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.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
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.
Friday, 15 April 2011
Comments on Peer Projects
As a final input on this project, I'd like to provide some links to some awesome projects by my classmates! I left some comments on their individual blog pages, as well, but you should definitely see all the great work that my peers have generated!
Marco Tallarida: http://marcotallarida.blogspot.com/2011/04/windheat-turbine.html#comments
Jen Jun Zhu: http://jenjunzhu.blogspot.com/2011/04/design-for-blizzard-china.html?showComment=1302910742797#c1215762131181630190
Gleb Labazine: http://gleblabazine.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html?showComment=1302909768494#c2542862504998790935
Nicholas Baroni: http://njbaroni.blogspot.com/2011/04/design-for-disaster.html#comments
Alfred Boyadgis: http://alfredboyadgis.blogspot.com/
I attempted to post a comment on Alfred's blog, but I had technical difficulties and the site would not allow for it for some reason. So, here's my intended comment, and you should still check out his great work:
"Alfred, your final model is simply amazing! I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of seeing such a large-scale model with such fine craft and detail. Your orthographic drawings are extremely detailed as well--very nice work. The one thing I wish I could see more of is your process mock-ups and sketches along the way--you did all this work over the 7 weeks and you should show if off so that people can see what you designed along the way and where the design changes happened, so that we can understand even better. Great project overall, though!"
--Ryan
Marco Tallarida: http://marcotallarida.blogspot.com/2011/04/windheat-turbine.html#comments
Jen Jun Zhu: http://jenjunzhu.blogspot.com/2011/04/design-for-blizzard-china.html?showComment=1302910742797#c1215762131181630190
Gleb Labazine: http://gleblabazine.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html?showComment=1302909768494#c2542862504998790935
Nicholas Baroni: http://njbaroni.blogspot.com/2011/04/design-for-disaster.html#comments
Alfred Boyadgis: http://alfredboyadgis.blogspot.com/
I attempted to post a comment on Alfred's blog, but I had technical difficulties and the site would not allow for it for some reason. So, here's my intended comment, and you should still check out his great work:
"Alfred, your final model is simply amazing! I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of seeing such a large-scale model with such fine craft and detail. Your orthographic drawings are extremely detailed as well--very nice work. The one thing I wish I could see more of is your process mock-ups and sketches along the way--you did all this work over the 7 weeks and you should show if off so that people can see what you designed along the way and where the design changes happened, so that we can understand even better. Great project overall, though!"
--Ryan
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Reflection on "BlizzyBody" Project
Reflection on Project:
Coming into this project, I really had never had any experience with designing for a specific culture of people, or rather a subset of a culture, if you want to be that specific. I really didn’t know much at all about Chinese customs and responses to heavy snow and blizzards, but this project forced me to research and learn more about China (as well as Afghanistan and Iran, before our group switched to China). Now, after finishing this project, I can not only describe to you the appearances of Chinese houses in specific regions and provinces, whether it be rural or urban, but I can even tell you that washing machines in urban China are nearly universal, as I’ve learned that just about every family in developed areas has a washing machine. I can also describe that within a couple of decades into the past, this universal status of ownership of washing machines was not the case, and instead more traditional clothes-washing methods were used along with community-owned washing machines. In addition to cultural values that I’ve gained from new perspectives that have arisen from this project, I have also learned a great deal about blankets, electric blankets, heating elements within electric blankets, and even that electric blankets in our modern day can be washed in a washing machine on gentle cycle or by hand. In terms of my overall reflection, my biggest worry during the project was over the possibility of a removable cover for the blanket I was designing. It would be a great idea to be able to remove an exterior quilt cover for the blanket in case it got dirty, so that you didn’t have to wash the entire thing, but I soon discovered that this removable cover idea would be very impractical for the user. With the sheer size of the blanket, a blanket which is very flimsy and has no real physical definition, it is very awkward and frustrating to try to get a blanket of that size back into a cover after removing and washing. At the same time, there would be no need for this cover, since the electric blanket itself can be washed, and the industry designs according to a set standard—I contemplated for a very long time whether or not a design change would be more costly to my design, since I would have to hire a company perhaps to develop a new system for my new product. I think the overall takeaway for me is that sometimes, no matter how good an idea could be, you need to adhere to the simple minimum which made the idea so good in the first place, or else you’ll convolute your design and people may not even want to use it. I think I’m learning more and more that there’s a very fine line between, “hey, that would be great”, and “feature creep” (adding features that overcomplicate and muddy the original design).
Rationale for the "BlizzyBody" Project
Rationale for Project:
The reason for design and development of the “BlizzBody”, an electric blanket powered by piezoelectric charging, is to aid blizzard victims and any and all people who suffer from hypothermia and sever cold conditions in China during winter peaks (as well as any part of the world, for that matter). In recent years, central and southern regions of these Chinese mainland have experienced increased winter weather activity, including heavy snowstorms and blizzards. In urban areas near the south such as Guizhou and even Guangdong, electrical outages during blizzards and snowstorms can last up to even two to three weeks, meaning families must find a way to heat themselves and stay warm—without electrical outlets. Almost everything that people use in modern society to heat themselves tends to be something that relies on electricity through outlets, but what happens when a family is snowed in (unable to leave the home and stranded with what supplies they have) and without electricity for extended periods of time? Though they are indoors, the fierce wintery weather is too much for ordinary households to insulate long-term against (especially in Guangdong where heavy snow is a rare sight, though increasingly common in recent years due to Chinese government weather alterations via weather rocket dispersals).
The reason for design and development of the “BlizzBody”, an electric blanket powered by piezoelectric charging, is to aid blizzard victims and any and all people who suffer from hypothermia and sever cold conditions in China during winter peaks (as well as any part of the world, for that matter). In recent years, central and southern regions of these Chinese mainland have experienced increased winter weather activity, including heavy snowstorms and blizzards. In urban areas near the south such as Guizhou and even Guangdong, electrical outages during blizzards and snowstorms can last up to even two to three weeks, meaning families must find a way to heat themselves and stay warm—without electrical outlets. Almost everything that people use in modern society to heat themselves tends to be something that relies on electricity through outlets, but what happens when a family is snowed in (unable to leave the home and stranded with what supplies they have) and without electricity for extended periods of time? Though they are indoors, the fierce wintery weather is too much for ordinary households to insulate long-term against (especially in Guangdong where heavy snow is a rare sight, though increasingly common in recent years due to Chinese government weather alterations via weather rocket dispersals).
This is where the “BlizzyBody” comes in. It relies on the piezoelectric effect, converting pressure from human input—such as squeezing a hand actuator or pressing down on a foot pedal—into electrical current. “BlizzyBody”, a blanket measuring 1.5 meters by 1.12 meters, is an electric blanket with an interior lining of MPET (metallized polyethylene terephthalate), much like “space blankets”, that insulates body heat. But where the “BlizzBody” improves upon competitor products is it allows you not only to insulate but also to generate heat…sometimes insulation on its own just isn’t enough. Another main strength is that it comes with two actuators, either of which can be used by hand or foot, so that families can share the blanket together—while sharing body heat under the blanket—and charge it even faster. This is designed ideally for those in urban Chinese areas affected by snowstorms and blizzards who are without electricity for extended periods of time, though it could be marketed towards any part of the world with similar winter woes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)