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.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)