Our Future is Mired in Our Past: Part Two

At the end of Part One I introduced a troika of basic reasons shaping the decisions societies make.

Drivers cause the designs to be made and responses are the reactions in turn becoming drivers in their own right. In the end I suggest there are three interrelated and principle drivers: values, attitudes and beliefs (VABs) with a large influencing side-dish of memories, experiences and knowledge (MEKs). Values in turn can be sub-divided into how and what we value, a very important distinction even though the sub-divisions are highly inter-related. (In another essay I intend to tackle VABs and MEKs in more detail.) VABs represent foundation principles and MEKs provide an individual’s, group’s and society’s accumulated past influences. All together these drivers give impetus and purpose to design. Following I will consider some examples and suggest the trends identified from past design decisions are strong motivators for a continuation of the trends into our futures.

First, I need to clarify the meaning of ‘designs’ as I am using it. A design is a decision with purpose. Our modern society is an amalgamation of past design decisions. For example, we have designed and created a huge variety of systems including for transportation, governance, health, manufacturing, education, settlement, energy and so on. We also make design decisions concerning the function and management of those systems. The sum total of our past design decisions adds up to our societies today and will have tremendous influence on the content, form and function of future societies.

In the end our designs (decisions with purpose) are analyzed and influenced according to values (what we value, for example possessions, income, convenience, control or how we value, for example with respect, compassion, honesty, and so on), attitudes (how we conduct ourselves, our behaviour towards others and situations) and beliefs (what we consider to be correct and true). 

Where one begins on a continuum from the big picture to the singularity is incredibly important as the initial positioning has significant influence upon the direction of a design process, the variables to be considered and the order of doing so. The starting point on the continuum is directly influenced by values and beliefs. A societal conclusion supporting the moral conviction of a public health care system for all will very likely create a system quite different from one where an individual is entirely responsible for their own health care. If the objective to integrate settlement design into an existing environment without substantially altering the environment is a high priority the settlement design will be substantially different to a pattern simply imposed upon the landscape. If it is deemed important for all employees to have full involvement in and understanding of the organization and management of a company, it is highly likely the company would be quite different from one where an employee does a specific job and no more. A centralized education system where students are located in a few large schools remote from their home community will be different from a system which is community based with students attending smaller schools. A transportation system where the infrastructure is designed to accommodate the individual in a private mode of transportation, for example the car, will be different from one where public mass transportation is the priority. An economy based upon the recognition and protection of the importance of a healthy environment as the first principle will be quite different compared to one based upon profit motive and wealth creation.

While I have been writing this blog the most recent issue (Spring, 2019) of “Trend” from The Pew Charitable Trusts came to our door. The title of the issue is “The Future of Water”. In it there are two quotes I would like to share, one about water and one about everything.

When it comes to water, the past is no longer a good guide for the here-and-now, much less for the future. 

Sandra Postel, page 15

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. 

Albert Einstein, page 16.

I want to digress a bit here and consider more fully the drivers and their influence on design decisions. Over the years I have read books and numerous articles on a variety of subjects concerning issues of the time of reading and concerning what we are experiencing with climate change and related issues currently and into the future. I do not claim to have read everything, but what I have read has been remarkable for a serious omission. Yes, we know the issues, sometimes in great detail, but we are not so good with understanding or admitting to the fundamental causes, the root thinking of our decisions leading inexorably to the issues. If the basic fundamental reasons for our past decisions are not fully understood then yes we will and have repeated errors in thinking leading to current and future issues as Einstein implied. For this next section I want to explore the root thinking of our decisions for if we do not understand how we got here, there does not seem to be a way of correcting our thinking to guarantee an acceptable future.

First, I need to qualify my digression by saying the root thinking has not been global in entirety, although with every passing year more and more of the decision-makers and their populations are following the same old thinking. I must also say there are bright spots, individuals and communities trying to change their ways for the better.

Above I stated VABs and MEKs were the core drivers and while I will explore them in a later essay, I need to look at them now in a little more detail in accord with Einsteins concern. Above I suggested values and beliefs along with attitudes were the core drivers of our decisions. I also tried to show by example the starting point of a design decision process was critical and dependent upon fundamental values and beliefs. Now I want to consider this design decision-making process more closely from the beginning to where it has taken us.

There are seven letters in English representing seven words together summarizing the core reasons for our past and as it turns out our current design decisions. The letters are V-I-GL-Q-T-T and the words are Values, Individual, Good Life, Qualities, Threads and Time. In short we have adopted values focused on the individual striving to achieve qualities associated with the good life spawning and following connecting threads over times of change. The first five words in this sequence are crucial to the start point and the cyclical nature of the process while threads and time suggest a myriad of interrelated connections as they grow and change over time. I need to clarify, in my opinion, I am referring more to the ‘what values’ not those more associated with ‘why’ although they also have to be considered in inseparable relationship to the ‘what’ values. I also need to say I understand the notion or concept of ‘good life’ is subjective and is not inclusive to the same degree for all people in all locations. There is a huge variety of culture in societies and levels of economic prosperity, but there are also clear common threads.

Whatever the good life entails for people and most have some notion of that, people generally want it, they strive to gain what they consider to be a desirable life style. They value the good life and to attain it they seek to acquire the quality elements associated with their vision. During the first half of the twentieth century two world wars, other major battles, a severe global depression and other economic issues worked against great strides in improvements and yet to an extent they happened. After the second world war a very different set of visions, possibilities and opportunities developed. People were willing to invest in the future as in the future the notion of the good life could be attained. To achieve it and the qualities associated with the good life growth was considered essential. The mid-century was the take-off point. The economic engine was fired up and the individual’s desires were manipulated. The good life and the values and qualities associated with it were marketed in terms of life-style in advertisements, slogans, jingles and the like. People jumped on the band-wagon of this apparently inconsequential burgeoning of growth and betterment. 

Brilliant decisions in marketing were made: with new product every year, the latest and greatest; with no hassle disposal or conversion to the new; with comparative marketing suggesting people did not want to fall behind the trends; and with affordable and easy financing. Science and technology was encouraged to find different ways and new solutions to old problems, to be innovative and bold. Resource extraction and manufacturing increased and so did environmental degradation as toxic emissions and effluents soared. Suburbia expanded on the back of the car and fossil fuels. As settlement has expanded good agricultural land and habitat has disappeared while infrastructure in the form of roads and municipal services have spread as occurs with sprawl.      

Vehicle manufacturing has been and continues to be a huge economic driver in our economies. The threads of design, procurement and influence over times of change have been enormous. Our dependency on the ‘car’ has grown in association with settlement design and expansion so much so they have become a necessity for many of the activities we are required to do or enjoy doing rather than a sometimes luxury. 

Fashion and fad have enjoyed a long history in the twentieth and now the twenty-first century. Sometimes change just for the sake of change has lead the charge. Old ideas and notions are re-visited from time to time. Change rather than stability has dominated, indeed has become the norm and yet habits prevail.

All of this, all we have attained, all the myriad versions of the ‘good life’ are present on the basis of past thinking and decisions largely by and for the individual. We value the ‘good life’ and seek to attain the qualities associated with it. Unfortunately all the growth and ‘improvements’ have not been inconsequential as advertised. Consider these issues as discovered and documented by scientists in different fields of enquiry. (I must say at this juncture, we cannot on the one hand accept the findings of science and technology as it has contributed to the good life and on the other hand discount the findings of science in discovering and identifying the consequential issues just because the findings suggest something we do not want to hear or consider.) Here is a list of some existing and emerging global issues created and exacerbated by past thinking and decisions:

• Extreme weather years and events leading to drought, flooding, fire, temperature extremes, storm extremes, forced migration and huge costs;

• Environmental degradation leading to species loss, diminished water quality and quantity, deforestation, soil depletion and erosion;

• Insect and disease infestation;

• Habitat loss involving environmental degradation from urbanization, some agricultural, mining and resource extraction practices;

• An increased wealth divide leading to more poverty, diminished health, more reliance on food banks, more homeless;

• A growing increase of intolerance toward others;

• Ice melt threatening to increase sea levels and diminish water supplies; and

• Climate change affecting all the above.

This list can certainly be added to.

Before considering where to and how we move on from the here and now, there is one extremely important notion requiring exploration: gains lost with change. In simple terms change will either be real, something clearly identifiable or perceived as in a gut feeling, but without documentation. Real or perceived change elicits two conclusions, something progressive and associated with betterment or something degrading and associated with loss. A net neutral sense or the sense of unimportant change, if change is indeed recognized, occurs with small incremental adjustments. Where and when change can be anticipated to be positive, the results will be widely supported. However, if change is anticipated to be negative resulting in loss, the change will be resisted. There is a general reluctance to give up gains achieved especially where the gains had widespread appeal regardless of their degree of harm done.