betraying the planet

[Marcio Dupont]

Hi, reading about betraying the planet, im not very optimistic about the
human nature as a person and designer,  humans are ambitious in the wrong
way and it is all about the money always.

questions:

 must the designer be essentially optimism to perform better its task?

It can exist very pessimistic designer with no faith and hope for the human
race and still design   or it doesnt matter at all at the end of the day?

it is optimism an intrinsic cuality of being a designer? a must have?

I have been questioning myself lately about the issues above.

As  I mention to my students "Politics are for the ants and bees, very
organized societies with very specifics tasks, working for the benefit of
all, no ambitions of any kind.

However politics are not for the human hearts, that are black and rotten".

to visualize the tragedy in which we live already go to the link  :

I dont even know if it is correct, more or less, or even real data, but even
so it is very disheartening.

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm

[Terence Love-2]

From Dr. Kevin Hilton who is having email issues with Jiscmail.
Terry
===

I would agree with Matthew to a degree. While we have increased our
awareness and understanding, in a number of professions including Design
over the last few decades, the fact is we do seem to be changing too slowly
to deal with predictions of impact. Whilst this in the main seems to be down
to human differences in world view perceptions of threat and value in
change, I believe a key problem we all face is in not finding a common
catalyst/vision to 'redirect' everyone 'together' in a more positive
direction. Instead some of us would appear to be making some effort to
redirect our own practices but experience difficulties as we get it caught
up in so many other issues, and complexity.

To use a clock analogy: We need to slow down this particular clock, so that
it works in a more realistic (Sustain-able) manner, providing value to all.
However, effort from each cog (profession) alone is too weak to make the
correction. Also if all cogs do not move in the right direction at the right
speed it also acts against the efforts of others and the system remains
uncorrected.

To enable such massive change would seem to need a single medium of
communication and coordination, to focus on and facilitate doing rather than
just talking or writing about doing. This would suggest to me the need to
radically change our perception of the function of the world press channels
and other modes of immediate broadcast, to communicate the value of everyone
changing together, and reporting where it is starting to work. We need clear
feedback and positive news, to further enable change, rather than the sad
'entertainment value' of bad news which enables some people to think 'Well
at least I'm alright Jack.' I suppose core to this 'correction' then is
determining and ensuring a responsible practice for the media.

The problems with this proposition first off are lack of trust in the media,
and secondly the political influence and denial of issues which we have seen
in the press, when it is actually less risky to accept and respond to
predicted threats even if the prediction proves wrong. It is a bit like the
philosopher's risk analysis for being atheist or a believer, showing that
the risk is less for being a believer.

Like most people and businesses there is the deep drive to make money and
deal with problems later. However, our value systems do seem able to change
in times of catastrophe when we are seen to work together for resolution.

The problem with the evidence of catastrophe is that it is often already too
late, at least for the victims. Also, getting someone to work in a
preventative rather than curative mode seems almost akin to asking for
belief of a religious nature. 'Sure I'll believe as long as 'He' shows
himself.' Many of the cultures in this world base their learning and
understanding upon their physical senses, not the imagination of what might
be. And attempting to 'convert' them brings up a whole host of other
problems, not to mention being ethically questionable.

So, in terms of what we might 'see' change more quickly than climate, to
'prove' the value of change, would be evidence of a better alternative to
the money hungry consumerist model of existence. But maybe the human animal
is not wired to appreciate any other system as 'more rewarding'.
I'd certainly like to see us 'doing' something along those lines though, to
see global TV plus local community show examples of reducing 'expenditure'
and improving well-being and balance, to encourage myself and others to copy
or at least investigate whether we can also make such improvements.

I'm presently planning to make a prototype video of how I live in my house,
not to say this is the best way to live, but to say these are changes I have
made to my lifestyle; for me then to investigate whether watching such a
video, of someone 'familiar' to the audience, (at Northumbria), helps them
to raise more appropriate questions of change, and follow through to actual
change, more effectively than just reading or talking about it.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Regards

Kev


Dr. Kev Hilton
Head of Research
The Centre for Design Research
School of Design
City Campus East
Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK

0191 243 7340
k.hilton@...
http://northumbria.ac.uk/experts/kevinhilton

[Karen Fu-2]

Marcio,

Well put ! I have thought I was one of the few who think that way. Glad to find
a fellow who think about the same way about politics and sustainability.
The way human nature works is sad but real. We cannot be idealistic to the
point to say it will be eradicated or altered.
But what can be done is to have good and intelligent people to lead
the way and curb
the ills of human nature. It can be done with diplomatic tact though difficult;
for every person there are 2 sides of a personality. Activate the one that works
positively.

Cheers
Karen Fu



On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marcio Dupont<marcio.dupont@...> wrote:

> Hi, reading about betraying the planet, im not very optimistic about the
> human nature as a person and designer,  humans are ambitious in the wrong
> way and it is all about the money always.
>
> questions:
>
>  must the designer be essentially optimism to perform better its task?
>
> It can exist very pessimistic designer with no faith and hope for the human
> race and still design   or it doesnt matter at all at the end of the day?
>
> it is optimism an intrinsic cuality of being a designer? a must have?
>
> I have been questioning myself lately about the issues above.
>
> As  I mention to my students "Politics are for the ants and bees, very
> organized societies with very specifics tasks, working for the benefit of
> all, no ambitions of any kind.
>
> However politics are not for the human hearts, that are black and rotten".
>
> to visualize the tragedy in which we live already go to the link  :
>
> I dont even know if it is correct, more or less, or even real data, but even
> so it is very disheartening.
>
> http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm
>

[Filippo A. Salustri]

Humanity is just one of evolution's attempts; if we screw up, nature will
start again with something else - like maybe the cockroach.  People say
humanity is screwed up because we basically screwed ourselves up.  But I
don't think that's right.  We're creatures of nature, and nature I have good
faith in.  If you think of humans as just other products of nature, then
there's not much reason to be so pessimistic.

It seems to me there are very few alternatives to the way things are.

There's too many people on the Earth, given our current state of
technological, cultural, and philosophical development.  If there were only
a few hundred million people on the Earth, things would be much better for
everyone, and for the Earth.  But how does one make that happen ethically?

Most of the problems we have arise largely from the bickering between
"stakeholders."  We could devise some kind of global totalitarian state.
The bickering would go away then.  Things would get done.  But there's no
way to be sure the /right/ things would be done - as is obvious from
existent totalitarian states.

Too many people lie.  They're too Machiavellian, hypocritical, with too many
hidden agendas and ulterior motives.  All these lies mean there's no trust,
and without trust we can't get anything done.  Maybe if we were telepathic,
we could get around this problem.  But there's no such thing as telepathy.

...or you can just have faith in people, based on history.  There are plenty
of times in our history when things looked like they were going to go right
down the toilet.  Everyone (at the time) said so; it was the end of
civilization, the end of the world, the end of whatever.

But we're still here.

And if we do kill ourselves off completely, then we'll have deserved it.

So don't worry about that long-term stuff over which you have no control.
Focus on what you can do now, today, to help.

Cheers.
Fil

2009/7/3 Karen Fu <minphf@...>

> Marcio,
>
> Well put ! I have thought I was one of the few who think that way. Glad to
> find
> a fellow who think about the same way about politics and sustainability.
> The way human nature works is sad but real. We cannot be idealistic to the
> point to say it will be eradicated or altered.
> But what can be done is to have good and intelligent people to lead
> the way and curb
> the ills of human nature. It can be done with diplomatic tact though
> difficult;
> for every person there are 2 sides of a personality. Activate the one that
> works
> positively.
>
> Cheers
> Karen Fu
>
> .....
>
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Karen Fu-2]

Sorry for the late reading.
Honestly I've not followed this forum &
similar for half a year;
as I am snowballed with different kinds
of errands.Notably about how to handle tasks,
people etc.So this thread really caught my eye.
So kindly *bear* with me..

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Filippo A. Salustri<salustri@...> wrote:
> Humanity is just one of evolution's attempts; if we screw up, nature will
> start again with something else - like maybe the cockroach.  People say
> humanity is screwed up because we basically screwed ourselves up.  But I
> don't think that's right.  We're creatures of nature, and nature I have good
> faith in.  If you think of humans as just other products of nature, then
> there's not much reason to be so pessimistic.

Rightly so, which is why the elfin nature off me. If we take close
look into the
peculiar nature of the human mind, then you would agree that are many
ways of handling
different kinds of people in different sectors of the industry.
I believe th art of managing people is very important.
How else could you solve problems which are basically
made by people? You can't solve problems purely on
'tools' like 'infrastructures', 'policies' or even with
'sound theories' without tactfully sort out people.
Some people think its about clobbering and hammering down;
some people think its about using all the patience in the world
to educate the flawed human race.
I think there must be an element of 'urgency' to
get people working through uncanny and even
humorous ways. The recent implementation
of using 'obvious acknowledgement' of people's
'kindness' and 'generosity' works really well in getting
positive energies to come in.

Pointless to punish people. Even if you
send them to court, to jail to eat thrash and get
thrash, you are wasting tax payers money on
feeding the bad. Why not get them to work ?
Make more revenue off them and they don't habour
hate against being persecuted too.



>
> It seems to me there are very few alternatives to the way things are.
>
> There's too many people on the Earth, given our current state of
> technological, cultural, and philosophical development.  If there were only
> a few hundred million people on the Earth, things would be much better for
> everyone, and for the Earth.  But how does one make that happen ethically?
>

Its hard to do it.You cannot simply tell
them to stop it as they will resent you.
The only way to get them running 'ethically' about population
is to let these 'procreators' decide themselves willingly.
Certain countries really need the population to sustain the economy
and certain countries don't. And we have to be really sensitive to it
and respect it.


> Most of the problems we have arise largely from the bickering between
> "stakeholders."  We could devise some kind of global totalitarian state.
> The bickering would go away then.  Things would get done.  But there's no
> way to be sure the /right/ things would be done - as is obvious from
> existent totalitarian states.
>

that's why I still adamantly feel that  simple fun diplomacy works..
How to be fun and serious is really a skill. Before we all start
to blow one another up with missiles and bombs from somewhere
north, maybe we need to consider something *unconventional*.



> Too many people lie.  They're too Machiavellian, hypocritical, with too many
> hidden agendas and ulterior motives.  All these lies mean there's no trust,
> and without trust we can't get anything done.  Maybe if we were telepathic,
> we could get around this problem.  But there's no such thing as telepathy.
>

Maybe we should also ask why people act that way. Then maybe perhaps
we could work backwards and untie the uncanny knots. There is always a story
behind every 'bad' act as with every every 'kind' act.

Including those who say such and work on something completely off.

If one can even work and turn around odds with this kind of people,
please hire the person and elect him/her as a leader. We need
such talent to turn the tides.

> ...or you can just have faith in people, based on history.  There are plenty
> of times in our history when things looked like they were going to go right
> down the toilet.  Everyone (at the time) said so; it was the end of
> civilization, the end of the world, the end of whatever.
>
> But we're still here.
>
> And if we do kill ourselves off completely, then we'll have deserved it.
>
> So don't worry about that long-term stuff over which you have no control.
> Focus on what you can do now, today, to help.
>

that reminds me I've neglected one of my elfin blogs on life and people.
Shall add something to it.

Apologies for the 2 pennies/cents on the topic..

Karen Fu


> Cheers.
> Fil
>