00:06NICK FOSTER: Hello, everybody.
00:07I recognize some faces.
00:09Thanks for coming out.
00:12CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Hello.
00:13NICK FOSTER: We've got 150
slides, and we've started late.
00:20CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Tuck in.
00:22NICK FOSTER: Yeah, so I'm Nick.
00:23This is Christian,
as Kai introduced us.
00:26I'm head of design at X, and
Christian works alongside me
00:35X is a Moonshot Factory.
00:37It's a place where we
try and make big bets
00:40and use breakthrough
technologies to hopefully make
00:42big changes to make the world
a radically better place.
00:46We're probably best
known for this project.
00:48This is Waymo, the
self-driving car.
00:50We were pioneers in this field.
00:52And this is designed to
address the 40,000 people that
00:54die every year in the US
on the roads, 90% of which
00:59are caused by human error.
01:02This is another
project in testing.
01:05It addresses the
billions of people
01:08that can't access the
internet around the world.
01:12This is a launch facility
in Winnemucca in Nevada.
01:16This project really
exemplifies some of the things
01:18that we like to do at X, which
is think laterally and use
01:21technology to solve big
problems in unexpected ways,
01:24and deliver service to people
that really makes a difference.
01:27This is a more recent project.
01:28This is the Everyday
Robots project.
01:31And this is very thematic of
what we're talking about today.
01:33This is designed to
make robotics work
01:35in messy, unstructured spaces,
as opposed to programmatically
01:39following something by route.
01:41So my background is,
as you heard Kai said,
01:44I'm an industrial
designer by training.
01:45But I've been in the role
of futurist and working
01:48in emerging technology
space for quite a while.
01:50I'm also a partner at the
Near Future Laboratory.
01:52Hopefully somebody knows
the Near Future Laboratory.
01:56Oh, there's one there.
01:59We work in the field
of design fiction.
02:00We pioneered this approach
to telling stories
02:02about the future in very
graspable, grapplable ways.
02:07CHRISTIAN ERVIN:
And I'm Christian.
02:09My background's in architecture
and interaction design,
02:13Also speculative
design, and primarily
02:15developing novel applications
for emerging technologies.
02:18So X is kind of a perfect place.
02:20And this is the
Museum of the Future
02:22in Dubai from a previous
role at Tellart.
02:25And, as already demonstrated,
we know two-person talks
02:29can be kind of tricky.
02:30It's why you don't see
a whole lot of them.
02:32But we're gonna give
it a shot, you know?
02:34We're gonna try it out,
and it's gonna be OK.
02:37NICK FOSTER: We
hope it'll be OK.
02:39CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Well,
hopefully it'll be OK.
02:40NICK FOSTER: Please burn
the tapes if it's not.
02:43We talked to Kai
nearly a year ago
02:45about coming to do
one of these talks,
02:47and we're really happy
to be here tonight.
02:48It's just taken a
while to schedule.
02:50But one of the first topics we
wanted to talk about is messy,
02:53and it just came to
us kind of naturally.
02:54Maybe as a result of the
kind of audacious, long-term,
02:57complicated projects
that we do at X,
02:59but also just felt like
something we believe in.
03:02And we're at the moment in
time-- we've just hit 2020.
03:06We like round numbers.
03:07Round numbers are good.
03:08It starts you thinking
about where have we been,
03:10where are we going next.
03:11It's kind of this
overlap moment.
03:14And just starting to think
about the state of the world.
03:16We want to just zoom
out of design for a bit.
03:18We do our work in the world.
03:20The world has its own
character, its own grain.
03:23And so what do we think the
world is like right now?
03:26I've been watching a show called
"The Morning Show" on the Apple
03:30And there's a phrase that came
from Billy Crudup's character,
03:33Cory Ellison, who's this sleazy
business executive character.
03:38And the phrase is this, which
is "chaos is the new cocaine."
03:41It feels like chaos,
messiness, ambiguity
03:44is becoming an increasing
part of our lives.
03:47It feels like it's
here, it's everywhere.
03:48It's like this big part
of what we do every day.
03:52And just digging into that a
little bit, global politics
03:56It really is chaotic.
03:57Whether it's worse or better
than it was in the past,
04:00it really feels
that way right now.
04:02The notion of poverties and
inequalities and injustices
04:05and marginalizations
is a big part
04:07of what we talk about
in global politics.
04:09And some of that is just
symptomatic of the way
04:11the world is moving, but
some of it is intentional.
04:14So I don't know how many
of you know this chap.
04:16He's Valery Gerasimov,
and he's Vladimir Putin's
04:19chief military strategist.
04:21And he has the
Gerasimov Doctrine,
04:23which is a willful use of
disinformation to spread chaos
04:28for strategic effect.
04:30It's a willful adding of chaos
and messiness to the world.
04:34We're also surrounded
by incredibly
04:35messy and complicated
things, complicated systems,
04:38complicated services.
04:4040% of the food in the USA
never makes it to your table.
04:43That is a huge amount
of waste, and it's
04:46symptomatic of an incredibly
complicated and messy world.
04:49That actually costs
$165 billion a year.
04:55We're also seeing
overlapping issues
04:57between two different systems.
04:59So the system of where
we live and the system
05:01of how we make things
and consume energy
05:02are overlapping to the point
where 9 out of 10 people
05:05live in places where the
breathing quality is below what
05:08the WHO would recommend.
05:10This is the outputs of one
system having a huge impact
05:13on the other system.
05:16And the big elephant
in the room is
05:17climate change-- the ultimate
intractable problem, it seems.
05:21It seems like there's
so many moving parts, so
05:23many disconnected drivers.
05:24The world is literally
on fire, and yet we
05:26can't figure out what to do.
05:28Not just Australia, but Brazil
and up the hill from where
05:33Now, some of this could
just be part and parcel
05:36It could also be part and
parcel of the amount of time
05:39There's a theory about
the Enlightenment
05:41that if we just get a
lot more information,
05:43we can make sense of the world.
05:45But we've got a
lot of information,
05:46and we spend a lot
of time consuming it.
05:48But it seems like
actually things
05:49are getting more confusing, and
more complex, and more messy.
05:53It seems like this is a
difficult thing for us
05:55to understand, and difficult
thing to move forward with.
05:57But this is not
necessarily anything new.
06:00CHRISTIAN ERVIN:
Yeah, I mean, it's
06:01fair to say this
isn't new at all.
06:03This is probably what
generations upon generations
06:05have felt. The advent
of the telegraph
06:09was probably horrifying to some.
06:11But in particular, something
comes to mind from the late
06:14this term "VUCA"
that the US military
06:17started using in their
management training
06:19for military
officers, essentially,
06:20to describe the kind of
new non-linear dynamics
06:24that they were seeing
in the battlefield.
06:27And VUCA is an acronym.
06:28It stands for Volatility,
Uncertainty, Complexity,
06:33It's essentially a structured
definition of chaos.
06:36And what I find so
fascinating about this
06:38is yes, this is this
concept from the war zone,
06:43but that it resonated with
the business community
06:45and with academia, and has
been adopted as a framework
06:48for talking about our global
economy and our society
06:53So we've been mapping
this nonlinear Volatility,
06:58Uncertainty, Complexity,
and Ambiguity framework
07:02on to the way that we
think about the way
07:04that we live in 2020.
07:09This is a lot of text
to throw on a slide.
07:11I'll let you sit with it.
07:12But this is what William
Gibson's character in "Pattern
07:16Recognition" meant when he
said that fully formed visions
07:19of the future aren't available
to us in a chaotic present.
07:23So we have no future because
our present is too volatile.
07:26There's insufficient
now to stand on.
07:30And I think this is a
critical problem for designers
07:33because it's core to our
role to understand the world
07:36and make intentional,
responsible decisions.
07:39And in a state of chaos, how
can we reasonably do that?
07:45So that's part of what we
want to talk about today.
07:48So in a context of tremendous
messiness, what is our role?
07:53And we want to highlight
some of the shortcomings
07:57that we've displayed
as a discipline,
08:00and ideally propose a new
disposition for design,
08:03or at least have a
conversation about what
08:05a new disposition
might look like that
08:07responds more intentionally
to this state of messiness.
08:12Also to acknowledge we
don't have all the answers,
08:15It's not like we have some
privileged position at X
08:18that gives us answers here.
08:20But I think by virtue of working
on these very highly ambiguous,
08:23very long time frame projects,
I think it gives us some ideas
08:28to start a conversation with.
08:31So what is an appropriate
response to messiness,
08:33and what are some tactics
for engaging with it?
08:36So the first is the obvious one.
08:37Just ignore it, and draw
a boundary around a space
08:42that we feel comfortable
controlling completely.
08:48No reason to pick on Karim
Rashid in particular.
08:52I could've picked
any image here.
08:54But it's a fairly familiar
model to all of us.
08:56This is the model of the hero
designer, or starchitecht.
09:00I don't know about
you, but this is
09:02how I was taught in school,
which is maybe a kind of legacy
09:04of the apprenticeship
tradition of design
09:07where we revere
the master mentor.
09:11But it's a world of
idiosyncratic artistic gestures
09:15from the heroic
creative individual who,
09:19through their
expressive sketch, can
09:22impose their will on
any problem and define
09:25a complete and harmonious
world of their own creation.
09:28So in this world,
design is argued
09:31on the basis of individual
charisma, the novelty
09:35of vision, and may be celebrated
for its technical mastery.
09:39And I think it's also
worth acknowledging
09:42that this is high art.
09:43This is the triumphant
expression of human ability.
09:51[SCATTERED APPLAUSE]
09:54Does anyone remember this from
your design or art history
09:58So this notion of a complete
and harmonious world.
10:02A gesamtkunstwerk means a total
design or a total artwork.
10:06And as Mark Wigley says, it's
where design takes over a space
10:09entirely, and subjecting
every detail, every surface,
10:13to an overarching vision.
10:16So essentially,
a gesamtkunstwerk
10:20And it's beautiful, and it's
a tremendous and complete
10:22attention to detail and to
its internal self consistency.
10:26But you can think
of a closed world
10:28kind of like a space
colony or something, where
10:30the interior has every
detail accounted for,
10:34every system connected
and prepared for.
10:36But beyond the bounds of its
world, everything is ignored.
10:43And I mean, in one
framing, you can
10:45think of any modern
consumer object
10:48as a kind of closed world, or
at least interpret it that way.
10:52Where there's a tremendous
attention to detail,
10:54it's self-consistent,
it's complete,
10:57and, generally
speaking, acknowledged
10:59as high design because of
its perfection, essentially.
11:03Everything is optimized and in
its right place, essentially.
11:08However-- this is your role.
11:10NICK FOSTER: Yeah, this is it.
11:11I think we split these up
into Christian sets it up,
11:13and I come down with the bricks.
11:15I think about maybe mirrors
our character a little bit.
11:17But however, so yeah, if
you ignore the complexity,
11:22you wall off the externalities
and the external things
11:25that are involved in
what you're doing.
11:27And Mark Wigley, who Christian
referenced-- it's a fantasy.
11:31It's a fantasy about control.
11:32It's a fantasy about
saying this is all mine,
11:34and I'm going to
design this thing,
11:35and I'm going to ignore
everything outside of it.
11:37It's just my domain.
11:38This is what we're
going to do here,
11:40and it doesn't matter what
happens outside of it.
11:42But the truth is what
happens beyond the bounds
11:44of your closed system affects
it and is affected by it.
11:47There's no such thing as a wall.
11:48There's no such
thing as a boundary.
11:51CHRISTIAN ERVIN:
(WHISPERS) Nice.
11:53NICK FOSTER: --is
not a real thing.
11:54The building that you've
made as a single work of art
11:58It exists at the end of
a road, with neighbors
12:01And just as a way
of bringing it up
12:02to maybe a
contemporary audience,
12:05take a simple product like this.
12:07This is the Amazon Echo Dot.
12:09It's a simple product
made primarily of polymer
12:11and a bit of metal in there.
12:14Little bit of
circuitry, some radios.
12:17This is an $18 product.
12:19It's a very, very cheap product.
12:20And it feels like it's
a very simple thing.
12:22It feels like, yeah, this is
a product I buy and I use,
12:24I talk to it, and it
delivers services to me.
12:27But a project done by Kate
Crawford and Vladan Joler
12:30in 2018 really started to
dig into what you're buying
12:34and what you're
interacting with when you
12:36have this product in your life.
12:37And they made a map--
12:38the anatomy of an AI system.
12:40So this is actually not
the full system, I believe.
12:44There's plenty more than this.
12:45But what it does is it
looks at dependencies.
12:47It looks at interconnections.
12:49It looks at externalities
of the system as it's made.
12:52And I'll just zoom in a little
bit on a couple of areas.
12:54There's all the raw material.
12:55There's all the supply chain.
12:56Where does the
material come from?
12:58Who are the companies who
are supplying this material,
13:00and forging it, and refining
it, and delivering it?
13:03That's a whole lot of
stuff to think about,
13:05even if you're just thinking
about this $18 thing.
13:08You've got the back end and
all the network services.
13:10All the AWS has to work or
this product is nothing.
13:15You've got all the
data management.
13:16People's privacy,
people's content.
13:18You have to really concentrate
on this stuff, too.
13:20That all needs working out.
13:21That all needs figuring out
to make the $18 product work.
13:25Likewise, the sheer the
physicality of the product.
13:27It exists, it needs shipping,
it needs collecting.
13:30If you recycle it, what happens
to the recycled materials?
13:32All that stuff is all embedded
and within the $18 product.
13:36But because we just work
with the $18 product,
13:39we don't really see it.
13:40But it doesn't mean it's
not there and doesn't
13:42need consideration and
actually doesn't need design.
13:45And this leads us into
actor network theory, which,
13:47put very simply, is a way of--
13:49very complicated
things have a way
13:51of appearing to us as
very, very simple things.
13:55Like a TV is a box on
the wall and a device
13:58you hold to make it do things.
14:00And it only reveals the networks
and the complexity behind it
14:03particularly when it breaks.
14:05So when a TV breaks, yes,
you've got mechanical breakage,
14:07and you might need to--
14:08I don't know if people
mend TVs anymore.
14:10But if you can mend a TV,
you're switching out resistors
14:12or doing that kind of thing.
14:13But increasingly, the
login doesn't work anymore.
14:16The password doesn't work.
14:19The system gets bigger
and bigger and bigger.
14:20And that can be a TV.
14:22It could be a financial system,
something of that scale.
14:24It could even be the internet.
14:26We don't see the extent of
the network until it breaks,
14:30or until we're confronted
by its failures.
14:33And I think, generally,
what I'm trying
14:35to say is we're still
thinking about the design
14:37of these products, like
these $18 products, like they
14:40do have a boundary around them.
14:42Like a hammer, you know, there's
nothing complex about a hammer.
14:44I don't need a login.
14:45But the world of the objects
that we're building now
14:49is not the world of hammers.
14:50We're building complex things.
14:53One thing I want to
talk about, as well,
14:54is this notion of building
a very simplistic boundary
14:58around what we're
trying to solve leads
15:00to a notion of solutionism.
15:03That we can determine a task, do
the design work, and finish up.
15:08But I want to introduce
a term that we've
15:09been using a little bit,
which is solution entropy.
15:12Which is this notion that we
never really solve anything.
15:16We might break down a big
problem into smaller problems,
15:18or we might even kick the
problem down the road a bit,
15:21or kick it into
different companies,
15:22or help reduce it down
into smaller parts.
15:25But it never really goes away.
15:27This is a term that
we've used a little bit.
15:30I'd like you to use a lot.
15:31But I think it really
helps you get out
15:32of that mindset of thinking,
somebody set me a task.
15:35I learned design as a
problem-solving exercise,
15:39like a plumber or something.
15:40You have a leak, I put
a patch on, we're fixed.
15:44But I think this
quote by Paul Virilio
15:46is quite interesting here.
15:47And most people just
use the first line,
15:49which is, "When you
invent the ship, you also
15:50invent the shipwreck.
15:51There were no
shipwrecks in a world
15:53before the ship was invented."
15:55And I think we have to start
addressing the fact that when
15:58we think we're solving
something, what we're actually
16:00doing is breaking down a bigger
problem into smaller problems,
16:03or punting it somewhere else.
16:05So when you invent USB-C,
you invent dongles.
16:09USB-C is undoubtedly a good
protocol, a useful connector.
16:12But you also then have to deal
with all of the other things.
16:15The problem is not solved.
16:18Likewise, the half dog.
16:19Who knows the half dog?
16:21So the half dog is an artifact
that happens when a fast moving
16:25object-- in this
case, Labrador?--
16:28Moves through a
panoramic stitched image.
16:31You know, when you
move your phone across.
16:33The dog runs very
quickly through it.
16:34The algorithm doesn't
understand that movement,
16:36so it stitches them together.
16:37And you end up with a half dog.
16:38So panoramic stitching
is amazing technology.
16:42Like, life-changingly
important, complex technology.
16:46And yet we never struggled with
half dogs before it existed.
16:49So there are no neat solutions.
16:51Just, really, we need to
stop thinking like that.
16:54And just to wrap this up
and really nail it in,
16:58there's this notion of what
we do has a beginning, middle,
17:00The brief, the design bit,
the delivery, and then you
17:05charge for it, I guess.
17:06But the truth is,
it's all middle.
17:10You start something, and then
you have to keep doing it.
17:13There's just more
design to be done.
17:17CHRISTIAN ERVIN: All right.
17:18So we're on to tactic two.
17:19Don't worry, there are
only a hundred of these.
17:22OK, so you can ignore it.
17:24You can put a wall around it.
17:26What else can you do?
17:27We can simplify the mess.
17:29So this is something that
we all do intuitively.
17:31The human mind is an
incredible abstraction machine.
17:34So we intuitively
form abstractions
17:36with the use of
symbols, metaphors,
17:39other representations
of concepts.
17:43You're doing it right now.
17:46But then we also
form abstractions
17:48around things like
the cloud, which
17:50compresses a tremendous
amount of complexity
17:52into a discrete concept.
17:54And then the messy interior
within these boundaries
17:57disappears and is translated
into a manipulable object
18:01that you can then
use in a diagram
18:03to talk about all the
other things you're making
18:05that connect to the cloud.
18:07So we make models for the
organization of incredibly
18:11messy and dynamic realities
in order to understand them
18:14and to act responsibly on them.
18:17This is the so-called
rational model of design.
18:21And it's, again,
incredibly useful.
18:23It helps us
understand complexity.
18:25Build mental models
that we can use
18:27to make this complexity
workable and manipulable.
18:32But this is the
built environment
18:34as a kind of diagram.
18:36This is the expression
of interior organization
18:41in the final form of a thing.
18:43This is OMA's Seattle
Public Library.
18:46The diagram on one side,
the building on the other.
18:52And in its extreme,
this approach
18:56leads to a kind of
extreme minimalism.
18:59So Dieter Rams saying famously,
"As little design as possible."
19:03The world of a
system stripped down
19:04to its absolute,
simplest components.
19:07Beautiful, orderly, generally
speaking, very usable
19:11and decidedly unmessy.
19:13It's also the world of
design language systems,
19:17components, and patterns
that are repeatable and make
19:21the work of a
highly distributed,
19:23multidisciplinary
teams manageable.
19:26But it also makes
the user experience
19:28of these things
predictable and familiar.
19:30So I can reasonably expect that
when I tap on that round thing,
19:35something is going to happen.
19:38But this desire to
simplify carries through
19:40and our aesthetic choices.
19:42The design world becomes
a post-embellishment world
19:46in this aim for a total
efficiency, cleanliness,
19:50optimization, abstraction
also carries over
19:53into our design processes.
19:56So I'm going to jump back
to history for a second.
19:58And this is Frank and
Lillian Gilbreth's work
20:02on time and motion studies.
20:04So they were basically
looking at how
20:05to optimize human activities
in a number of key tasks.
20:10So manufacturing objects
in an assembly line.
20:14Common tasks in the kitchen.
20:16They studied bricklayers and all
of their sequences of motions
20:20in order to figure out
how to improve them.
20:23And they built a library
of abstracted actions,
20:26which are called
therbligs, which
20:27is almost Gilbreth backwards.
20:30But they're these
18 elemental motions
20:34that could be described
in a logical sequence,
20:37maybe timed, and then
rearranged and optimized.
20:41So translating that fluid,
continuous, and somewhat
20:43idiosyncratic movement
of individual people
20:46doing individual
approaches to the task
20:49they had learned over time into
these structured and logical
20:54And when we apply
this abstracted model
20:58to design in our own
process as a discipline,
21:02we end up with a
generic process that
21:04can be brought to bear on
any problem that we face.
21:09Kind of intriguingly, this
is an Eames video from 1964
21:12at the IBM Pavilion of
the World's Fair trying
21:15to explain how computers work
to the general population
21:19by using the metaphor of
how humans solve problems.
21:24So computers work just like
humans do, so let's explain
21:28So there's a lot
of metaphor here,
21:30but I think it's
kind of interesting.
21:31So the first step is
stating the problem.
21:34The second step is
collecting information.
21:37The third is
abstracting information.
21:39And the fourth is building
the model of this information,
21:43of this abstracted
map of information.
21:46So in doing so, we build this
representation of reality
21:49that clarifies all of
the mess and turn it
21:53into something that's logical
and manipulable, kind of
21:57And then, finally,
you intervene.
21:58So you manipulate this system,
you manipulate the model.
22:03But I think what's
interesting about the video is
22:06they end the sequence here.
22:07So the method used
in solving even
22:09the most complicated problems
is essentially the same method
22:13So this is a replicable
and generalizable
22:17problem-solving process that
can be applied to anything,
22:20from urban planning to
planning a dinner party, which
22:24is the example that
they use after this.
22:26But this should look
familiar to us, right?
22:28This is the kind of
sequence of actions
22:30that we're taught is
the design process.
22:33So this is the Design
Council double diamond,
22:36a kind of universal
design method
22:38that goes through discover,
expansive, define, contractive,
22:41develop, expansive,
deliver, contractive again.
22:47Fantastic agencies like
IDEO use and describing
22:50the design thinking
process and the steps
22:53to go from a problem
understanding
22:55to prototyping and
solution delivery.
22:59And I think what's interesting
about this model is
23:01that it introduces some
variability at the end there.
23:03That's where the
iteration happens.
23:05But, essentially, it's still
a rational and linear process
23:07that ingests messy
problems on one end
23:10and spits out clean
solutions on the other.
23:13So yeah, that's
tactic number two,
23:15which is to find mechanisms for
simplifying, organizing, and--
23:19since it's essentially
processifying mess.
23:28NICK FOSTER: These
tools are useful.
23:29This is how we learn.
23:30These are very, very useful
things for us to understand.
23:33It's very hard to have someone
walk in a room and say, right,
23:35I'm going to tell you this
incredibly complicated thing.
23:37Simplifying things down
is the way that we learn.
23:40That's how we teach,
it's how we learn.
23:41They're very useful
as pedagogic tools,
23:43but the issue comes when not
pedagogic tool, when you've
23:45ingested the bare bones of
the process or the concept,
23:49when you try and reapply
it back into the messiness.
23:51Because what happens
is, and what happened
23:53with all these models is--
23:55it might be good for sort
of a TED Talk to say,
23:57this is what designers.
23:58But actually then somebody takes
that and tries to implement it,
24:00this sort of thing
starts happening.
24:02People go on
Twitter on they say,
24:03ah, I think there should
be another diamond,
24:05or there should be a
feedback loop here, or maybe
24:07Or, actually, I tried this,
and what we found was--
24:10and all it is just
reflecting the complexity
24:13that was ignored in the
simplification process.
24:15So you end up back in these
more iterative feedback loops.
24:19This is another person's attempt
at making the design thinking
24:24And you can do this
ad infinitum until you
24:26end up back at the messy.
24:29Until you end up at
something like this.
24:32So this is Deloitte,
their Agile landscape.
24:34And you can see design
thinking comes in on the left.
24:36But the point that
we're making there
24:38is not to make fun of Deloitte.
24:40They're trying to make sense
of an incredibly complicated
24:42But in trying to
include the complexity,
24:44they've ended back
at complex again.
24:46We're still at
messy, and this is--
24:47I don't how usable this is for
a new product or an innovation
24:52It becomes a little
farcical at times.
24:56Interestingly, the d.School,
who are the exponents of design
24:58thinking, recently
announced that they're not
25:00going to use their
hexagons anymore
25:02because, over time,
they've realized
25:03that this complexity is
unavoidable and, quote unquote,
25:06"design isn't a process."
25:08Which is sort of
fascinating to me.
25:11Christian also
mentioned metaphors.
25:13Metaphors are a good way to help
understand complicated things
25:16in a nice, packaged concept.
25:18The issue with metaphors
is they're arbitrary,
25:20and they're based heavily
on your previous experience.
25:22Where you come
from, the language
25:24you know, the people
you've interacted with.
25:26Those different things that
we use-- say, oh, it's just
25:30If you haven't experienced that
in the same way as Christian
25:32and I have, then the
metaphor is meaningless.
25:36James Bridle, the artist
and brilliant writer,
25:39has a good line in metaphor.
25:41But his argument is, "The cloud
is not some magical faraway
25:45place made of water
vapor and radio waves
25:47where everything just works."
25:49and Timo Arnall, brilliant
photographer and designer,
25:53started to take
pictures of the cloud.
25:55This is the cloud, or
at least part of it.
25:59It's full of
computers and cables
26:03and private servers and power
supplies and other things.
26:06The cloud is not
the right metaphor.
26:08I'm going to hand that
over to Christian.
26:10You've can do this for me.
26:12CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Again,
you can simplify the mess.
26:14You can organize it.
26:17Tactic number three
is to map the mess,
26:20and to essentially
know it entirely.
26:23So you acknowledge that
complexity and messiness exist,
26:28but your response to it
is to know it absolutely
26:33So again, we'll go
back to history.
26:35Could have picked a
lot of examples here,
26:37but chose Norbert
Wiener, the founder
26:40of the field of cybernetics.
26:41And he was interested
in self-organizing and
26:43self-regulating
systems, and it kind of
26:45invented the concept
of feedback loops.
26:47And then Jay Forrester, who was
also at MIT around the time--
26:51'50s, '60s-- founded the
field of system dynamics,
26:56which tried to model non-linear
systems using feedback loops.
27:01And this all coincided with
the heydays of the birth
27:04of large-scale computing.
27:07So there was this
fundamental belief that even
27:09the most complex system--
27:11so the global economy,
a city, the human body--
27:15could be abstracted, modeled--
27:17again, quantitatively-- and
simulated in a computer.
27:23So this is Jay
Forrester's World2 model.
27:27It's a computer
simulation of interactions
27:29between key components
of the planet.
27:32So population growth, industrial
growth, food production,
27:36limits on the
ecosystems of the Earth,
27:39to try to understand what the
carrying capacity of the planet
27:43It was then updated
in the World3 model
27:45by Dennis Meadows for the Club
of Rome, which some of you
27:48The famous limits
to growth project.
27:53And there is
actually a kind of--
27:55it's a system of systems.
27:57I thought we could go
through a few of them.
27:58There are a few different
sections on the map.
28:01So the first is the
non-renewable resources system.
28:04The industrial system, which
has things like jobs per capita.
28:09The pollution system, that
funny little cloud thing.
28:13I'm not sure if that's pollution
or not, but I do like it.
28:17And then here in
the food system,
28:18you see things like agriculture
production, land use
28:21allocation, that kind of thing.
28:23But I thought we might
spend a little bit of time
28:25with the population
system specifically.
28:28And if we zoom in
here, you can start
28:29to see what some
of these nodes are.
28:33So here you have the
life expectancy module.
28:37It's connected to these
mortality rate modules.
28:41But if you look at this,
these mortality rates
28:44are actually aggregates.
28:45So they're looking at
a demographic tranche
28:52In order to presumably
reflect the reality
28:54and make the simulation map
real dynamics of the world,
28:58we would need to at least
segment by individual ages,
29:01if not also account for where
in the world people are living.
29:06So maybe include
also country and age,
29:08and eventually get to
increasing specificity.
29:11Maybe even get down
to individual people,
29:14and have simulations that
include individual agents.
29:17And who knows,
maybe even go deeper
29:20into the biochemistry
of individual people
29:22to try to understand their
specific mortality predictions.
29:30So this is the Roche
Biochemical Pathways, developed
29:33by Dr. Gerhard Michal.
29:35He started this
project in the 1960s.
29:39And it was meant to
provide an overview
29:40of the chemical reactions
of cells in various species
29:44and organs, including the human.
29:46So it's an attempt to map out
all the possible metabolic
29:52Over decades, he added
more and more detail.
29:54More enzymes, more reactions.
29:56None of this means anything
to me, don't worry.
29:59But eventually it split into
two separate wall charts,
30:02there's so much detail.
30:04And it's kind of, again,
an amazing triumph
30:08of human ability to be able to
map out all of this complexity,
30:11and all of these
different components
30:13and their interactions.
30:14And so, presumably,
you could even
30:16go deeper into 2-oxoglutarate
and understand and describe
30:21what its atomic structure
is, and maybe even get
30:24down to the quantum level.
30:25And then work all
the way back up
30:26and have a more
accurate map, right?
30:28So it's a kind of never-ending
fantasy of total knowledge.
30:34NICK FOSTER: Yeah,
welcome to your--
30:35CHRISTIAN ERVIN: I jumped
over however section.
30:38Welcome to your design lecture.
30:39CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Yeah.
30:40NICK FOSTER: So the
however for this.
30:42Christian was alluding to
it, but one of the things
30:45to remember is that
these systems are
30:47based on an observation
of something very complex
30:49and a willingness to map it.
30:50That mapping takes time.
30:52And what they do is they
study the complex system
30:56as a fixed truth, a
stable mathematical model.
31:00And if we know anything
about the world, particularly
31:02the world of living things,
the world is all variables.
31:06There are very,
very few constants.
31:08Things are constantly in flux.
31:10There's no way you can say,
hey, freeze, I'm mapping this.
31:13Stuff is changing, stuff
is changing all the time.
31:16This is no more
visible, perhaps,
31:19than in economic systems.
31:20So in systems built on growth
and capitalist systems,
31:24the notion of growth is at odds
with the notion of stability.
31:27You can't say, hey,
freeze, everyone.
31:28I'm trying to map this.
31:29This thing is just
moving all the time.
31:32So it doesn't freeze
long enough for you
31:34to accurately map it
and create a simulation.
31:36And the documentarian
Adam Curtis
31:39in his piece "All Watched Over
by Machines of Love and Grace,"
31:41which I encourage
you to all watch,
31:43said, "The dream of the
self-organizing system
31:45is a strange machine
fantasy of nature."
31:48And the key point there
is it's a machine fantasy.
31:50It goes all the way back to
cybernetics and Arthur Tansley,
31:53even, and thinking about
the mathematical way
31:57And it relies on mathematical
models of equations and flow
32:00and feedback to make sense of
things that actually may not
32:05The second thing that's
important there-- and again,
32:07Christian was zooming
in and explaining
32:09this-- is knowing
the scale you're
32:11working at for your
map of a system,
32:13and knowing where the edges are
for you, is really important.
32:16You know you could
say, I'm going
32:18to start looking at animals.
32:19And you could focus
just on the microbiome
32:22on the back of a dung beetle
and go really deep into that.
32:25Or you could say
the Pacific Ocean.
32:27They're both valid
in this space.
32:30And in the background
of this is as a piece
32:32you might be familiar with.
32:33There's a lot of Eames in
this deck, God bless them.
32:35But this is "The Power of
Ten" movie from the Eames
32:38where they gradually zoom out
from the molecular level all
32:40the way to a galactic level.
32:42But the philosopher Bruno
Latour recently penned--
32:46Reasonably recently.
32:47CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Recently-ish.
32:48Yeah, I don't remember.
32:50CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Sure.
32:52CHRISTIAN ERVIN: [INAUDIBLE]
32:53NICK FOSTER: Sure, oh yeah.
32:54CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Continue.
32:55NICK FOSTER: So he penned
a piece called "Anti-Zoom,"
32:58which is this notion we're very
comfortable with zoom in that I
33:01zoom in to a map, for
example, and I zoom out.
33:03And the inference
there is that the stuff
33:06when you zoom in, when you
zoom out, it's still there.
33:08But the truth is, it's not.
33:09It's different images.
33:10It's different content.
33:11It's from a different server.
33:13It's actually not represented
when you zoom out, the stuff
33:15that you have when you zoom in.
33:17So this in itself is a world.
33:20But if we zoom out, it doesn't
mean that all that information
33:23is still there because,
in a very literal sense,
33:25there's less pixels
defining that stuff
33:28that we've moved away from.
33:29This is also another world.
33:30This is also another world.
33:33And there's been a
few people who've
33:35played with this over
time, but Lewis Carroll,
33:37the sort of comedic writer
of "Alice in Wonderland,"
33:40wrote this really
lovely piece in his book
33:42"Silvie and Bruno
Concluded" in 1893,
33:45which is, "The only way
you can make an accurate
33:47map of the world is
to make it one-to-one.
33:49But as soon as you
make it one-to-one,
33:51you can't unfold it because
it covers the earth."
33:54This was also followed up
by Borges and other people
33:56But this idea of
accuracy and zooming
34:00and the level to which you want
to try and get as much accuracy
34:02and find the edges
of your system
34:04means that trying
to map everything
34:06and create a simulation
becomes very, very difficult.
34:09And again, when
you start to think
34:10about making a model of
something and being like,
34:12I'm fine with the model.
34:13Now we're going to turn
it into a simulation.
34:16Just knowing that you've
missed a ton of detail
34:18is really important because
your simulation is going
34:20to lack that core information.
34:22And the more you zoom
out and the more basic
34:24you make your model, the
worse your simulation becomes.
34:28So you start to drift away
from the ground truth of what
34:30you're actually trying to map.
34:32And Baudrillard, who's very
French in this picture,
34:36coined this term-- used
this term "simulacra," which
34:38is like, you think
you're building
34:40a simulation of a system or a
model of how something works.
34:44But you've drifted so
far away from the truth
34:46and left out so much detail
that, actually, you're
34:49working in a parallel universe.
34:51The simulation
that you're making
34:52isn't actually reflected
in a ground of any sort.
34:55So those are three of
the tactics that people
34:57have used across design, but
other things, other areas--
34:59economics and philosophy and
politics-- to explore and make
35:05So let's take a quick
flashback to design.
35:08Those plantain chips.
35:12I think if we're really honest,
and I want us all to be honest,
35:15I'm assuming there's quite
a few designers in the room.
35:17It's a fair assumption.
35:19We still are stuck in a
world where we lionize
35:23the individual designer.
35:25I think the UX community
is actually ahead here.
35:27There's a general belief
that UX is a team sport,
35:31and it relies on engineering,
it relies on product.
35:33And we work collaboratively
in that space.
35:36But certainly in
architecture, certainly
35:37in industrial design, certainly
and product and furniture,
35:40the cult of the celebrity,
the cult of the individual,
35:43that sort of ignore the
mess, and I'm just going
35:44to make this beautiful thing.
35:45And we're not going to
talk about the supply
35:47chains, and all of the difficult
stuff that goes with it,
35:49and all of the implications
that it brings with it.
35:52Likewise with products.
35:55It is no surprise this is
rendered in just a white space.
35:58It willfully ignores
all the externalities.
36:00We judge design in a vacuum.
36:02We don't talk about
all of the stuff
36:04that I showed you in that
anatomy of an AI system.
36:07It's not rendered here.
36:09It's not part of
the conversation.
36:11We rarely expose the
underlying systems
36:14that go into making these
things good or bad products.
36:19Design is still stuck in
this loop of solutionism.
36:23We sell design as a tool to
achieve utopia regularly still.
36:27We still see launch
videos where there's
36:29a happy family and some
ukulele making everyone
36:31feel like, oh, if I just buy
this thing, it's all fixed.
36:34We know that not to be true.
36:36We like this really
clean message of,
36:37like, just do the
design and finish it,
36:39and then everything's solved.
36:41We know that's not the case.
36:42Why do we still do it?
36:44There's huge momentum still
behind these simplified models
36:49This is-- hopefully you know--
36:51David Kelly, one of
the founders of IDEO
36:53and the driving force behind
the movement behind design
36:58And recently won the
Bernard M. Gordon Prize
37:01from the National
Academy of Engineering,
37:04which carries a cool half
million dollar prize.
37:07So we're still really
into this stuff.
37:09We still think it's all what we
should be doing as designers.
37:12But we've already
seen those models.
37:13When you actually try to use
them, they don't really work.
37:16They don't really reflect the
complexities of our discipline.
37:20They're pretty introspective.
37:23We have Design Twitter.
37:25We talk to each other.
37:26We don't talk to other
teams, other people,
37:28other disciplines, get
their points of view.
37:31And I don't want to
tarnish everyone here
37:33with the same brush.
37:34I'm sure there's scales.
37:35But we like to argue about Figma
plugins and scroll bar designs,
37:39and we just sort of navel
gaze and talk to ourselves.
37:42We're naturally
introspective in that regard.
37:44And there are some
people who are
37:45trying to engage with the
deeper implications of the work
37:48that we do, but
it's a little trite.
37:51With a few notable
exceptions, people sort
37:53of playing at ethics a
little bit, it can often be--
37:56I'm being a bit
critical here, but it
37:57can be a little
laughable sometimes,
37:59how we portray ourselves
as the arbiters
38:01of the ethical viewpoint.
38:03And yet there's
professionals who exist
38:05who we just don't engage with.
38:10CHRISTIAN ERVIN: So there's
this overwhelming feeling
38:12that we're just kind of spinning
in circles as a discipline
38:14and not making a
whole lot of progress
38:16on these really grand challenges
that we talked about upfront.
38:19And so this general feeling
of stasis amidst calamity
38:25So there's this great
term, "the dithering,"
38:28that comes from Kim
Stanley Robinson, who
38:30is a science fiction author.
38:32So this is actually
from the perspective
38:34of a fictional society
in the future saying
38:36what this period of human
history looked like,
38:39and it's described as
the dithering, which
38:42is a state of
indecisive agitation.
38:45Doesn't that feel
true about 2020?
38:49This is our
colleague, Obi Felten.
38:52And I've always
loved this quote.
38:55She says that what has
changed during our lifetime
38:58is the pace of innovation.
39:00So technological development
now outpaces our ability
39:04to adapt to it, which has
caused a flare in our anxiety
39:08about technology and its impact.
39:10So this anxiety comes
from technology outpacing
39:14our ability to understand it.
39:17And I think there's
some reality to this.
39:20I don't know if you've
seen this chart,
39:21but this is the technology
adoption curves.
39:25And you can see that life
actually is speeding up.
39:28So as things are more
and more vertical,
39:31they're being adopted
more quickly into society.
39:36So we're building platforms
on top of platforms on top
39:38of platforms, and machine
learning moves faster
39:42Software moves
faster than hardware.
39:43Hardware moves faster than
infrastructure and landlines.
39:46And yeah, all of
the rest of that
39:49stuff that we had to
do in the 19th century.
39:53And so it's surprise
that our response to VUCA
39:59Reduce the messiness.
40:01Manage the messiness.
40:02Control and clean up
messy experience of life.
40:11We retreat to self-care
and mindfulness apps.
40:14It's a kind of
willful ignorance,
40:16blocking out the noise,
retreating to introspection
40:20Just, like, get the mess away
and give me a break from it.
40:27So I think some of this is
metaphorical, some of it
40:30I mean, at the end
of the day, we're
40:33really hoping that,
together, we can
40:34start to have a
conversation about what
40:36a new disposition for design
would look like that actually
40:39addresses the, quote
unquote, "mess."
40:43So this is Paola
Antonelli, and she
40:46advocates for design's
new role as society's
40:50new pragmatic intellectuals.
40:52So changing from form givers
to fundamental interpreters
40:55of an extraordinarily
dynamic reality.
40:59So we need to find
meaningful ways
41:01to fold complexity and
messiness into our practice,
41:05and find ways to embrace
messiness rather than try
41:09to manage it or simplify it.
41:12We have four things that
we'd like to see more of.
41:18The first thing that we'd love
to see more of in an emerging
41:21discipline of design and a
disposition towards design work
41:24is we want people who
consider themselves
41:27designers to be more
exploratory and more critical.
41:31We think like the work
of the radical designers
41:33of the '60s obviously
had some flaws,
41:35but we think there's
some tendencies in there
41:37that we really want to keep up
and refresh in our discourse
41:41and in our practice.
41:43We want to consider more
radical alternatives
41:45to our current paradigms.
41:47And this begins with starting
to widen our reading circle.
41:49And again, I'm not trying to
judge the people in the room,
41:52but I want us to get out of just
checking dribble every morning.
41:55I want us to start
reading books that
41:57are on the fringes of what
we consider to be design.
42:00Books about the
future of the world,
42:01the future of technology,
the future of society.
42:04Start to really
think about our roles
42:06as the creators of
things and products
42:08and services that are going
to change the lives of people,
42:11and the responsibility
that comes with that.
42:14Anab Jain, who we really
admire, has a lovely phrase.
42:17"We are constantly looking
out for weak signals,
42:19those murmurs of
future potential."
42:21That should be our job.
42:23We're making things as
designers and creators
42:25that are going to be
out in the future world.
42:27And if we're going
to be smart about it,
42:29we should be projecting.
42:30We should be spending our time
thinking about the future,
42:33observing the future, and trying
to make sense of the future.
42:36Speaking of an Anab,
her company, Superflux,
42:38recently did this project.
42:39It's called the
Mitigation of Shock,
42:41which was redesigning a city in
the wake of significant climate
42:45And we use it here more as a--
42:47not necessarily to, say,
focus on this project,
42:49but speculative design
as a discipline is
42:51something I believe strongly
in, as Christian does.
42:54But it has a tendency to
find itself wallowing around
42:56in the shallow waters of the
gallery space and the art
43:00We need to bring speculative
and critical design
43:03into our core practice.
43:04It can't be
something that's just
43:06something you do on the
weekend at the MoMA.
43:08It has to be part of
what we do as designers.
43:11We have to become critical.
43:14We have to move our mindset
away from applications.
43:18I'm not talking apps.
43:19I'm talking about the
applications of technologies
43:21and the applications
of new things.
43:23And start really thinking
about the implications of them.
43:26It's a responsibility
that we have.
43:27We can't keep drawing
these little simplified
43:29lines around ourselves,
saying, oh, not my problem.
43:34We're really good
at helping people
43:36see those implications, too.
43:38We have the ability to
quickly make a film,
43:40or quickly make a
Photoshop of something,
43:42and have people say,
ah, I see what that is.
43:46There's tools you can use, too.
43:48So this is a Futures Wheel,
or the implications wheel,
43:50This is just a simple diagram.
43:51Your thing in the
middle, but then
43:53have a ring of, in this case,
six first order implications.
43:56What might happen if we do this?
43:57What might happen if we finish
this design and ship it?
44:00Second order implications
come beyond that.
44:02Once those first
order implications
44:04start happening to
the world, then what?
44:05Just start thinking
about then what.
44:07It's a really big
part of what we do,
44:09and we have a
responsibility to do that.
44:11Now, I understand when
we come from a fairly
44:14privileged position that
we're asked to think more
44:17expansively about our work.
44:19But we have challenges, too.
44:21We work in an organization
like many of you do.
44:23And this is a little
tool that we've
44:24started to use
occasionally, which
44:26is you can't just walk
into a room and say,
44:27I'm not going to do your assets.
44:28I'm just going to talk about the
political implications of what
44:32That's not going to sit.
44:33But what you can do is
break down your work.
44:35And so this is
something that we use
44:37very loosely and
very occasionally,
44:38but we want to
still be optimistic.
44:40And if a client, let's say,
comes to us, or a partner,
44:42and says, I'm looking at
doing this thing, yeah, let's
44:46Let's help you figure that
out and do the 70% work.
44:48Do the optimistic work.
44:50But then there should be 20%
of your time or your output
44:53or your work that's there to
help them think a bit more.
44:55Help them think about
what they're doing
44:57and ask them questions
that maybe they're not
44:59thinking about at the moment.
45:00And then maybe,
if you can really
45:01get on the right
side of them, spend
45:0310 minutes or 10% of your
time really tearing it
45:07apart, thinking, how
is this thing we think
45:08is good going to be terrible?
45:10How is it going to destroy
something, or a livelihood,
45:14Think about the implications
of what we're doing more.
45:16Spend physical time doing it.
45:21So we said the four, so anyone
who's got dinner reservations--
45:24CHRISTIAN ERVIN:
We're almost there.
45:25NICK FOSTER: Almost there.
45:26I'd like to see a
break from solutionism.
45:28You might have gathered
that from some of the things
45:31we were saying earlier.
45:33I think this idea that we've
got this technocratic optimism
45:36as designers that we'll solve
things needs to go away.
45:42No more of these blindly
utopian vision videos.
45:46Utopias don't exist.
45:48We're living in 2020.
45:49I don't know how
old all of you are,
45:51but the child and you thinks
2020 is going to be wild.
45:54We're still living with dongles.
45:56We're still living
with all the problems
45:57that I mentioned earlier.
45:59Please, let's incorporate them.
46:01Just by means of a
way of doing this,
46:04there's a project they did with
the Near Future Laboratory,
46:07which is a small zine.
46:10But I wrote an essay in 2014
called "The Future Mundane,"
46:13which was a pragmatic
framework about how
46:15we might design for the future
in a very down-to-earth way.
46:18To get away from those
glossy touch screen
46:21"Minority Report"
vision video nonsense,
46:25and actually start to
think about the future.
46:26And a way to think
about the future, like I
46:28said, is backcast and think,
what was it like in the '80s?
46:30What did we think
2020 would be like?
46:32So what we wanted to do
in this piece of work
46:35was highlight the state
of the world as it is.
46:37Not in a kind of sneery
"isn't the world rubbish" way.
46:40But just, yes, we do
live in incredible times
46:42with 3D printers, and artificial
organs, and all this stuff.
46:45But we also have
this kind of stuff.
46:48This is the world we live in.
46:49The world is partly broken,
and it will continue to be.
46:53Now, most of the
breakages here might not
46:54be particularly significant
or have huge impact on people.
46:58But this is a familiar world.
47:00Yes, we've got Google Maps, and
we've got all these services,
47:02and we've got all these tools.
47:03But they also have moments when
they don't quite work for us.
47:07So I want us to really try and,
as a discipline-- and I say us
47:10because this is not us
telling you what to do.
47:13I think we all feel
a responsibility
47:15not to ignore this
kind of solutionism.
47:19We need to get involved
in solution entropy.
47:21We need to really think
about the knock-on effects
47:23of what we're doing.
47:24We'll never solve things.
47:28CHRISTIAN ERVIN: So, three
is that we'd like design
47:34to embrace plurality.
47:36So this is one of the core
tenets of future studies.
47:40There are many possible futures.
47:42So Joseph Voros's
Three Laws of Futures
47:45are the future is
not predetermined,
47:47it's not predictable, and it
can be influenced by the choices
47:51that we make in the present.
47:53So there are many
possible futures.
47:55We need to think about
these plurality of outcomes
47:58that our design decisions
could bring about.
48:01So not the future with
a capital T and capital
48:04F, but many futures.
48:05Just bake that into the way
that you say futures now.
48:10This is the futures
cone, also by Voros,
48:14which tries to describe
different potential
48:17trajectories of the futures.
48:18So you have the general space of
what's possible in the future.
48:22But you also have plausible
futures, possible futures,
48:25and critically preferable
futures, which is ideally
48:27what we should be
kind of steering our,
48:32I guess, society towards
through our product decisions.
48:36But in order to consider a
real plurality of futures,
48:40we also need a
plurality of viewpoints.
48:43So I think everyone should
agree with, but as a discipline,
48:47I think we need to be much
better about including
48:51So women, people of
color, different cultures,
48:54but also different attitudes
and political viewpoints.
48:57Different perspectives
about the future.
49:00Pessimists and optimists
sitting in a room
49:02trying to hash things out.
49:04Because at the end of the day,
we're all in this together,
49:07and we all need
to make this work.
49:10And if you look
back at, I think,
49:11a lot of the examples in our
deck, these lionized heroes
49:16of design are,
generally speaking,
49:18male, Western, and white.
49:20And I think that's a problem.
49:21We need to find meaningful
ways to celebrate
49:24other voices in our work.
49:28We would like designed to move
beyond user-centered design
49:31and expand a kind of--
49:34or yeah, and accept a
kind of expanded scope
49:38So this, again, is Paola
Antonelli saying that all
49:41design is human-centered in that
it touches everything but only
49:44cares about one thing--
49:47So in this framing,
human-centered design
49:49is kind of an insult.
It's not enough.
49:52It's part of what leads
to some of these problems
49:55that we're talking about.
49:56So this is Kenneth
Bowles diagram.
49:58And just to quickly--
49:59I know there's a lot of stuff
here, but there are two axes.
50:04And you can see that
in this framing,
50:06the traditional scope of
human-centered designer--
50:08or user-centered
design, as he puts it--
50:10is actually quite limited.
50:12And so he argues for an
expanded scope of responsibility
50:17for the designer that
includes not just
50:19the immediate decisions
in the product that's
50:22for a particular user
or group of users
50:24for the limited scope of
time, but to actually embrace
50:27the externalities and unintended
consequences of your decisions.
50:32And that's because our
decisions don't just affect us.
50:35They don't just
affect our products.
50:36They don't just affect
the immediate users
50:40They affect all of us.
50:43And furthermore, we need
to develop our ability
50:48to think more contextually.
50:50So design a thing by considering
it in its next, larger context.
50:55But I think we need
to extend this ethos
50:57to include many more dimensions
of caring beyond just
51:01your immediate scope.
51:02So it's not just about
expanding in scale.
51:05It's also to consider the
many entangled effects
51:08of the decisions that we make.
51:10And then, finally, to thank in
larger timescales than we're
51:15So consider the layered forces
of change that are at play,
51:18and consider how
your designs are
51:20situated within these forces.
51:22And I will hand it
over to you, sir.
51:27CHRISTIAN ERVIN: Almost there.
51:28NICK FOSTER: Each one has
100,000 words on-- no.
51:31We started this
off, and I gave you
51:33a small inkling of what
I think the world is
51:35and why I think
the world is messy,
51:37and hopefully we sort of concur.
51:38But we need to think about
where this is headed.
51:40Is the world going to
continue to be messy?
51:47You can't have gone
anywhere without hearing
51:49about machine learning.
51:50But machine learning is ushering
in an era where the tools that
51:53we're using cannot,
with authority,
51:56be described accurately by
the people who are creating
52:00GANs convolutional
neural networks
52:02are immensely
complicated things.
52:04And actually, the people
who are creating them
52:06don't have the language
properly to describe them
52:09And it's not just academic work.
52:12This is affecting music.
52:13It's affecting images.
52:14It's affecting video,
products, and services.
52:17These are tools
that are continually
52:19appearing in every
product we use,
52:21and yet we don't have the
language or the mental acuity
52:23to make sense of them.
52:26Secondly, we're entering a
world of hyperconnected objects.
52:29So we're going to enter a world
where there are new actors.
52:32These actors might not even be
conversing directly with us.
52:35They might be conversing
with each other.
52:37This is going to massively
increase complexity.
52:40The world is going to be
much more messy when we've
52:43got a billion things all
talking to each other,
52:46and we may be not able to
understand, comprehend,
52:49or communicate with them.
52:51Furthermore, it's a bit
of a played out example,
52:53but deep fakes is a good
example to use here.
52:56The line between truth
and reality, something
52:58we've held so true
for so long as a way
53:01to make sense of a messy
world, if we see something,
53:03then it must be true--
53:05that's also going away.
53:06There's a blurry line
between what is real
53:09and what is not
real we're entering
53:10the era of synthetic realities.
53:12And that's going to make the
world incredibly messy still.
53:16Not to mention the
core fundamental
53:18that goes behind every app.
53:20Everything you use, every
light switch you touch,
53:22is binary computing.
53:25We're entering an era now where
we're entering the quantum age.
53:28Quantum computing
is actually going
53:29to play with our notion of
true and false, one and zero,
53:33Those concepts are amazingly
difficult to understand.
53:36So all of this stuff--
53:38if you're a designer,
all of this stuff
53:40is coming into your world now
and increasingly over time.
53:44It's going to get a lot messier.
53:47We're basically entering an era
and an age of the hyperobject.
53:50Massively connected
things living
53:52amongst systems
and constructs that
53:55lie beyond the scope of
what we as humans can
53:57understand and comprehend and
communicate to each other.
54:00The VUCA that Christian
talked about at the beginning.
54:03Described in the
'80s, relevant today,
54:06going to keep increasing.
54:07Design needs to find
new tactics to deal
54:09with that, and new
approaches and new techniques
54:11to make sense of it.
54:13Because the future's coming, and
honestly, we don't think design
54:16So that's what we
have for you tonight.
54:18Thank you very much.
