Dear Jan,
Thank you for your statement on industry and their way of pursuing
their interest with all means possible and available. An interesting
detail that came to my mind regarding design, social responsibility
and the tobacco industry. Did you know, that an important German
design price is sponsored by the tobacco industry: the Lucky Strike
Designer Award. Known people from within the German design theory
community are running this design venture. Design cynicism?
Kind regards
Lorenz Herfurth
MA Design Management and Policy
Lancaster University
United Kingdom
On 01.07.2009, at 05:40, Jan Coker wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle
> of doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in
> front of us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is
> only reflective of short sighted self interest.
>
> We have the resposibility to use our education and skill to further
> the ecological and social sustainability of our planet. We have
> personal choices of where we draw the line on what we will
> collaborate in and what we won't. No amount of rationalization can
> justify abrogating our own responsibility. We have in the end to
> live with our own conscience; and maybe in the end it comes down to
> deciding what we will personally sacrifice. What jobs we will not do.
>
> As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that
> discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is
> an adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the
> beauty of lives, functionally, socially, physically. Sure its
> possible to make mistakes but designer are in the position were they
> might employ an ethic of not only knowingly doing no harm but also
> doing nothing unless it is clear that it can better global life.
>
> Remember that the tobacco industry argued for the harmlessness of
> smoking long after any doubt of its harmful consequences was
> dismissed; even to the point of lying, threatening, and bullying.
> And the industry continues to find ways to promote death by funding
> advertising by buying Hollywood/media support, by buying political
> collusion with industry profit, completely ignoring the fact that
> they are killing people. Not only the company does this, not only
> people's bad choices do this but those who work in the industry and
> aid in the secondary industries, the John and Julias are personally
> colluding to commit murder.
>
> Warmest,
>
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker, PhD
> Upfront3
> 1 /174 East Tce.
> Adelaide, SA 5000
> Australia
> 0403855539
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 'The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection.
> Make ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam
> forth such pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-
> being and harmony of all the kindreds of the earth' Baha'u'llah
> mid-1880s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
>> terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
>> friends --
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
>>
>> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
>> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term
>> prosperity. Of
>> course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to
>> prosper
>> and nowhere left to do it.
>>
>> What frightens me about this column is that the predictions are
>> changing
>> even more dramatically than I had realized. Scientists at MIT are now
>> predicting a rise of as much as 9 degrees by the end of the
>> century. I
>> was already frightened by reading what will happen with a rise of 6
>> degrees in Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees - Our Future on a Hotter
>> Planet
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246266527&sr=1-1
>>
>> I'm passing this along, not to criticize one group of political
>> opportunists , but because Krugman has his fingers on the issue.
>>
>> Warm wishes,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>> Professor
>> Dean
>>
>> Swinburne Design
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> --
>>
>> Betraying the Planet
>>
>> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>
>> Published: June 28, 2009
>>
>> So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In
>> political
>> terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
>>
>> But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came
>> from
>> representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected
>> the
>> bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do
>> something
>> about greenhouse gases.
>>
>> And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help
>> thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the
>> planet.
>>
>> To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of
>> climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken
>> by the
>> latest climate research.
>>
>> The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists
>> expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a
>> terrifying
>> rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a
>> rise
>> in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer
>> be
>> considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely
>> outcome
>> if we continue along our present course.
>>
>> Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a
>> temperature
>> rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century,
>> are now
>> predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas
>> emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors,
>> like
>> absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be
>> weaker
>> than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is
>> self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause
>> some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide
>> into
>> the atmosphere.
>>
>> Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T.
>> researchers
>> and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our
>> economy.
>> As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the
>> end
>> of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North
>> Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and
>> across
>> the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally
>> occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual
>> events.
>>
>> In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of
>> life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify
>> failing to act?
>>
>> Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things
>> wrong.
>> And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their
>> dissent on
>> hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the
>> issue,
>> consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific
>> consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting
>> responsibly.
>>
>> But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didnthought hard about
>> a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right
>> thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being
>> interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy
>> implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe
>> in it —
>> and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds
>> their denial.
>>
>> Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the
>> declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate
>> change
>> is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the
>> scientific
>> community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so
>> would
>> actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to
>> believe
>> that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal
>> consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it
>> has
>> managed to create false records on everything from global
>> temperatures
>> to Arctic sea ice.
>>
>> Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
>>
>> Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention
>> the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to
>> rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a
>> point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s
>> economic
>> impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
>>
>> Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it
>> politics as usual?
>>
>> Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
>>
>> Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed
>> that
>> terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose
>> face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the
>> existential threat from climate change is all too real.
>>
>> Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat,
>> placing
>> future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because
>> it’s in
>> their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry
>> about.
>> If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
>>
>> --
>
|