Design Is The Problem. Nathan Shedroff
Читать онлайн книгу.
Centralization was the management approach that governed society and culture throughout much of human history (certainly Western history) and was responsible for creating the Industrial Age when it was applied to production. Everything from central banking to centralized power plants to large corporations with central management to centralized distribution systems to centralized education to the “hub and spoke” air transportation model reflects the thinking that centralization is best. And, from a purely management perspective, it often is. But just because it has been popular doesn’t make it the best approach.
Centralization is not without serious faults. Centralized decision-making often doesn’t reflect local expertise, knowledge, or understanding. Centralized distribution, combined with the standardization necessary with economies of scale often reduces choice, favoring quantity over variety. Centralized power (such as a coal-powered electricity plant) often produces power more efficiently that must be transmitted over greater distances (which reduces efficiency) and can reduce pollution in some communities but instead concentrate it in others. In addition, centralized power is often less resilient since fewer, larger power plants are vastly more vulnerable to accidents, outages, and attacks than many, smaller ones distributed throughout the service area.
It is because of the negative impacts on diversity and resiliency that centralization is often less sustainable. Decentralized systems for everything from manufacturing to distribution to energy generation to political rule tend to be more sustainable. Consider how unresponsive centralized government often is for local issues. Or consider how much more resilient a community’s power grid would be if it had a mix of energy inputs (especially if these were renewable) spread across a power network, available locally where it is used. Natural gas turbines, geothermal and hydrothermal generation, co-generation (creating energy from waste), solar, wind, and so on can all exist easily within most communities without adverse health risks or other community concerns. Where possible, generating power where it is used has always been an efficient solution (mills have been situated next to rivers that could provide water power for centuries). However, organizations (whether corporations, NGOs, or governments) that thrive because of their centralized control are often the most vocal opponents to decentralized solutions because their advantage is threatened, despite the beneficial aspects these solutions may have for everyone else.
It is because of the negative impacts on diversity and resiliency that centralization is often less sustainable. Decentralized systems for everything from manufacturing to distribution to energy generation to political rule tend to be more sustainable.
To be sure, decentralization itself also has problems. Chief among them are standardization and communication. While decentralization can increase resiliency (and often equitable opportunity), it requires standards and increased communication in order to function. The benefits, however, are often increased efficiency in management, more resilient operation in failure, and more innovated techniques in solutions generated. For example, it’s often easy for local communities to establish their own standards that may not be consistent, fair, or interoperable in a larger context. This was largely the case with every developing technology, from screw sizes to electricity current to railroad track gauges to education standards to laws to money. Decentralized solutions are often problematic at their onset (this is especially the case with new technologies) until standards are established. Progress is often retarded as competing solutions compete on low-level features and performance, that is until standards are established cooperatively or competitively. For example, consider software file formats. Until a standard was established for interchanging files and communicating with other equipment, say PostScript, applications couldn’t universally talk to printers, typesetters, or other equipment. It wasn’t practical to even work on advanced applications like page layout applications, image editing applications, or content management systems until these standards were established, despite the fact that they were envisioned long before they were able to be implemented.
Designers need to be aware of how their solutions inhibit or reinforce centralization—and be ready to defend why and whether their solutions are improvements and for whom these improvements benefit.
Cooperation and Competition
Competition, while a powerful motivator in innovation, is not the only ingredient needed for successful, sophisticated solutions. Despite how we characterize innovation and design, nothing is created in a vacuum, and no solution is successful without cooperation between people, including design teams, partners, supply chains, and customers.
Competition, while a powerful motivator in innovation, is not the only ingredient needed for successful, sophisticated solutions.
Cooperation is often misunderstood as being unnatural. Competition has been drummed into our heads as the driver of natural evolution for so long that we often classify cooperation as merely a human invention. The fact, however, is that all sophisticated systems, including nature, have required cooperation on lower levels in order to support competition on new, higher levels. In time, often, these higher levels are standardized, and cooperation leads to new innovations that compete at yet even higher levels.
For example, this book would not be possible without a high degree of cooperation in production, manufacturing, distribution, and even language. If we didn’t agree on grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and morphology as much as we do, we wouldn’t be able to communicate with language. Language, in fact, wouldn’t exist, and without it we wouldn’t be able to discuss such abstract concepts as cooperation versus competition. This is always the case when we learn a new language or when we learn about new systems, like sustainability.
Cooperation is often misunderstood as being unnatural.
Nature is awash with examples of cooperation (evolution itself wouldn’t be possible without it), and it is the only reason why complexity develops. Competition may be the mechanism by which new innovations succeed or fail, but cooperation is the foundation on which innovations occur. In our drive to support innovation and improvement (evolution, in other words), we often discount cooperation, which directly limits our ability to create complexity. We shouldn’t be afraid of cooperating on standards, systems, and understandings because this is a necessary precursor to higher-order development and advancement. For all design—especially sustainable design—it’s imperative that we cooperate on some levels in order to succeed at others. As designers, we must be aware of where we (and our clients) need to cooperate in order to understand the best opportunities for competition.
Competition may be the mechanism by which new innovations succeed or fail, but cooperation is the foundation on which innovations occur.
In addition, while cooperation means working together, collaboration implies working together toward a common goal. As designers, we both cooperate and collaborate with a range of stakeholders. Not everyone has to be working toward the same goals in order to cooperate. However, you will find many stakeholders whose goals already align if made clear: customers, suppliers, retailers, waste collectors, and so on. But you won’t find these opportunities to cooperate and collaborate if you don’t look for them.
Ecological Vitality
There is no question that an unhealthy, unstable environment decreases efficiency and our ability to create stable, healthy societies and communities. Yet, human history is filled with examples where we do just the opposite. For a variety of reasons, we have accepted the destruction of healthy, vital habitats for ourselves and the natural systems that we rely upon. This has to change. Increasing climate change—indeed, climate crisis—is requiring us to take a systems perspective in order to create healthy, more vital natural capital for which to support human life and activities. Some of these concerns include:
Habitat destruction and collapse
Topsoil depletion (which retards our ability to grow food)
Habitat alteration
Reduced biodiversity
Climate change (also known as global warming, global weirding, and climate crisis)