Design with the Theory of Evolution -Capitalism vs. Buddhism?-
Posted on October 26, 2021This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more. －Neo, The Matrix (1999)
What is Design?
Design sounds ambiguous. Design indicates making something beautiful, useful, and meaningful: Graphic Design, Web Design, Fashion Design, Industrial Design, Interior Design, Lighting Design, Product Design, Service Design, Strategic Design, Communication Design, UI/UX Design, Transition Design, Speculative Design, Transdisciplinary Design (I am here!). I would have to write an entire paper just to explain what design is, so I will define design as the act of problem-finding and problem-solving, or “the path from analysis to synthesis” [1].
First of all, how do designers discover problems? The way we perceive a problem is the way we perceive the world. One of the ways to observe the world is “systems thinking,” which is a way of perceiving the world based on the premise that elements are intricately interconnected [2]. Once you see the world as a system, you can then think of solutions. This is where the “Leverage Point” comes in handy. There are 12 levels of leverage points. The lower leverage points are easier to adopt but the less effective, and the higher leverage points are harder to adopt but the more effective.
12. Numbers: Constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes, and standards
11. Buffers: The sizes of stabilizing stocks relative to their flows
10. Stock-and-Flow Structures: Physical systems and their nodes of intersection
9. Delays: The lengths of time relative to the rates of system changes
8. Balancing Feedback Loops: The strength of the feedbacks relative to the impacts they are trying to correct
7. Reinforcing Feedback Loops: The strength of the gain of driving loops
6. Information Flows: The structure of who does and does not have access to information
5. Rules: Incentives, punishments, constraints
4. Self-Organization: The power to add, change, or evolve system structure
3. Goals: The purpose of the system
2. Paradigms: The mind-set out of which the system—its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters—arises
1. Transcending Paradigms
The highest leverage point, Transcending Paradigms, has been described as similar to Buddhists’ enlightenment in the book [2]. We are thinking in systems to specify what design is, but in the end, we have arrived at Buddhism.
Let’s think about what aspects are Buddhism. Buddhism (especially primitive Buddhism) considers a system called Paṭiccasamuppāda, which is a worldview that these loops exist everywhere, which causes suffering, so we should break this loop. Buddha’s idea of “leverage points” was craving, Taṇhā. This is the only point that can be broken if we make an effort such as meditation. In addition, the concepts of “stay with the trouble” [3] and “wicked problem” [4] in systems thinking seem to have something in common with Buddhism, which regards living in this world as suffering, Duḥkha and encourages us to accept it. In this way, Buddhism and design have something in common.
Design with the Theory of Evolution
As the theory of evolution is called “universal acid,” it also affects design. According to the theory of evolution, characteristics adaptive to the environment and advantageous for survival and reproduction will be passed on to future generations. Biological one is called gene and cultural gene is called meme. Buddhism is an evolutionarily “adaptive” meme and has been handed down through nearly 2,500 years against natural selection.
It is time for designers to think about what memes they should pass down. The industrial revolution and capitalism are the foundations of the contemporary era, which is called Anthropocene. In the complicated world, localized approach can create other new problems. For example, let’s say you want to solve the problem of the ocean pollution by plastic garbage. So, you came up with idea to make yarn from discarded plastic garbage, and if you make clothes from the yarn, you could reduce the amount of plastic garbage into the ocean, which seems like an “Eco-Friendly” solution. However, in fact, when the clothes are washed, microplastics will be generated due to friction during the washing process, which will lead to more serious ocean pollution.
In contrast, SDGs seem to adopt systems thinking because it assumes that the 17 goals are interrelated. However, I would like to point out that they are not perfect. First, there is no clear comprehensive and appropriate solution for each of them; they are just goals, not solutions. SDGs also consist of 169 targets, but these are also not solutions. Thus, SDGs do not articulate what we should actually do. Another problem is that setting goals is the third most effective leverage point, which means that we can design more effective way: paradigm shift. Sustainable DEVELOPMENT Goals take economic growth in capitalism for granted. It is doubtful whether SDGs can be critical solutions to our global problems because SDGs just try to prolong the life of capitalism.
Capitalism vs. Buddhism?
As mentioned above, Meadows says that “transcending paradigms” is similar to enlightenment in Buddhism [2]. If we can see the world as it really is without any prejudice, then all our problems may be solved. Capitalism deeply underlies our way of thinking; we must have 2% economic growth per year, GDP represents the value of a country, the more money you earn, the happier you are. When everyone realizes these believes are illusion and fiction, the myth of capitalism will disappear. Capitalism has flourished only for a brief moment in the long history of Homo Sapiens. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union undermined the credibility of socialism, the belief that capitalism is the best system has become “common sense,” but capitalism is only a “better” system than those we have for now. It is important to remember that capitalism is only one paradigm, and someday natural selection may erase capitalism because “Nothing is permanent” in terms of Buddhism.
If the 12 leverage points are useful for designers, then designers should remember that their ultimate goal should be “Transcending Paradigms.” Capitalism affirms greedy. On the other hand, Buddhism suggests abandonment of greedy. Should we design based on capitalism or Buddhism? It is natural selection that knows which design will survive.
by X
REFERENCES:
[1] Hugh Dubberly, Shelley Evenson and Rick Robinson. 2008. The Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model: ACM Interaction Volume XV.2. On Modeling Forum.
[2] Meadows, Donella H., and Diana Wright. 2009. Thinking in systems: a primer. London: Earthscan.
[3] Haraway, Donna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble. Experimental Futures. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
[4] Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning: Policy Sci 4, 155–169.