Dilemma Pack, part 1

In the past, (and sadly, still presently) ridiculous and squabbley arguments over topics such as racism, sexism, abortion, religion, and homosexuality, have been easily solved by applying the ethic of reciprocity (better known, but not fully encapsulated by "The Golden Rule.")

However, a new breed of wicked problems are arising which have serious ramifications for every facet of life, including social, political, and economic players.
All of these problems have been seen glimmers of life in the past, but with the feverish rate of technological advancement, there is a consistan movement towards their increasing frequency and overreaching implications.

1) Intervention vs. Tolerance, as they apply to culture and business.

On October 1942, During World War II, Prescott Bush (grandfather of George W.) was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, when it was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act for doign business with the Nazi regime.

Just in the last few months Nokia-Siemens has sold surveilance equiptment to a repressive and violent Iranian government.

Philosophically, tolerance is a bit of a mutually-agreed hands-off approach to differences. However, in a quickly shrinking world, it is becoming increasinly difficult to ignore the domino effects of evey individual action. Humans must quickly become much more mature and responsible if they ever hope to perpetuate their current state of existence.

So, where should the line be drawn?
What is universally 'good', and to what extend can one impose their idea of 'good' on another?

Micro-Computational Long Tail Technique

Today I saw something I see every day: electronic devices.

So what?

I noticed how few of them are being used at any given moment. Gaming consoles sitting on standby, cellphones charging throughout the night. DVRs, graphing calculators, and many others spend most of their time sitting idly by, instead of being used.

Create a system for electronics to spend their downtime doing cloud computing micro-processes, and you've harnessed a Goliath ant-hill of logic.


Does your iPhone dabble in protein folding on the weekends?

Crazy Conspiracy Theory of the Day

I apologize ahead of time that this post ventures away from the usual design-thinking.

I also apologize for how ridiculous this theory is, but i find thinking about it to be quite amusing.


Argument:
Global warming and climate change are tools to control society and steer them away from paganism.

Expounding:
Global warming (ie. climate extreming) are largely caused by the by-products from transportation and energy. Both weather extremes, both frequent storms, and blistering dry heatwaves, force people to stay inside their homes and cars, and contantly use climate controls. These climates deter individuals from walking or riding their bikes in nature, which is also being slowly destroyed. This causes a vicious cycle where the only temporary reprieve from a poison comes from consumption of more poison, which in turn leaves the host worse off than before.

Right-wing, christian conservatives have taken strong holds on the government in order to propogate this agenda. Disconnecting people from nature, creating sickly and docile masses, and perpetuating a constant state of fear to quell resistance.

I'm sure I could add more to this, but I think that's the gist of it.

Hero Impervious

I notice a certain naive indifference to looming world problems.
There are huge lists of potential world-ending theories, From global warming to meteorite strikes, from honey bees to magnetic pole flipping and from grey goo to solar flares. (There's a great TED talk about most of these.)

While the indifference may be attributed to over-stimulation, and media fear mongering, leading to a numb sense, or simply to blissful ignorance, I propose an alternative theory.



What if people don't fear today's looming dangers because they secretly and unconsciously assume that someone more powerful or more intelligent then them will pop up at the last minute to save the day? Do we put all of our eggs in the 'Heroes and Technology' basket, instead of taking dire situations into our own hands?

Professional VS. Power User+

Trend Guess of the Day:

As information and technology become increasingly available to the public, an individual's internal locus of control will soon encompass materialistic possessions.

Expounding:

Most modern households currently own a printer. Some homes have multiple printers, some of these have additional features such as scanning or photo-printing capabilities. Recently, 3D printers, while usually much too expensive for personal usage, are starting to appear in the sub-$500 category.

From this point, it doesn't require a huge stretch of the imagination to think that soon individuals will be rapid prototyping their own circuits, cellphones, and clothing within their homes.

The capability to do so will exist, and will be desired. People like things made just for them. 'A perfect fit'. And how can we be surprised, when the word 'Custom' encompasses most of the word 'Customer'?

This same concept applies to food, energy, and many other areas. When homes are efficient, and can run on their own solar and wind energy, they wont need a power grid. I had never realized before how much "Going Green" is synonymous to "Going Independent."

Floating Ladders.

Societies contain a precarious balances between trust and skepticism, fear and safety.

I find many individuals who are distrustful of new people they see and interact with on a daily basis. Yet, they all live in societies where the most important thing in the world is based in an intangible trust we hold in the value of tiny pieces of otherwise worthless paper, or a numerical blip on a computer screen.

In this same way, humans know that matter is mostly emptiness, yet we still perceive it as solid.

Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear To Tread)

While discussing design's incentives, conversations regularly broach the subject of aiding '3rd world' nations.

It is no secret that many 'first world' nations have historically amassed wealth and resources through the subjugation and abuse of weaker countries. Yet even today, under scrutiny, signs abundantly hint that the "Manifest Destiny" wolf is currently alive and well, now thriving under a democratic sheep's guise.

However, within these industrialized first world states, there are individuals genuinely attempting to soothe the woes of developing nations. These people have designed many wonderful products and services specifically around afflictions of the 3rd world. Early designs, such as Vestergaard-Frandsen's 'Lifestraw' and Envirofit's improved cooking stoves, are based around obvious basic human health needs.

More recently, primarily through the dissemination of cellphones and integrable services. work is begin committed towards building data infrastructures within developing nations. People such as Jan Chipchase and Natahn Eagle are laudably creating new ways to bolster health and economic growth solely through wirelessly attained knowledge and services.

Although human aid is a commendable task, we need to fully realize the implications of our actions. Who is financially backing the research? If a company is making an investment, they must expect a profitable return. We should always be examining their motives, and making sure corners are not being cut, potentially hurting their consumer base in exchange for slightly larger profit margins. Once upon a time, America thought nothing of immersing playing children in vast clouds of DDT. Today, without full understanding of the potentially carcinogenic properties of cellphone signals, we are heedlessly flooding Africa's nations with handheld devices.

To clarify, I am not advocating that cellphone usage leads to cancer. And even if it did, the gained utilitarian value probably offsets this cost for now. Simply, I urge discretion to those outside the box, attempting to design for those caught within.

Mass Consumer vs. Futurist Prosumer

I notice a discouraging, and exponentially extremeing, rift between design for reality (mass consumption) and designs for awesome (toys for 'rich kids').

On one hand, take Apple's nearly invincible ipod: Originally the ipod was akin to a luxury item, now it reigns heartily across 90% of the market share. This trend is reflected by the current lineup of Macbooks which are largely considered to be the best laptops commercially available, yet seemingly everyone in a college setting already owns one.

I wish the 'luxury' side of Apple still existed. A light, fast, and innovative 'Macbook Elite' would easily sell, even if the price-point loomed around $4-5k (look at how many companies still sell cars for over a quarter of a million). Not only would the sheer number of these 'luxury sales' justify the existence of such an object, but it would give a company the chance to 'field test' the future concepts of their consumer products.


On the flip side, my Devil's Advocate doesn't appreciate when the same 'luxury mentality' is soley applied to innovation. Technology shouldn't be a trickle-down to the proles. The current all-electric cars on the market are leaps and bounds away from the standard consumers reach. A sub-$20k electric car would have a HUGE market in the United States.

It is well known that, even in this economic recession, households are willing to make expendetures on "green investments". As long as people think they are helping the world, while simultaneously making an investment into their own pocketbook (i.e. saving on gasoline and accompaning repairs.) Even if the range was only 80 miles on a charge, at a top speed of 75 mph, there would quickly be a waiting list back-logged for over 3 years. (at one point, a used Prius could be sold for higher than it costed new, simply because the mass-consumer demand was so high.)


Simply, the powers of choice should lie in consumer's hands, and they should be able to choose from all possible products, instead of the products being designed solely around company-perceived niche markets.

What do you think?