The future is K

I swear, this isn’t a sustainability blog, but it’s beginning to sound that way. 

I was recently enlightened to the demise of the human race. Predicted to occur around 2030 based on the limits to growth info graphic shown. Having previously been completely ignorant towards this prediction, it came as quite a shock to me as i hope it will for anyone reading this. Recent predictions also show that we are on course for this demise, with no signs of slowing up. But with everything i have mentioned, aswell as consistently shocking headlines about the topic of a sustainable future, why haven’t things changed? Why are we still so irresponsible when it comes to protecting our future? 

we are not alchemists. We cannot create gold from steel and we cannot, just now at least, produce oil and resources from nothing. Everything has an inherent cost and everything takes time and effort, particularly oil, as we all know. This points to a blatant fact about the way we live, our system of economics isn’t working and has to change. 

This does not mean we cut all of our habits cold turkey and change over night, but the question is ” can we descend to paradise rather than climb into hell? “. This can be achieved if we change our economic ways and alter our levels of consumption but this can be a gradual change. 

To take lead from previous posts, i believe we as design engineers have a key role to play in this. But can we infact prove that we are the K species after all. This theory states that the R species come along and use the land to the point of overshoot. The K species then move in to fill the niches and live more sustainably by learning from the mistakes.  

So, can we become the K series? can we ADJUST our ways to live more sustainably or will we just use the earth to the point of destruction? I think design engineers can be the pioneers of this way of living and by attempting to adopt a new form of economics early in our careers, we can open up possibilites for future generations. Although we may not be able to design with the same freedom as we experience today, our designs can actually enrich the experience of those who need the product. 

Endless Resources

In a recent lecture from one Dr Federico Casalegno, i was enlightened to what exactly takes place in the research departments of Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ). The projects on show ranged from devices allowing us to interact with trade shows in a more convenient manner to a cloud made from 75km of fibre optics to an intelligent house that helps the inhabitant to engage with green living.

Now of course, the students, the lecturers and the majority, if not the entirety of the population of MIT consists of some brilliant minds who can innovate and explore the most obscure concepts and see the justification where others cannot. But my argument is simple, what if other schools and other institutions had the limitless funding and endless support from some of the worlds largest companies and corporations? If i make the comparison to my own course .. Product Design Engineering at GSA, and wonder how we’d perform i wonder if the money would corrupt us. Would it make us too reliant on the wealth of resources at our disposal rather than innovate with what we have, allowing the course to produce ingenious driven designers. I hope not, but this is all hypothetical.

I can’t help but make a comparison with another company. Apple. As most of my peers will point out, i like Apple products. Contrary to popular belief my favouritism to the company doesn’t come out of greed or need of a new shiny toy but my massive appreciation for the usability and the enjoyment i get from using the devices which i genuinely believe make my life that little easier and a little happier. More than these though, i love the thought and effort that goes into their products and the fact that someone in California has obsessed over every detail in order to bring about that happiness to my pocket or my desk. There is no excess, no massive ranges of unsold products ( Dell, HP, Acer ) no massive unnecessary choice range ( Samsung, LG, HTC, Nokia ) but simply a small offering of the most comfortable and most obsessed over detailed design on the market. I guess it’s easy to be in the sights when your at the top, but ask yourself this, what’s worse than a company charging ” over the top ” prices for some beautifully designed and manufactured products? a stockpile of unsold and obsolete machines that are serving no purpose, but simple being manufactured simply because the technology is available. I truly believe this to be correct, when you compare the ranges of Acer, there must be 15 – 20 diff models, but to satisfy who? do we really need that volume of choice?

In light of recent lectures and talks, i feel the Apple way to be more appropriate in terms of excess consumption, of which there is none. My point here is suppose is, if Apple didn’t have the unlimited resources generated by it’s sales, could it perform the way it does? Probably not.

If we look at this in comparison to MIT Mobile research lab ( http://mobile.mit.edu/ ) , who is making more of a difference? 35 million IPhone owners in last quarter alone, can’t be wrong. The ‘ anti-Apple ‘ dogmatists aren’t right. I think MIT could use a little PDE sprinkled in their life to bring about public behavioural change in the way they invision.

But if i have one point to make in all of this discussion, do i think the mobile lab at MIT will spend thousands exploring concepts which are pointless, yet one day make a discovery that will change the world?

Yes.