

Because of the negative effects mankind has had on the earth everyone must be held responsible for not only his of her past actions but the actions they plan to take. Because of their position in the shaping of our world, designers have an ethical responsibility to preserve and protect nature. It is their plans that plot out the shape of our visual world; they must acknowledge global warming and take responsibility for the changes to come and the problems that can be prevented.


Of course, the rebuttal to this belief is expressed in the common quote that “art (should be) for arts sake”. To this Frank Lloyd Wright replied, “Art for arts sake is a philosophy of the well fed.” Indeed this proves even truer today. With the greater frequency of droughts and fires, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes doubling in the last 30 years and the spread of Malaria to higher altitudes (in such places as Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet about sea level), the problem cannot be held off any longer (An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore). It has been proven that the raised level of Co2 in the air, causing global warming, is a direct result of artificial and unnatural causes. It is predicted that deaths from global warming will double in 25 years, or, 3000,000 people a year. (““) Wright’s argument implies that art simply for the sake of art cannot stand on its own without a stable economy and environment. The current pressures of global warming and the dramatic changes, which are expected to affect our environment within the next few centuries, should arouse the ethical obligation of designers and artists. Though art for art’s sake may be an freeing “minimalist” philosophy, it won’t be possible if the new building you are designing next to the Thames becomes part of the river itself. Though these environmental changes may not immediately affect artists as much as the threat of poverty (which the Wright quote is aimed at), their hypothesized affects will spare no one.


In her paper Reconfiguring Kinship in Techonscience, Donna Haraway states that “ Most Western narratives of humanism and technology require each other constitutively: how else could man make himself? Man births himself through the realization of his intention in his objects.” (299). Man must realize too, his position in the world around him. Nature has been turned into the unnatural. Though designers have the challenge and responsibility to attempt to achieve aesthetic perfection they also have a responsibly to the future of our world. If Man births himself through the discovery of himself in what he makes, let him save himself through his accountability. After all, designers can help the environment from their choices of materials to the very structures they sculpt. Because of the effects of their artificial creations, designers have an ethical obligation to acknowledge and protect the environment.

sighted sources:
Inhabitat, www.inhabitat.com/sustainablebuildig.php: Future-Forward Design for the World You Inhabit.

The Haraway Reader, Donna Haraway. Routledge New York and London (2004).

An inconvenient Truth, Al Gore.
The Science. Al Gore: http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Artifical Natural

There are currently six billion tons of carbon dioxide being admitted into the worlds atmosphere so consequently we will soon we will be breathing twice as much CO2 in every breath than our grandparents did, unfortunately it is not only us who will suffer from the consequences of our irresponsible actions but more so our environment and every other creature inhabiting it.

When we hear of illegal poachers killing endangered species for their precious coats or ivory we are disgusted and refuse to wear fur but in relation to the whole ecosystem falling apart this is clearly a minor problem, but for a strange reason we don’t see it this way. It is certain that global warming is happening, yet no one can predict exactly how severe the consequences will be which is probably why it is so easy to push it to the back of our minds and feel little guilt about it. Yet the beginnings of climate destruction are happening, unfortunately the worst hit areas are also the most rich in flora and fauna such as the Andes Mountains. Not only is their habitat being reduced and changed but other effects include migration of non-native species which will end up killing each other off and their natural yearly routines shifting. Perhaps people will become more concerned about this when it affects them, only when there are swarms of locusts migrating to England and eating all our food will people take note. This illustrates that humans on the whole are selfish and predominantly concerned with what is happening before their eyes than something on a mountain in Africa.

You can buy eco-friendly light bulbs and turn your television off at the plug when you go home but its still not enough. But every little helps right? It seems that the situation will get a lot worse than it is now for people to really start caring, this maybe to late to do anything about but that is the risk the majority seem to be taking. It is nice to think that we do care more about our environment but unfortunately there are to many hypocrites and few that really do that much about it.