Dear Melle,

I am not sure what is your actual position. Your text can be interpreted both ways. You ask questions and I am trying to offer limited help.

The concepts of natural and artificial are discussed for a long time by philosophers of science and technology without great success. In most cases, questions and answers depend on the paradigmatic bias of the discussants. 

From an Activity Theory perspective, design is a goal oriented, purposeful action, preplanned and reflected. If you think that animals can engage in such actions, then you can prove that they can design. If you think only people can reason in abstract terms, set goals, make complex plans, etc., then animals cannot design. Historical materialists have developed criteria for thinking that can be applied only for people. They believe that even when animals engage in complex actions, they do that by instinct. Some leeway for interspecies learning is open, to account for learning by imitating (not by reasoning and understanding). Positivists might not agree with this approach. Scholars from particular paradigms might treat certain animal behaviors as goal directed depending on their conceptualization of goal, goal formulation, and ability to plan for goal achievement. Such scholars also believe in animal culture. Historical materialists believe that culture is a quality pertinent only to humans. 

Is a milk cow natural or artificial? Is it a milk production bot? Philosophers can argue about this for ever. Also, the concepts of natural and artificial can be treated as relational.

My personal view is that natural design is an oxymoron, like iron wood and wooden iron. At this time I am not ready to argue about this. One of my former bosses, a brilliant philosopher, spend his entire life developing a general theory of the artificial and artification. Sadly, he passed away before putting anything together. I don't want to go that way. But I still keep a vivid interest in this subject. 

Best wishes,

Lubomir


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Melle Zijlstra
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 6:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "Natural" design

Hi all,

I am fascinated by the use of the notion "natural" by some of the contributors to this list. Is it "natural" for beavers to build dams, but not for humans? Would it be "not natural" if beavers started making cars? Should we then try and prevent them from doing so, because we find it is "not natural" behaviour? Or should we just call it "evolution"?

People ask children not to bounce on the sofa, because it will wreck the damn thing (imagine the environmental damage of replacing a sofa!). Jinan, you ask us not to expose children to bright colours, because it supposedly wrecks these poor creatures. Would it be better for kids to sit still on a beige sofa or to bounce on a bright pink one? I'm curious to see where 'the wrong path' will lead us, but I'm sure it'll be an entertaining journey!

"No waste in nature" is another interesting one. Michael Braungart and William McDonough perfectly showed to understand the appeal of this argument and their book Cradle to Cradle and the accompanying certifications company must have turned them into millionaires.

If I may suggest some literature, read The Nature and Aesthetics of Design by David Pye, written in 1978 and still relevant as can be.

Melle


melle zijlstra         (phd researcher | university of bath | department of computer science)
bath                   (uk)
dublin                 (ireland)

(uk)                   +447495905169
(ie)                   +353851972372
(nl)                   +31630019335
(m.zijlstra@)          bath.ac.uk<http://bath.ac.uk>
                       mellezijlstra.com<http://mellezijlstra.com>
                       maatschappijtotnutvanmijalleen.nl<http://maatschappijtotnutvanmijalleen.nl>
                       linkedin<http://nl.linkedin.com/in/mellezijlstra>

On 15/07/2016 01:06, Jinan K B wrote:

Friends
I am sorry that i have posted the mail with out re reading and hence have posted a completely opposite message.
The sentence - Production of waste is the first anti nature activity invented by man as there is 'waste' in nature!-  is wrong as i missed one - no. please see the correction below.
Production of waste is the first anti nature activity invented by man as there is  NO 'waste' in nature! There nothing called 'waste' in nature.

And coming to issues raised by Fernando

The 'toy' that you saw in the paper is made by children because they 'see' car in their context.
One of the most important misunderstanding in our modern consumerist society is about what is toy and its connection with 'learning' the world (their respective contexts)

Play is also similarly misunderstood and hence 'learning'.

Children are playful and hence they play with almost everything they encounter.

When children sit on a soft sofa they bounce. So sofa becomes their 'toy' at that moment. But most 'educated' parents would 'teach' the children manners and ask the child to sit 'properly'. this they do with almost everything they encounter. They slide the moment they see floor that are slidable. all this will happen only if children have 'freedom'.
 So what i am trying to say is that children has a way of responding/ exploring/ imbibing what ever is happening in their contexts. so it is adult who is responsible for the formation of the child. Children do not need toys but freedom to explore/ experience the world they are in. But the consumerist society won't let this happen. (Many well meaning designers want to 'help' children by making toys!)

Toy as a product teach the child to be a consumer. Toy as a self initiated/ autonomous process helps the child to understand how the world works!

Take the example of how modernity constructs gender. In indigenous communities there is no gendered play at least till they are 7 years.
Both girls and boys play same games/ make similar toys etc In modernity even from the time of birth they are made to segregate by putting them into blue and pink rooms. Then all the 'toys'
manufactured only promote this awareness of difference.
Children liking bright colors is another strange idea being promoted and hence everything they have is bright today- their room, bed sheets,cloths, toys, books and even food and their underpants! We are yet to address color pollution unlike sound pollution! (impact of bright color on humans- may be over excitement in children has something to do with this bright colors!)

We have come a very long way travelling along the wrong path. This is true of sustainability as well as our understanding of the existential needs of children/ life.

Jinan




-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------