Dear Norm, Terence and all,
Product longevity, I agree, can be problematic if based on the notion of finite, terminal products. However, if the artefacts are pre-emptively designed to be updated, much in the same vein as computer hardware and open source software, they can be considered as part of a greater system, and consequently removed from the boundaries of singularity. They can be more highly integrated into a product ‘ecology’, similar to the analogy of trees previously stated. Besides, a dead ‘tree’ can still be assimilated back into new systems - some dead trees make great building materials.
In terms of the vestigial nature of previous models of component re-use; it would be a shame to allow past valuable research to be jettisoned. In a recent conversation with Arthur de Bono (head of design at Monash), it was likened to the “Quit” campaigns in the 60’s. Just because it didn’t work then, doesn’t mean it won’t work now (and even if it's still not working, it would be irresponsible to stop trying). Smoking legislation here in Australia is becoming increasingly vigilant in the light of the mounting evidence of terminal health risks. People still smoke but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do so.
Responsible design practice, as stated by McDonough and Braungart, should be about making artifacts as living product systems for a highly complex, living ecological system.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Transport Design Coordinator / Ph.D. candidate
Monash University
Faculty of Art & Design
Department of Design, Industrial Design
900 Dandenong Rd
Caulfield East 3145
Victoria, Australia
Ph: +61 3 9903 1859
Mob: 0425 726 011
|