Jeff, Francois et al
short note here and hopefully a delectable short post..
Jeff's post has actually reminded me that in part of any
design decision process, where certain scientific
logic comes to mind; there are times that we often commit this
'crime' of being overtly confident about advanced systems ---
overlooking other seemingly unsophisticated forms of wisdom,
which may well be equally logical. (just that we may jolly well
refuse to recognize it)
Perhaps the biggest forecast in maintaining a sustainable living
is within us: that we need also be opened up to the so-called
less scientific rant..
..and be willing to acknowledge from not so well-backed sources.
(common known fault. Absolutely silly but it still happens.)
Any policy maker/strategist should never let any part of problem
loose. It often gets us moving in a circle for problem solving & costs
us far more. (again, we often commit this crime. Makes you wonder why.)
The advice may come from a mere'stone', but it stands in great solidarity.
Karen Fu
fellow Singaporean
back to her night thoughts on design & economy
& forthcoming national elections...(what dreams may be.)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:20 PM, jeffrey chan
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Francois, Karen and list,
> Glad that this reference is of some help. I found a much lengthier original article from which this one came from. The original article is on the Associated Press website and the design reference is even clearer.
> Couldn't agree more, Francois. A heavily depended upon criterion for design today has to do with the idea of 'performance'--and much of this is comprised of either immediate benefits or short-term impacts. In any case, if we are looking to design artifacts in order to warn future generations, as a rule of thumb we are neither doing well nor good. It is in all frankness a field of design we should very much want to avoid?
> And yes Karen, I am from Singapore.
> Best,
> Jeff
>
|