Re: Design
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007, 23:20:43
Yes. He uses a broad definition of the word "design". The word has more than one meaning and he uses all of them, sometimes in the same sentence as both nouns and verb. To him, design includes all things built, devised, or invented by Man, as well as the act of doing so, and relates to all possible things related to those acts and deeds. In this sense, it should be spelled with a capital D. He uses it in place of all other verbs of creation or intention, this is a confusing act. I think architects do it intentionally to flatter and obfuscate their own efforts.
I think he is arguing that Design is the cause and solution to all terrestrial problems. On one of his slides he insists that there are no "limits to growth", without actually using that that term. His utopia requires that each generation of humans be more intelligent than the previous generation. I'd like to see him argue that with Archimedes. What he probably really means is that incremental increases in technology combined with ethical choices will save us before the die-off. (I hope so, but I strenuously doubt it.) He doesn't say "die-off", he leaves the curve un-labeled.
Other notes:
He also assumes that his audience is familiar with Wes Jackson. I agree that he has some good points, but some of his other points are laughable due to certain ironies, for example his analogy "Efficiency is bad if you're a Nazi".
I think he is arguing that Design is the cause and solution to all terrestrial problems. On one of his slides he insists that there are no "limits to growth", without actually using that that term. His utopia requires that each generation of humans be more intelligent than the previous generation. I'd like to see him argue that with Archimedes. What he probably really means is that incremental increases in technology combined with ethical choices will save us before the die-off. (I hope so, but I strenuously doubt it.) He doesn't say "die-off", he leaves the curve un-labeled.
Other notes:
He also assumes that his audience is familiar with Wes Jackson. I agree that he has some good points, but some of his other points are laughable due to certain ironies, for example his analogy "Efficiency is bad if you're a Nazi".