Hi, Judith,
Thanks for your note. I’ve only been involved in Erik’s thread to note Temple Grandin’s work and to suggest that someone compile a good reading list. The concepts of the Anthropocene and the anthropocentric are distinct issues related by the Greek root-word “anthro” human.
The concept of the anthropocene involve an attempt to define a geological era — now - occurring after the holocene. Not everyone agrees with the concept of the anthropocene: “relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.” Geologists tend to take one position while environmental scientists tend to take another.
Nearly all scientists agree that human beings are affecting the climate. There is no question that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is real. The scientific question involving the concept of the anthropocene involves a question about whether this is a new geological era. Geologists tend to use different criteria, based on the rock record.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/ <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/>
But the thread on anthropocentric design has nothing to do with the anthropocene. The idea of anthropocentric design is a concept of design organised around human beings and human needs. This is a philosophical concept in design. In contrast, the idea of the anthropocene is a geological concept.
The question of human-centred design requires us to define the term human-centred, and it requires that we consider the place that humans hold in a larger world that involves many non-human stakeholders.
There is a serious and interesting debate to be had on the concept of the anthropocene, but I don’t think that we need to consider it with respect to design. While we will not change the *geological* era within which we live, what we do today may well affect the geological era in which future human beings live.. What *is* important is the debate on what we can do to address serious issues in climate change.
Non-anthropocentric design research is another issue. I was puzzled, for example, that only two posts referred to the important work of scientists who focus on animals. Some we are interested in design for non-human stakeholders, we should pay attention to the work of people who really work with non-human stakeholders.
Yours,
Ken
> On 2018Dec 5, at 13:19, Judith Gregory <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello Birger and Ken, first of great threads of thought for interweaving ...
>
> That said, I'm not oriented towards 'anthropocentric' thinking -- and I'm not seeing the need to call out 'non-anthropocene thought' which seems much more the norm unless there's been a big sea change that I'm missing ... ?
>
> But if you see the need, of course follow the path you see.
>
> When we first arrived at UC-Irvine, we put together a one-day event with themes about the 'Anthropocene' -- but it wasn't very generative so we moved on. Or perhaps someone could make better sense of it than we could.
>
> Best regards always,
>
> Judith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|