Terry,
I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what you say here.
But overall you are missing my point a little. I am referring to artefacts
that you wish to hold on to and not 'throw away as landfill' - not simply
technological advances that create obsolescence. In fact heirlooms.
For example - most of what you say is about obsolescence of technology and
ROI to the consumer - and the benefit of design hindsight - after the act
of design.
Nobody for example, would use asbestos as they did, with the current
knowledge of its dangers. LCDs have been around for a while - but no one
would pay the extra - like plasma wide screens of today.
However, I recall a Volkswagen Polo that could achieve 70 mpg in the 80s
versus around 48 mpg in today's Toyota Prius -
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef2d147/0
If somebody is still interested here - the old VW Beetle and the new one
seem to get similar fuel efficiencies:
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/1998/russ9825_comparison.html.
So - if you had kept a Beetle from the late 70's and maintained it
constantly (expensive granted) - you would have a car with similar fuel
economy, arguably more pollution - but as in the typical 4-5 year swap out
of today's society (a quote from my local Chrysler distributor),
you would have avoided FIVE car replacement products (consumer life cycle
- not actual life cycle). as much as 300 million+ cars globally.
From this source -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/MarinaStasenko.shtml - there are
currently over 600 million cars in 1970 it was around 170 million cars .
In other words, if the World had all bought VW Beetles in 1970 and
maintained them religiously (passing them on to children, etc), the world
would not have made 300 million+ cars over the past 30+ years. (sorry I
cannot work out total new car uptake from this data)
Recalling a phrase from the LandRover Owners Association of UK - over 70%
of all LandRovers ever built are still on the road.
But say we apply this philosophy across many consumer goods and not just
objects - hair brushes, waste baskets, houses, garden equipment - there
would be a great and immediate reduction in landfill - beginning with the
packaging of goods.
Our forefathers repaired and held onto their belongings, we continuously
con ourselves into believing the 'recycle myth'.
Apparently, it takes more energy to recycle glass than to make fresh
bottles, most recycled plastic ends up as sub standard plastic (with
filler) or it is just carted away to a third world country.....in fact the
design darling Apple is not doing so well here either ...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/electronics-companies
Instead of the currently trendy phrase "from cradle - to cradle", it
should just be "from cradle - stop", wherever possible.
Aside from the wild way technology warps our perception of what something
is - we should be making objects with the same cultural value as antiques
- cherished, restored and loved - passed on as heirlooms.
It is hard after 5-10 years to hold onto any serious technology - but we
may be able to re use it somehow - someway - radios still work from the
50s, so do musical instruments, etc.
I am not asking that everything we design turns into a 'classic vehicle'
or an antique, but we should give a damn about the future a bit more,
and we as designers and design educators are that immediate future.
Glenn Johnson
"Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
01/08/2007 07:25 PM
Please respond to
<[log in to unmask]>
To
<[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
cc
Subject
The environmental failure of designing products to last (was Landfill)
Hi Glen,
Provocative. Thanks.
You wrote that designers ' need to create things that last '
In engineering design, the opposite is found.
The really serious environmental, ethical and social problems are often
associated with products and technologies that have been designed to last
and thus not replaced.
One of the simplest and most direct ways of reducing global warming and
air
pollution in the UK is to replace existing power station gas turbines with
newer designs. Unfortunately, because existing turbines were 'made to
last'
and have already been paid for there is some 'designed in' resistance to
gaining the environmental benefits. In Australia, car-created air
pollution
could be dramatically reduced by stopping using older cars. The difference
in pollution between say a 1980s Ford Falcon without catalyst and a modern
small car is several orders. The older cars were 'designed to last'.
Worldwide, there is a lead pollution peak about to occur because cathode
ray
computer monitors were 'made to last' and this reduced the transition to
LCD
screens which were available for computers from the mid-1980s. There is
currently an asbestos-scale public health crisis potentially about to
occur
due to the designed-in widespread use of CCA-treated timber in housing and
public environments. Again, this problem occurred because designers used
it
because they gave a high priority to create houses and outdoor spaces that
last. There are many more examples that spring to mind in realms of
aerospace, consumer products such as office chairs, food preparation
methods, organisational structures, information systems, behavioural
systems, mining, resource reclamation and logistics.
In environmental, ethical, social and sustainable terms, designing for
sensible transition to improved technologies seems to be a much better
strategy than designing products to last.
Thoughts?
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 January 2007 2:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New Masters Course in Creative Landfill Studies (3D)
in some kind of response to Chuck's recent post and various free flow
thoughts after the festivities...
>....I believe that everyone should be known simply as
>designers and have to prove the worthiness of their designs against
standards of
>performance rather than codes of practice and bureaucracies that restrict
>innovation.....
>Best regards,
>Chuck
The profession(s) as Chuck also pointed out - are continuously
re-segmenting and 'nicheing' themselves to their own ends, ie. survival.
One might argue so are many academic design courses for similar reasons
;-)
It might be better NOT to aspire to the profession of design after
all.....http://www.core77.com/reactor/01.07_backlash.asp
.....have argued for some time now about the way design is simply becoming
associated with notions of landfill - and this web article covers the
subject very well.
and that we can be proud of - from
many, many points of view, and not just in design (whatever that may be).
Sometime ago - I heard the quote:
"something is not totally beautiful - unless it totally useless" (art,
poetry, etc. Please correct as required).
To my small way of thinking this quote is very difficult and paradoxical
to reconcile against the profession of design.
What we do is either A) Totally Useless
B) Ugly
how about C) Landfill?
Design: unHappy New Year?
Glenn Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
This email (and all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain privileged and/or proprietary information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email (and all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain privileged and/or proprietary information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
|
