Monday, 30 May 2011
Personas: Trying to Understand All the People Involved in Our Product Service System
As we got further along with our research for this project, we decided we needed to try to better understand patients, nurses, and doctors within this hospital setting by producing some generalised personas for each. See our personas in chart form below:
Mind Maps: Hospital Product Service Systems
Below are some mind maps that my group mates and I did for this hospital product service systems project. You can see our lines of thinking and how we approached potential issues in hospitals from the ground up, tracing a patient's experience from start to finish in a hospital, as well as charting out all the most important issues in hospitals and the real roots of these problems.
A Great Interview With A Nurse
To supplement our research in journals and articles and online sources, Marco Tallarida, Brett Rushbrook, and I actually went to some hospitals in the Sydney area and did some interviews. We talked to some really friendly nurses (respecting of course that they were on duty and had jobs to do) and they shared some really helpful information with us about how things currently run in a hospital and how they feel about the status quo.
Below is one of the interviews that we conducted, with Mrs. Anna Kunz (head nurse on duty) at Randwick's Prince of Wales public hospital:
Below is one of the interviews that we conducted, with Mrs. Anna Kunz (head nurse on duty) at Randwick's Prince of Wales public hospital:
Heaps of Research for Hospital Product Service Systems
My group mates and I have done extensive research over the past few weeks into current service systems in hospitals, current products used in hospitals, and everything in-between. At the bottom of this post you'll find a list of most of the sources we've looked at for information, many of them being great journal articles and reviews. I recommend that you read them if you've got the time.
Things we discovered from research include that ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is today becoming more and more recognised amongst hospital staff as a real problem, and it stems from lack of oral hygiene for patients during their stay. A patient recovering in a hospital bed who doesn't brush his teeth for several days or weeks, for example (usually because they are heavily medicated and nurses aren't trained to emphasise oral care as an issue) can lead to respiratory infections and worse. Simply put, bad oral hygiene is the gateway to a slew of other problems in the human body, and is even linked to heart disease by some studies. We've found estimates that VAP can cost a hospital $40,000 more per patient because of resultant problems, something that can be avoided simply by motivating nurses to care more about patient dental care and put effort towards it. Check out this source of information for the bigger picture: http://www.sageproducts.com/company/media2.asp?ArticleID=70§ion=Case%20Studies
As a result of this research, we tried to design some good products that could motivate nurses to keep a dental cleaning schedule and actually care about oral hygiene of recovering patients, but there wasn't really an opportunity for a product service system, there, so we looked at other options.
Also included in our research is a variety of places with room for improvement not just in hospitals but in many other parts of society, such as airlines with air plane food systems, the top food sanitation problems in restaurants, and grocery stores that have to keep food cold at regulated temperatures.
It's neat to look at how far we've come (the first of our research is toward the bottom and the latest is toward the top). We started looking at things like Japanese robot assistants in grocery stores and "HoverRound" and "Scooter Store" product service systems relating to adult day care, and since then we've come all the way to designing mobile information systems for nurses in hospitals.
Check out the "Visual Diary" post that was posted right before this one, and you can see how the visual diary sketches correlate to the research links here.
Research:
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jO2miFqCfxYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA131&dq=oled+trend+cost&ots=PlDZioypzy&sig=OTx6yHdjpDwkHrmYoTfzvgvSrxk#v=onepage&q&f=false
Visual Diary Pages for Product Service Systems
As you can see in the pages from my visual diary below (organised in order of creation, with newest towards the top and oldest toward the bottom), my group mates and I explored many different possibilities for a product service system. We found that we were most interested in exploring issues in a hospital setting, so we explored all the issues that we could think of after doing lots of research and visiting some hospitals and interviewing nurses.
Some of the ideas we came up with ranged from simple solutions, such as ways to reinforce proper disposal of coffee cups, to absurd solutions, such as e-textile fabrics in uniforms (making the nurse's uniform into a note-taking and file-sharing device).
Some of the ideas we came up with ranged from simple solutions, such as ways to reinforce proper disposal of coffee cups, to absurd solutions, such as e-textile fabrics in uniforms (making the nurse's uniform into a note-taking and file-sharing device).
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Parallel Learning: Assignment 2d- THE CORPORATION
THE CORPORATION
Parallel Learning 2d
As part of my Industrial Design studio at UNSW, I recently had the chance to watch the documentary film, The Corporation. Though you get to hear all the time in the news of "evil" corporations such as Enron and the various stock market thieves of Wall Street, I didn't completely comprehend the severity of the present-day meaning behind the term "corporation" until I watched the film and learned of the many scenarios that have been underway for quite some time in society. While many companies will obviously claim to be doing what they're doing for the greater good, for the people's benefit, to make the streets safer, etc., there are indeed serious questions in many cases as to whether or not corporations do the things that they do (and buy out or privatise the things that they do) for the greater good, or instead for their own good.
The Pfizer scenario, for example, rings some serious alarms in my mind. When Tom (the spokesperson) tries to call the Pfizer-employed security guard who is supposedly less than 500 meters away, no one answers. When he tries again, using another call station, no one answers. What does this say about the privatisation of products and services in the subway, or, for that matter, the "benefits" that Pfizer claims are coming from corporate ownership of things that used to be the transit authority's responsibility? Tom claims that Pfizer is making the neighborhood into a better place, but it certainly doesn't seem so in the video. Even Pfizer's implementation of special toll booths in the subway that you "can't jump over" seems like a bad idea to me. What happens if there's an emergency and someone can't get through the toll booth area (and, as mentioned before, you can't call for help because the Pfizer guard doesn't answer)? As the corporation of Pfizer controls more and more of the assets in the subway, they promise better and better things for the community, though it would only seem that it means better and better things for Pfizer, making a profit from the ownership. The last nuance on this topic that seemed very out of place to me from the video was the fact that calling the Pfizer guard at the guard station (not even located in the subway) would in turn lead to the Pfizer guard calling the authorities. Why, then, is there this middle man, when you could just as easily call the police directly? Since virtually everyone today has a cell phone in their hand, in combination with the fact that the Pfizer employee is unresponsive at best, it seems illogical to call the Pfizer guard when doing so will only take longer to reach the same means as calling the police yourself.
After seeing and thinking about the Pfizer scenario in terms of the earlier claims in the video that "some people believe that soon everything in society will be privatised and owned...including the very genes that make up human beings", I begin to understand where the makers of the film are coming from--this is a very legitimate fear. Especially when you take the historical context into account, in which early corporations argued themselves to be "persons", thereby claiming protection of property under the 14th Amendment (designed in the U.S. to protect freedmen and former slaves), it seems that corporations can get away with nearly anything, so long as no single person is to blame for any crime the company commits. And while companies DO provide many great products and services to us that benefit our daily lives, it becomes a very scary notion that these "persons" removed from morality can do just about anything and take just about any action so long as there are laws that they can bend and lawyers who can make clever arguments. The scariest historical part of the matter, to me, is that over 200 companies filed claims under the 14th Amendment in court whereas only 19 freedmen used their new-found rights. What does this say about the United States--or any country that follows this economic model--when a law is designed to do one thing and then the purpose is completely corrupted by corporations for private profit, not to mention that the Supreme Court would simply go along with such ridiculous transgressions!
And while the incentive of profit through the free market is what certainly drives many economies of the world today, it's difficult to listen to stories in The Corporation of shady business practices (aimed solely at making a profit) when the idea behind a corporation--a body of people given the right to function by the people, for the people--was initially to do one service for the community so long as that service was needed, and that was it. Nowadays it seems that businessmen are willing to go to any length to make the extra dollar, including the scenario described in which an undercover spy pretends to be hiring someone from another company, offering to pay more than what they are currently making with their salary at the other company. In return for trusting the business spy, the person who thinks he might be hired is given nothing in return but the uncertainty of his current job in the future, as the aforementioned spy in essence takes whatever information he can get about the other company's business practices from the one being duped. When profit seems to be the only real incentive today to many people, it's not hard to imagine that spies like this exist, but what does it say about the free market when people have become so corrupt in their corporations that they are willing to lie and cheat just in order to stay one step ahead (and perhaps even cut the throats of competitors)? This doesn't seem at all like "a body of people functioning with the people's consent to provide a service to the people so long as that service is required." To me, it sounds more like a world in which companies do whatever they can to sell to consumers, even throwing competitors under the bus in order to do so, and the quality of the services that companies do for consumers is now second to making a profit, even if it means producing lower quality products.
And, finally, though The Corporation does mention that many CEOs get a bad rapport on illegitimate grounds--meaning they in fact do care about the environment, the individual consumer, and the people working in their factories--it's difficult to take any CEO as trustworthy when you hear the comments that people like Phil Knight, CEO of Nike, say on camera. How can you trust a corporation's leader (or the corporation itself, for that matter) when the CEO makes statements and plans for his factories when he is completely out of touch with those places and the people who work in them? Having never even been to Indonesia or seen the workers and the effects of their low wages on their daily lives, it becomes clear that nothing in the corporation is as important to him as making a profit, and thus spending time in Indonesian factories is a waste of time. That is, until tennis comes into the matter, in one of my personal favorite parts of the entire film: wealth and personal profit (of any kind) are the only factors important to this CEO, as interviewer Michael Moore discovers, as Knight invites Moore to the Australian Open, in which "possibly" there "might be" time to "maybe" swing by Indonesia on the way home. Wow.
Absurd wealth seems to be the only motivation for these immoral "persons" (corporations) and the actual people who run the corporations under these pretenses, and I think it's about time that the laws changed. Though it will always be controversial to allow the government to move into the economic sector and make heavy regulations (limiting the sense of "freedom" in the free market), the status quo stands for a system in which good business practices and good design for the better of the world are not worth it any more; the best way to get rich at present (or even just ensure a permanent living) is to do the wrong thing and take advantage of the weaknesses of the law on these matters. Why do the right thing when you can take advantage of the system and get rich? I know that there are many good designers, good business leaders, and good companies in the world today, but at the very least the fact that "evil" corporations like these are allowed to do as they please without action from the law (and sometimes even protection from the law) is a serious demotivator for people who are trying to change the world for the better, and if we're all committed to a healthier market model and a healthier world, something has to change lest these immoral monolithic "persons" take us all down with them.
Parallel Learning 2d
As part of my Industrial Design studio at UNSW, I recently had the chance to watch the documentary film, The Corporation. Though you get to hear all the time in the news of "evil" corporations such as Enron and the various stock market thieves of Wall Street, I didn't completely comprehend the severity of the present-day meaning behind the term "corporation" until I watched the film and learned of the many scenarios that have been underway for quite some time in society. While many companies will obviously claim to be doing what they're doing for the greater good, for the people's benefit, to make the streets safer, etc., there are indeed serious questions in many cases as to whether or not corporations do the things that they do (and buy out or privatise the things that they do) for the greater good, or instead for their own good.
The Pfizer scenario, for example, rings some serious alarms in my mind. When Tom (the spokesperson) tries to call the Pfizer-employed security guard who is supposedly less than 500 meters away, no one answers. When he tries again, using another call station, no one answers. What does this say about the privatisation of products and services in the subway, or, for that matter, the "benefits" that Pfizer claims are coming from corporate ownership of things that used to be the transit authority's responsibility? Tom claims that Pfizer is making the neighborhood into a better place, but it certainly doesn't seem so in the video. Even Pfizer's implementation of special toll booths in the subway that you "can't jump over" seems like a bad idea to me. What happens if there's an emergency and someone can't get through the toll booth area (and, as mentioned before, you can't call for help because the Pfizer guard doesn't answer)? As the corporation of Pfizer controls more and more of the assets in the subway, they promise better and better things for the community, though it would only seem that it means better and better things for Pfizer, making a profit from the ownership. The last nuance on this topic that seemed very out of place to me from the video was the fact that calling the Pfizer guard at the guard station (not even located in the subway) would in turn lead to the Pfizer guard calling the authorities. Why, then, is there this middle man, when you could just as easily call the police directly? Since virtually everyone today has a cell phone in their hand, in combination with the fact that the Pfizer employee is unresponsive at best, it seems illogical to call the Pfizer guard when doing so will only take longer to reach the same means as calling the police yourself.
After seeing and thinking about the Pfizer scenario in terms of the earlier claims in the video that "some people believe that soon everything in society will be privatised and owned...including the very genes that make up human beings", I begin to understand where the makers of the film are coming from--this is a very legitimate fear. Especially when you take the historical context into account, in which early corporations argued themselves to be "persons", thereby claiming protection of property under the 14th Amendment (designed in the U.S. to protect freedmen and former slaves), it seems that corporations can get away with nearly anything, so long as no single person is to blame for any crime the company commits. And while companies DO provide many great products and services to us that benefit our daily lives, it becomes a very scary notion that these "persons" removed from morality can do just about anything and take just about any action so long as there are laws that they can bend and lawyers who can make clever arguments. The scariest historical part of the matter, to me, is that over 200 companies filed claims under the 14th Amendment in court whereas only 19 freedmen used their new-found rights. What does this say about the United States--or any country that follows this economic model--when a law is designed to do one thing and then the purpose is completely corrupted by corporations for private profit, not to mention that the Supreme Court would simply go along with such ridiculous transgressions!
And while the incentive of profit through the free market is what certainly drives many economies of the world today, it's difficult to listen to stories in The Corporation of shady business practices (aimed solely at making a profit) when the idea behind a corporation--a body of people given the right to function by the people, for the people--was initially to do one service for the community so long as that service was needed, and that was it. Nowadays it seems that businessmen are willing to go to any length to make the extra dollar, including the scenario described in which an undercover spy pretends to be hiring someone from another company, offering to pay more than what they are currently making with their salary at the other company. In return for trusting the business spy, the person who thinks he might be hired is given nothing in return but the uncertainty of his current job in the future, as the aforementioned spy in essence takes whatever information he can get about the other company's business practices from the one being duped. When profit seems to be the only real incentive today to many people, it's not hard to imagine that spies like this exist, but what does it say about the free market when people have become so corrupt in their corporations that they are willing to lie and cheat just in order to stay one step ahead (and perhaps even cut the throats of competitors)? This doesn't seem at all like "a body of people functioning with the people's consent to provide a service to the people so long as that service is required." To me, it sounds more like a world in which companies do whatever they can to sell to consumers, even throwing competitors under the bus in order to do so, and the quality of the services that companies do for consumers is now second to making a profit, even if it means producing lower quality products.
And, finally, though The Corporation does mention that many CEOs get a bad rapport on illegitimate grounds--meaning they in fact do care about the environment, the individual consumer, and the people working in their factories--it's difficult to take any CEO as trustworthy when you hear the comments that people like Phil Knight, CEO of Nike, say on camera. How can you trust a corporation's leader (or the corporation itself, for that matter) when the CEO makes statements and plans for his factories when he is completely out of touch with those places and the people who work in them? Having never even been to Indonesia or seen the workers and the effects of their low wages on their daily lives, it becomes clear that nothing in the corporation is as important to him as making a profit, and thus spending time in Indonesian factories is a waste of time. That is, until tennis comes into the matter, in one of my personal favorite parts of the entire film: wealth and personal profit (of any kind) are the only factors important to this CEO, as interviewer Michael Moore discovers, as Knight invites Moore to the Australian Open, in which "possibly" there "might be" time to "maybe" swing by Indonesia on the way home. Wow.
Absurd wealth seems to be the only motivation for these immoral "persons" (corporations) and the actual people who run the corporations under these pretenses, and I think it's about time that the laws changed. Though it will always be controversial to allow the government to move into the economic sector and make heavy regulations (limiting the sense of "freedom" in the free market), the status quo stands for a system in which good business practices and good design for the better of the world are not worth it any more; the best way to get rich at present (or even just ensure a permanent living) is to do the wrong thing and take advantage of the weaknesses of the law on these matters. Why do the right thing when you can take advantage of the system and get rich? I know that there are many good designers, good business leaders, and good companies in the world today, but at the very least the fact that "evil" corporations like these are allowed to do as they please without action from the law (and sometimes even protection from the law) is a serious demotivator for people who are trying to change the world for the better, and if we're all committed to a healthier market model and a healthier world, something has to change lest these immoral monolithic "persons" take us all down with them.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Parallel Learning: Assignment 2c- HOME
Parallel Learning Assignment 2c: The film, HOME
I recently watched the film, HOME, by the homeproject, as part of an ongoing parallel learning project for my industrial design studio at UNSW.
Earlier this semester, a friend had actually recommended HOME to me, though at the time I had no idea what it was or what it was about. Even upon sitting down this week and watching it, moments before starting it I still had no idea what it was about. I'm especially glad that I hadn't searched for information about it beforehand, because the immensely beautiful (and simultaneously sickening) images and ideas that are presented in the film are stunning. I had no idea what to expect and I was captivated from start to finish.
Most captivating to me in the film is the framework of the story, which moves us from the miraculous and mysterious origins of life on earth, to the brilliant genius that humankind stands as in its various achievements and uses of unprecedented tools such as oil, to the horrific beacon that humanity has become in shaping the world for its own selfish gain and survival, to the hopeful people that we should all become, looking for ways to counteract what we have done and do what needs to be done to preserve earth and its many miracles of life. As these transitions in the framework happen very gradually, the shifts in portrayal of human beings are somewhat subtle and suddenly I realized that the subject matter in the film had shifted from beautiful landscapes and harmony between man and nature to human beings as endlessly multiplying gas-guzzlers who are intent on destroying everything in their path for their own gain. The stark contrast between the beauty of earth untainted by man's hands and the world we live in today--one increasingly designed by man to utilize the earth at earth's expense--made me wonder how this situation every got so far along in the first place. In the past 50 years, according to the film, human beings have changed the earth more than they have in all the 200,000 years of human history that came before it. 50 years has merited so much innovation and progress, and yet so much pollution, ease of life and subsequent overpopulation, and draining of non-renewable resources. All my life, I can remember Presidential speeches in the U.S. which heavily focused on these problems, and on the need for development and use of renewable energies in order to save the planet, the environment, and so many of its species. Clearly these topics have been on our minds in society for decades, and yet we've been leaning in the same negative directions, sticking to old models, not making many purposeful changes at all. Is it just that it's such a difficult situation and an insurmountable problem that no one wants to step forward and attempt to tackle it? My impression in society is that everyone knows the road we're headed down, but no one wants to be the one to put their foot forward, because (for the time being, as long as fossil fuels are still accessible) doing the right thing is synonymous with the inconvenient thing. I realize that for designers to make serious changes to our societal models, they have to stop saying to themselves that "someone will figure something out" and instead make some personal sacrifices and say, "I've got to figure this out, before it becomes too late."
No one wants to see the day when it IS too late, but not many people seem to want to put forth the serious effort to avoid that day, to turn our direction to a better one. Why else would people in Saudi Arabia continue to this day to use fossil water aquifers until they are completely dry, then moving to the next until it, too, is dry? Why else would people in the United States continue to mine for oil and use it to power personal vehicles? Why else would China continue to build dozens of petrol plants each year, when its national pollution rates are already so high and the warning signs of global warming are already so apparent? After watching HOME, I'm beginning to believe that people have become so accustomed to their current styles of life that they grasp the status quo as tightly as they can, afraid of change. Thus, I understand that as designers we must not only find solutions but also find ways to convince people that change is necessary, that without change, we are all heading for "uncertain territory." We must find reasonable design solutions relating to energy usage that people are willing to accept--solutions that do not require people to sacrifice the lives that they know.
On that note, however, comes the topic of overpopulation in the world that is brought up by HOME. If indeed we were to find design solutions relating to renewable sources of energy that would maintain our styles of life, what would change? Perhaps we might save the atmosphere from carbon dioxide and methane emissions, but with so many people (and still rapidly increasing in numbers) the toll on the earth to sustain our species would certainly not decrease dramatically as one might hope. Overpopulation is just as big of a problem as the use of non-renewable energy sources which pollute the environment. Thus, I am led to believe that the root of the problem is the way that we live, and designers must focus on finding ways to convince people to change their ways of life to sustainable methods...a much more daunting task than designing any singular product. Perhaps such a feat would be greatly facilitated not just by products but by product-service systems (PSS), which is what we are beginning to learn about in studio now.
Hearing from HOME that the forests of the Amazon have been reduced by 20% in the last 40 years and that melting layers of the permafrost would release untold amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere, exacerbating the effects of global warming to unpredictable levels, I am indeed very afraid for humankind and for the future of the planet. Defending and replenishing the atmosphere and the entire biosphere is a global problem, not something that can be selectively approached by individual nations. As long as any one nation in the world is still following current societal models of daily life, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for example, the problems we face will not cease. But how do you persuade an entire world of people to change how they live, to sacrifice convenience today for a more hopeful existence tomorrow? I know as a designer that the solutions are before us, that it IS possible for our species to change the road we're on, but I realize that it will not just be the job of research and development, politicians, and our leaders--EVERYONE has to be committed to the effort, lest the stragglers counteract productive measures.
At times I find it difficult not to be pessimistic about this issue, as it is such a large problem to attempt to tackle; but with so many people and so many heads to put together, surely we can become larger than the problem itself. HOME gives me hope that we can change, though I know it will never be easy.
I recently watched the film, HOME, by the homeproject, as part of an ongoing parallel learning project for my industrial design studio at UNSW.
Earlier this semester, a friend had actually recommended HOME to me, though at the time I had no idea what it was or what it was about. Even upon sitting down this week and watching it, moments before starting it I still had no idea what it was about. I'm especially glad that I hadn't searched for information about it beforehand, because the immensely beautiful (and simultaneously sickening) images and ideas that are presented in the film are stunning. I had no idea what to expect and I was captivated from start to finish.
Most captivating to me in the film is the framework of the story, which moves us from the miraculous and mysterious origins of life on earth, to the brilliant genius that humankind stands as in its various achievements and uses of unprecedented tools such as oil, to the horrific beacon that humanity has become in shaping the world for its own selfish gain and survival, to the hopeful people that we should all become, looking for ways to counteract what we have done and do what needs to be done to preserve earth and its many miracles of life. As these transitions in the framework happen very gradually, the shifts in portrayal of human beings are somewhat subtle and suddenly I realized that the subject matter in the film had shifted from beautiful landscapes and harmony between man and nature to human beings as endlessly multiplying gas-guzzlers who are intent on destroying everything in their path for their own gain. The stark contrast between the beauty of earth untainted by man's hands and the world we live in today--one increasingly designed by man to utilize the earth at earth's expense--made me wonder how this situation every got so far along in the first place. In the past 50 years, according to the film, human beings have changed the earth more than they have in all the 200,000 years of human history that came before it. 50 years has merited so much innovation and progress, and yet so much pollution, ease of life and subsequent overpopulation, and draining of non-renewable resources. All my life, I can remember Presidential speeches in the U.S. which heavily focused on these problems, and on the need for development and use of renewable energies in order to save the planet, the environment, and so many of its species. Clearly these topics have been on our minds in society for decades, and yet we've been leaning in the same negative directions, sticking to old models, not making many purposeful changes at all. Is it just that it's such a difficult situation and an insurmountable problem that no one wants to step forward and attempt to tackle it? My impression in society is that everyone knows the road we're headed down, but no one wants to be the one to put their foot forward, because (for the time being, as long as fossil fuels are still accessible) doing the right thing is synonymous with the inconvenient thing. I realize that for designers to make serious changes to our societal models, they have to stop saying to themselves that "someone will figure something out" and instead make some personal sacrifices and say, "I've got to figure this out, before it becomes too late."
No one wants to see the day when it IS too late, but not many people seem to want to put forth the serious effort to avoid that day, to turn our direction to a better one. Why else would people in Saudi Arabia continue to this day to use fossil water aquifers until they are completely dry, then moving to the next until it, too, is dry? Why else would people in the United States continue to mine for oil and use it to power personal vehicles? Why else would China continue to build dozens of petrol plants each year, when its national pollution rates are already so high and the warning signs of global warming are already so apparent? After watching HOME, I'm beginning to believe that people have become so accustomed to their current styles of life that they grasp the status quo as tightly as they can, afraid of change. Thus, I understand that as designers we must not only find solutions but also find ways to convince people that change is necessary, that without change, we are all heading for "uncertain territory." We must find reasonable design solutions relating to energy usage that people are willing to accept--solutions that do not require people to sacrifice the lives that they know.
On that note, however, comes the topic of overpopulation in the world that is brought up by HOME. If indeed we were to find design solutions relating to renewable sources of energy that would maintain our styles of life, what would change? Perhaps we might save the atmosphere from carbon dioxide and methane emissions, but with so many people (and still rapidly increasing in numbers) the toll on the earth to sustain our species would certainly not decrease dramatically as one might hope. Overpopulation is just as big of a problem as the use of non-renewable energy sources which pollute the environment. Thus, I am led to believe that the root of the problem is the way that we live, and designers must focus on finding ways to convince people to change their ways of life to sustainable methods...a much more daunting task than designing any singular product. Perhaps such a feat would be greatly facilitated not just by products but by product-service systems (PSS), which is what we are beginning to learn about in studio now.
Hearing from HOME that the forests of the Amazon have been reduced by 20% in the last 40 years and that melting layers of the permafrost would release untold amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere, exacerbating the effects of global warming to unpredictable levels, I am indeed very afraid for humankind and for the future of the planet. Defending and replenishing the atmosphere and the entire biosphere is a global problem, not something that can be selectively approached by individual nations. As long as any one nation in the world is still following current societal models of daily life, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for example, the problems we face will not cease. But how do you persuade an entire world of people to change how they live, to sacrifice convenience today for a more hopeful existence tomorrow? I know as a designer that the solutions are before us, that it IS possible for our species to change the road we're on, but I realize that it will not just be the job of research and development, politicians, and our leaders--EVERYONE has to be committed to the effort, lest the stragglers counteract productive measures.
At times I find it difficult not to be pessimistic about this issue, as it is such a large problem to attempt to tackle; but with so many people and so many heads to put together, surely we can become larger than the problem itself. HOME gives me hope that we can change, though I know it will never be easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)