#my diet just consists of friend art at this point xD

[pixlokita]

💖💖💖

Hungry boi

(via)

[eazyeez]

Summary, Reading III (The New Materiality of Design) by Mihkali, 6 Oct 2020

These readings, like the previous ones as well, arouse thoughts on our society and the rest of nature as well. I like to emphasize the human race being a part of nature, including all our non-human artifacts. The reason to this is that we certainly are a part of nature and thus dependent on it. Separating humans from nature on a thought level distances us from the fact that when altering our habitat we will make changes to the complex puzzle that the biosphere is. The complex system, as it has more or less been for hundreds of millennia, is the ideal habitat for us and changing it will make it less ideal for us and partly other species. The altered ecosystem will as a result be more suitable for some species. For instance altering the ecosystem of the Baltic-sea by pumping masses of nutrients into it during decades has led to it being a more suitable environment for cyanobacterium. We all know how lovely cyanobacteria are in the water we drink, swim in or gather food from. This is a good example of what effects our actions can have on ecosystems on a slightly bigger scale.

As another example of how our actions can affect the biosphere is taking out apex predators (which are sensitive to environmental changes) from a marine ecosystem. The absence of the apex predators leads to the booming of the next level of the food chain, smaller predators. These predators will prey on the next level of the food chain too effectively, the plankton feeders, and their populations will collapse. The absence of the plankton feeders will cause a boom in macro-plankton/ animal plankton which feed on phytoplankton, the smaller plankton, mainly different algae, and the phytoplankton biomass will collapse. The absence of phytoplankton affects the physical and chemical balance of the water. Do we want to see a change in our oceans, which contribute in major ways to the balance of our biosphere and the composition of the air we breathe?

The point of this is that I often get the feeling that when separating humans from nature on speech level distances us from the fact that we are a part of nature and vulnerable to changes in it. This attitude might lead to the illusion that protecting nature is because we only want to be nice to poor little nature. This seems to me often to be the attitude of people who have an economy-first attitude to life and human society. I think it would be important in the discourses on ecology to emphasize the point that we are an inseparable part of rest of nature.

How all this in my view connects to the readings is the point that our society as it is today is the reason to our habitat being altered. The contradictory role of a designer in our society is connected to how the rest of the machinery works. The machinery which leads to alteration of the biosphere. Standardization is another element in the big machinery of our society. The machinery aims to become more effective on an endless time perspective. The non-human agents are an element of this machinery as well, aiming to a more effective production and consumption society. We constantly innovate new non-human artefacts to make human life easier and the living standard higher, which can be seen as one main driver of our society.

So the dilemmas in the texts we have read on this course are in my view not the real problem. The real problem is the structure of the society in which these dilemmas occur. This in my view is quite a justified simplification since the nature of our society will lead to problems in human existence that make problems within the functions of the contemporary society irrelevant. What difference does it make if artefacts like cellular phones create social or political problems, or the role of a designer in a mega corporation creates a feeling of having no purpose in life for the designer, or how much we should standardize the society to reach an ideal level of mundane tasks vs. more complicated tasks in everyday life of people, if the society to start with is flawed and will lead to problems of much bigger magnitude regarding the existence of humans.

But since very little change has occurred in what the human species seems to value and prioritize, and how we act accordingly, even as knowledge on the bad state of the planet has increased and become more accurate, humanity will probably see what this fooling around leads to regarding the biosphere and human society. What will the next generations´ societies look like? What roles will designers have in these societies?

UTOPIAN ALTERNATIVE:

Since I have concentrated so much on doomsday visioning and diagnosing our current society as flawed, I thought I could think about what options we could have for the structure/ nature of our contemporary society and how the alternative society structure would affect the topics of our readings.

I suppose firstly there should be an evaluation done on how we can live in order for our lives to be sustainable regarding the balance of our biosphere? Hopefully on probably evaluations already exist in heaps, but I have not stumbled upon one, not that I have actively searched for them.

How much energy and resources can every individual use in their lives? Are we forced to stop using fossil energy sources completely immediately? Are we forced to ban any form of single use commodities immediately? Are we forced to change our diet drastically, maybe allowing eating of animal based foods 95% less than we do now? Are we forced to ban recreational flight traffic or flying all in all? How about cars? Are we forced to abandon the clothing industry as it is now and maybe create an alternative where individuals have a ration of some kind on how many pairs of socks or trousers they can have each year? Are we forced to reserve huge areas of land and sea for wild nature, in order to save species and mechanics in the biosphere that make it stable? Are we forced to abandon use of any kind of plastic which is not biodegradable to eliminate the unclear threats of micro-plastics? Can we forget about space travel? Do we have to ban war XD, is it possible? That would be a huge step forward considering how wasteful wars are and what purpose they serve, which can in a way be seen as no purpose. Are we forced to regulate child birth in order to reach a population size which is sustainable? What is that population size? Of course this depends on the previous question on individual consumption. Are we forced to recycle ALL our wastes? How about wealth and money in general in the green society? If there is no market economy, is there a need for money?

What kind of a government would be the authority in the green society? A vast board of scientists from all imaginable fields? Can AI eventually help us in the task or ultimately replace a human based government? Judging by how things have gone so far and how adult humans from garbage men to (in increasing amounts) superpower leaders behave, it seems as we desperately need some sort of a parent kind of authority to tell us what is nice and what not. And what harm have Big Brothers ever caused?

Can we build a green version of this society, or is the sustainable life style just so far from our life style that it is impossible?

If it is, what is then the option? No market economy? No industry? No system XD? Sounds like a plan.

If a green version of the society is possible, how many designers will this green society employ? With industry reduced to a fraction of what it is now, as well as clothing fashion and the market of other commodities and advertising becoming partly or fully useless, will there be a need for the kind of designers we have now? Maybe not the commercial kind at least. But yes for the sectors not connected to commerciality. Design of signs of the infrastructure? Designs of communications still needed in the new world? Designers making the machinery behind this new system effective and functional?

The theories of graphic design that have developed during the existence of our contemporary society could naturally be taken advantage of in the visual communication of the green society. The same goes for theories of standardization, at a healthy level. Could the AI or the board please assess what that level is? And while at it, also hint if we should ditch the dish washer.

Connecting the green society visions with the read “Intercept from the Academy”, should peoples roles in the green society be reformed also in a way that peoples work lives would be different from what they are now, if the current system is seen as unhealthy for the individual, which leads to problems in the society? Should citizens of the green society be informed to use 4 hours of the day for work and more hours for time with family and friends? The families consisting of three or more generations, which could possibly be a cure for problems of social exclusion.

What place would authors and artists have in the green society? Based on Andrew Bennetts text, authors and the appreciation for true, pure and independent authorship are not going anywhere. Would the green society have space for art? Why not. Maybe if we weren´t busy working for 8 hours a day to afford commodities, some of us could be artists that do what they do without the pressure of turning it into money, but only to channel gods voice in order to create food for the soul for the not divinely chosen ones.