Dear Ranjan and Jan,
Thanks for your notes. Two quick responses.
1) Adam Smith was first of all a moral philosopher. Smith's views have
often been distorted. Smith never preached pure self-interest. His view
was different and far more subtle. One cannot blame Smith for the
debasement of his views any more than one can blame Charles Darwin
for the doctrine that has been called "social Darwinism."
I agree with most of your note -- but I always feel compelled to speak
up to defend Adam Smith when people blame him for the economic
policies most recently associated with Bush and Cheney.
2) It is hard to see why Krugman's column is a distraction. Designers
don't work in a vacuum. We work for businesses and companies, and
these firms work in an environment created and constrained by law.
Krugman is supporting the science here, not arguing against it. And he
is calling on the politicians who make the laws to think this through.
Designers have a responsibility. But politicians pay much more attention
to a Nobel Laureate writing in the New York Times than they do to any
designer. More Australian MPs read the New York Times than read the
Design Institute of Australia magazine Artichoke. And more senior
economists in industry, finance, and government follow Krugman's
column than anything written by a designer.
To make the changes we need, every voice counts and all these ideas
add up.
Since we all want the same thing, I can't see why any of us should argue
that an influential voice calling for right action is a distraction. Krugman
is saying what you say and what I say: The science is there. Let's make
the laws that require governments and corporations to treat these
problems seriously.
Yours,
Ken
>>> Prof M P Ranjan <[log in to unmask]> 01/07/09 3:28 PM wrote: >>>
--snip--
We do not have a theory of public good while the good old Adam Smith dictate
of private good as a base for our capitalist and market economy dictates the
directions of our politics all over the world. Some are talking of
transformation while others talk of innovation as the ultimate mantra, can
old fashioned design play a role here? Any thoughts from the list?
--snip--
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jan Coker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
--snip--
> 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.
--snip--
> 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.
--snip--
|