Reading Response 6 / Adam Stafford

In the final chapter of Speculative Everything, Dunne and Raby address the vast multitudes of realities that make up the world we live in, as well as the multitudes that shape those realities themselves. The very concept of design is a collection of seemingly endless multitudes that interact and are related to one another in various ways, but for their purposes, the authors are focused on drawing comparisons between just two fields- speculative design and design thinking. The most notable difference being that design thinking is concerned with fixing tangible problems we face today- the “official reality” as they put it- while speculative design is more of a form of dissent in regard to the traditional role that design usually plays. Instead of concerning itself with the problems of the official reality, it is concerned with stepping back and offering new alternatives in a big-picture sort of way.

One word that has appeared frequently in our readings and discussions is utopia. The idea of a utopia is intrinsically tied to speculative design, and it’s one that I’ve personally always struggled with, as it seems like a far off dream to me especially in the context of design and the world we live in. It’s one of those “too good to be true” sort of things that I have always felt was out of our reach. However, thanks to some of the research conducted for this class, I’ve seen evidence that something like a real utopia could and has existed, and many countries around the world have implemented new structures to help steer their communities in that direction. My main point of contention still stands though- with upwards of 7.5 billion people in the world, is a utopia of any kind even attainable? This is where I find Dunne and Raby’s thoughts on micro-utopias particularly interesting, as it seems a much more viable approach given the wide variety of people in the world and the values and beliefs that shape each of their realities.

Dunne and Raby’s analysis of speculative design and design thinking is just one of many perspectives that can be taken with design, as evidenced by Cameron Tonkinwise’s article on Medium. Tonkinwise takes a rather hard approach to the way that design has become split up into various fields almost like genres of music. He breaks down and analyzes the nature of what designers do and how that can be applied to other things, and vice-versa. While I don’t agree entirely with every point the author makes, I do agree with the overall sentiment that such categorization in a field as versatile as design seems a bit counter-intuitive. Although simply naming and constructing a practice to become an entity in and of itself isn’t necessarily a tangible obstacle, it’s the context within which those practices exist that becomes the issue.  As I mentioned previously, design is full of multitudes that coexist and interact with each other in unique and varied ways, and to put barriers between them seems superfluous to me. I believe that the fewer barriers we have, both in design and within our own realities and world, the more likely we are to make positive change. But, maybe that’s just me. Designers are known to be optimistic.

Reading Response 06 / Jack Thrun

There was one statement in the middle of this chapter of Dunne and Raby’s “Speculative Everything” that related to something I’ve been trying to think about / wrap my head around for as long as I can remember. On page 168, it says “it feels today as if the era of big ideas and fantastic dreams has passed.” Space travel was revolutionary. The personal computer, the iPhone, the iPod. They were all revolutionary. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, on a smaller scale than space travel, all changed the world in some way. I think the thought of changing the world is in every designer/engineer’s mind but the toughest question to answer is “what is the next big thing?” All of these big ideas seem like common sense looking back at them because its easy to see after the fact how the creator simply “connected the dots” as Steve Jobs puts it.

“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something – your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. Because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well worn path; and that will make all the difference.”

To back track in the reading a bit, this idea loosely corresponds to the micro utopias that were mentioned on page 163. Although the example in the book is rather bizarre, it made me think of the idea that if one person likes an idea, there will be a group of similar thinking people who also like the idea. “The construction of one-off micro-utopias built around the desires of a single person or group” plays into the idea that as a designer, we need to trust out intuition. Yeah, it’s important to know how to design for other people but it’s interesting knowing the fact that if you design for yourself, it has the potential impact on larger groups of people.

I’ll finish with some comments on some ideas that this chapter started out with. Design thinking is a term that gets tossed around so much today that I begin to wonder what value it holds anymore. Design thinking is a great methodology that can be utilized in non design businesses but as a fellow designer, it comes across as a bit pretentious when it morphs into teaching other design driven companies / consultancies how to design. IDEO used to be a great design firm that created unbelievably innovative products. Now it seems that all they do is talk about design and tell other people how to design without designing much themselves anymore.

Reading Response 6 / Heather Weyda

In chapter 9 of Speculative Everything they write about how speculative design is not the same as design thinking and social design. Design thinking is all about solving problems for commercial reasoning, while social design is focused on fixing human problems without the incentive of financial gain. Speculative design, however, is intended to be a inspirational and address values and ethics. It is a way of imagining the world as it could be. This change from reality as we know it is argued in this article to be solely due to the actions of the individual. The individuals actions can act as the jumpstart to these proposed ideas. It’s also suggested that in order for these ideas to come to light people also need to change their behaviors for the greater good. One example they provided was quitting smoking because it effects others around you. Everyone has the opportunity to influence design by what they do or do not decided to participate in, such as what you choose to buy and companies you support. When we hold certain beliefs it can stifle the development of designs. Our designs can only go as far as our imagination and when personally held beliefs come into play it greatly influences what does or does not become a reality.  If companies see that certain products or ideas are popular amongst consumers than they are more likely to follow the trends and produce similar products.

It is also argued in the reading that there are a infinite amount of realities. Each person perceives and experiences things differently, making their own interpretation of reality. This is important because when thinking of what realities could exist we need to place ourselves in the mindset that there is more than one way to view the reality that we all share. People’s outlooks on their reality also leave a lasting effect on the way things are designed, for example whether they have an optimistic view of life can influence what ideas they are willing to embrace. While simply thinking about these different realities that could be is an important first step, it’s also important to make these realities a possibility by funding organizations and corporations that are shifting in the direction that you want your reality to go. This ties back into the idea of supporting businesses as an action to further your ideal reality.

In Just Design by Cameron Tonkinwise he goes into why it is important not to add words surrounding design because it makes design seem as the secondary thing and furthers the idea that design is simply styling things. Tonkinwise states that if you have design that doesn’t fit into the catergories of Future, Fiction, Speculate, Criticize, Provoke, Discourse, Interrogate, Probe, Play, then it is inadequate design. He argues that designs make the future. Society will eventually embrace the design ideas that are created and except them as a reality. What we create now through speculative thinking, could eventually shape people’s daily lives, such as the speculative idea of highways that forever changed the world.

Reading Response 6 / Rachel Adkins

In this chapter of Dunne and Raby’s “Speculative Everything”, the opening paragraph starts with a brief discussion of the differences between design thinking and speculative-thinking, siting that the former is concerned mainly of solving problems in the here and now, while the latter serves as a way of “contesting official reality.” In other words, design thinking is about preparing for the future, whereas speculative-thinking is about creating a new type of future altogether.

On the other hand, Cameron Tonkinwise seems to disagree with this to an almost unbearable extent. In his “Just Design” article, he suggests that any kind of design, but specifically commercial design in his original discussion, that does not deploy speculative thinking and tactics is “unconvincing and irresponsible”. Essentially, speculative design should always be a part of any design process in order for it to have value, and does not warrant isolation as its own field of study. I don’t necessarily disagree, as I definitely feel there is a currently stagnation of mainstream innovation, as the pressures of capitalism have forced most commercial designers to constantly crank out new, and uninspired, product in order to sate consumers, as well as the pockets of those on top.

But other than agreeing on the notion that all designers should be thinking a bit more critically of the future, I simply cannot get behind him much further. Maybe it’s his post-everything attitude, and his line about “…artificial ecosystems of academic design research…” but this article just felt like a huge rip on everyone who places themselves in any of the fields he describes. I don’t think it should devalue someone’s work just because they give it a certain label, and feel that what they do should have a specialized purpose within the larger field of design. And besides, if one day speculative thinking does meet critical mass, in that all designers apply this methodology, all the time, every time, then what is to say that we won’t (continually) see the rise of another field of heightened design thinking.

On a completely different note, one of the big talking points in this chapter of Dunne and Raby’s “Speculative Everything” is the idea of micro-utopias, which I found particularly insightful, especially in regards to our current endeavors in class. They suggest that the “utopia” in the singular form cannot ever truly exist, because in reality, there essentially 7 billion different possible utopias the apply to each individual on Earth. It is summed up by a 1974 quote from Phillip K. Dick,

“Maybe each human being lives in a unique world, a private world, a world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans. And that led me wonder, if reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn’t we really be talking about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are so me more true (more real) than others?”

From this, Dunne and Raby suggest the usefulness of individual, “micro-utopian” endeavors, that may only apply (or in other words, be desirable) to a small group of people, or even a singular person, but they hold a great deal of potential for inspiration, and provide a kind of jumping off point for actually thinking about a future in which these one-off ideas could be reality.

One project discussed in this chapter, of which I immediately responded to, is Joseph Popper’s “One Way Ticket”, and I feel it provides a good example of a kind of singularly applicable, “micro-utopia”. I personally find space travel endlessly fascinating and perpetually terrifying, and the concept of a no return, one-passenger trip into the void of space strikes severely on both of those cords. The imagery is straight out of a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, but unlike the film, the end goal of the voyage is not so concrete; the craft isn’t chasing after any monoliths, or really anything for that matter. The project is presented in episodic videos that capture key points along the trip and aims to infer some of the “…unique psychological phenomena that could occur on a one-way trip.” One of the big considerations of this project is determining who would be the main subject of this experience, and what reasons might compel them to do so. Dunne and Raby suggest that perhaps terminally ill volunteers would choose to participate, or perhaps inmates serving life sentences, who would rather die for science than in prison. No matter the circumstances, this project is far from the romantic ideas we often hold about space travel and exploration, but it does present one kind of “micro-utopia” that almost undoubtedly provokes us to think about the repercussions and moral hang-ups we would have to address if this ever were to become a reality.

Reading Response 6 – Sarah Grunkemeyer

“It’s about meaning and culture, about adding to what life could be, challenging what it is, and providing alternatives that loosen the ties reality has on our ability to dream. Ultimately, it is a catalyst for social dreaming.” In chapter nine in “Speculative Everything” by Dunne and Raby, they uncover the implications of multiple of realities.

Today, the world is engulfed with negativity, challenges, and limitations due to political, economical, and social issues that are happening all over. It is hard to think out of the box and imagine a different reality when people can’t imagine or have the capability to believe there can be a different way to live through existing social structures. In paragraph one, Duncombe argues that individuals focus to heavily on reason and they overlook the realities that play in our lives. Reality T.V. shows, social apps, and millions of forms of consumer marketing leads people to live in a fantasy and fabricated world. The question that is applicable to this is, why can’t people embrace this fictional reality that individuals already live in? Is society limited by their own imagination? Can a alternative reality be possible if everyone just stepped back and readdress values and ethics through the “real” fantasy’s that people are affected by everyday?

When looking back at history, many historical moments started with one individual. For example, Bel Geddes was a dreamer when it came to his time period in 1939. He imagined new possibilities through implicating technological and rational ways at the world fair; Highways & Horizons exhibit. Designers and forward thinkers can facilitate a dreaming process that unlocks people’s imaginations like Geddes did. We believe that change starts with one individual; they spread their idea to the people who can’t think outside their everyday life which will lead people to become inspired and influenced and will eventually be apart of what that one “leader” stands for.

I believe, the micro-kingdoms are one of the prominent ideas for our future that anyone has had in the readings thus far. Instead of using state or country, the designer uses the word kingdom to seem more imaginative and futuristic. With this kingdom idea, it allows individualism and millions of small experiment free zones to develop its own form of governance, economy, and lifestyle. Speculative design is key to this attitude as it opens up a dynamic space between possible and preferable futures or earlier state “real or unreal.” This fictional scenario of this mirco -kingdom gives the opportunity for people to follow their social dreams and will become a catalyst for public debate.


During my previous internship, they offered several classes to build our leadership skills and get to know ourselves individually and professionally. As I was there, I took the Meyer-Briggs personality test during one of the classes and I find this relatable to the Political chart by Kellenberger- White and the mirco-kindgdoms. What if this personality test is true to who you really are and it could place you correctly in a specific divisions? What if this test could help individuals with their beliefs and values so that possibilities can be sketched out and imagined? With the prospect of offering a suggestion or proposal to someone, it can inspire and influence them to live and build their own utopian or dystopian society.

Take the test to see what they say about you and your personality type, what kind of kingdom would you live in? Would you want to be around similar people? What is your fantasized world?

Reading Response 06/Andy Millard

Dunne & Raby have an interesting way of bringing in an outside perspective on political and design issues I hope we have all thought about. This reading serves as a well considered bookending touching on important points mentioned throughout the book and then ending on a kind of speculative note “Ultimately, it is a catalyst for social dreaming.” (speculative design)

Some of this reading touched on things we have been responding to in class, like the thought of broadening our conception of what is possible and not attempting to be problem solvers. This may have been one of my favorite reading thus far. In the section of “One Million Little Utopias” I could really relate to what Philip K. Dick wrote about how maybe each human being lives in there own little unique world, “a private world, a world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans.”. I often try to realize, in most cases what I feel is very different from what the person next to me is feeling. We all have our own separate set of eye balls in which we can choose to see the world.

Dunne & Raby talk about their project “United Micro Kingdoms, 2013” and there portioning of England into four “supershires” –Digitarians, Bioliberals, Anarcho-Evolutionists, and Communo-Nuclearist. To be completely honest, I’m not sure which i’d rather be a part of. The Digicar, which is part of Digitarians is quite fascinating considering my current dark matter subject. I don’t however find it that appealing–it’s a little to similar to the direction in which the world may actually be going and that a little frightening. Currently, on the road–unless you are in a semi truck, we are all essentially treated equally. There is no “Highly Successful Car Lane” that is separated from the rest of us average humans. So the thought of the digicar allowing for expression of status is just another step towards inequality.

Bioliberals on the other hand fascinate me with the concept of what I would call “Slow Living”, “Faster is no longer better”–agreed. I’m not sure if I can image driving around in what looks like a loaf of bread but the idea is interesting. This type of living would allow for a new level of independence, forcing everyone to supply themselves with the energy the need to survive. This speculative vision is completely far fetched and like Dunne & Raby said, the society and infrastructure would have to change dramatically, and people would be at a loss if they couldn’t have their race cars on the city streets…

Anarcho-Evolutionists is not something I expected to subconsciously subscribe to, yet the thought highly resinates with me. It seems radical to think about modifying ourselves to exist on this planet but, the planet was here first… And because we have historically done the opposite we have our current problem resulting in lack or resources, water being a huge concern. Things brought up in the last chapter of Speculative Everything could be talked about for hours, days, weeks, etc… And I’m sure they have. Ill conclude by saying how eye opening this book has been, and I may have to pick myself up a copy.

As far as Cameron Tonkinwise, he seems like a somewhat brilliant human/designer, having worked at CMU and Parsons. I don’t necessarily agree with this article, I somewhat see it as a waste? I may be lacking criticality but, why cant we think of “Design Futures, Design Fiction, Speculative Design, Critical Design, Adversarial Design, Discursive Design,” etc… as sub-genres? I think of it in a fine arts sense–If you are an artist, you could be a ceramicist, who could then focus on wheel thrown pots, who could then focus on a certain type of glazing, etc… Yes I do agree that well considered, quality design should include all of these things, however I don’t find the above terms to be redundant, I see them as focused.

Reading Response 6|Zack Sickman

This appears as a summery chapter to the book, which ironically ends with an even loftier premise. The first part of chapter remains to challenge the reader into seeing eye to eye with the necessities of speculative design. There is a strong line drawn between design thinking and speculative design such that speculative design looks to contest “official reality” while design thinking remains about solving problems. I don’t agree so much with the strong separation between these two distinctions or rather that they should be so separate. Design thinking should entail the idea of speculative design. Design thinking should be solving problems in new and novel ways that are foreign or even made up to the creature. Speculation without evidence is amateur and irresponsible, yet design thinking is constructed off of uncovering evidence. I do believe there is a rudimentary version of design thinking that goes along the lines of “think differently” or “innovate”. The problem I have with these ideas of design thinking is that you’re not thinking about the design thinking and maybe that is where speculative design steps in. It is also important to acknowledge that designers may not always have time to do such a derivative level of analysis on a subject matter; however, the true inspiration often seen in speculative design requires this or it is found through some stroke of genius often uncovered in the subconscious. For the designer this entails blurring the dreams in their subconscious with their everyday reality. What is important here though is something that is mentioned in the second reading. It’s that these dreams take the work of many people to fully become a reality. Something that remains tied to commercial agendas.


I did find it interesting in notion that there isn’t a singular reality but rather many plural realities fitted to the individual desires of every person. What becomes strange about this though is that most people are only able to say they like or dislike something. They’re never able to create for themselves and if they do they are generally left disappointed. The notion of reality is hard work and our social system revolves around the separation of work from reality keeping the dream alive. I do see it very hard though to completely distance oneself from this cycle in attempts to realized their dreams so even designers are incapable from their own version of utopia.

Reading Response 6 | Kat Fenton

In today’s day and age, we design what’s real; the things that we can see and touch and feel, facts and numbers and words with no feeling. We need to adjust our designs and change the way we look at how what we do affects the world. After talking a bit about the real versus the unreal, this article moves to talk about captology, a word that has grown in meaning since the 1990s. Captology can be defined as “Behavior design in the study of computers as persuasive technologies.” It is also a form of social engineering. While this can be effective in certain marketing aspects, it’s important to realize that people have a will of their own.

We can boycott products from companies with morals that we disagree with. We can protest and riot too. “Maybe each human being lives in a unique world, a private world, a world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans. And that led me wonder, if reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn’t we really be talking about pluralnrealities? And if there are plural realities, are some more true (more real) than others?” An interesting quote that voices the opinion that we need to change, culturally, the way we address the individual and the mass.

Another interesting thought that I’d like to address is the opinion that Think Tanks are bad. I think the concept of a think tank is well founded, but it is the political bias of a government that stifles the creativity that think tanks are supposed to create. I think speculative design helps to address many aspects of design that are stifled by reality. Technology for a time also solved some of these problems. It ignited the imagination. Unfortunately now technology has become another stifling aspect to our creativity. I learned quite a bit more about politics than I really care to from this article as well. Who knew wikipedia wouldn’t even have a definition for comuno-nuclearists. I mostly skimmed this section as I hold a strong grudge towards all forms of politics (anarchy, amiright?) and moved on to the next article.

  • Generating Futures
  • Evaluating Futures
  • Enlisting Sponsors
  • Materializing Futures

These were the four things that I drew from this text. Mostly I like to equate this to critical thinking skills, something that is often underdeveloped within our society. We are brought up in school to follow equations and directions. The only form of critical thinking skills we can develop are through our arts programs, and even then, they are muddled together with steps to draw the perfect drawing and techniques to make you look like a pro. Our inability to think for ourselves, to create truly new and unique thoughts in our minds, is a huge benefactor to our lack of advancement in this decade.

As I read these articles, websites like Luminosity and MindSumo come to mind. The gimmick behind sites like luminosity is that they will improve your mind. You will think clearer, remember more if you use the games they provide. Your brain is just another muscle right? To a certain extend this is true, but your brain is so much more than a muscle. It is you. Everything that you ever have been and ever will be is in your brain. So why would you treat it like your calf muscle or your biceps. On the opposite end of the spectrum is MindSumo. Companies come to this site to find solutions to their problems in the cheapest way possible. College students. The demographic that is seemingly constantly screwed over by every aspect of our society. Our 40 year employee can’t find a solution to the problem, lets not hire someone who can, lets cheat some college chump out of a potentially incredibly successful idea and maybe give them $100. Lets make look back on this once they graduate and realize that their critical thinking skills were a waste because someone could basically steal them. Anyways, I digress, this reading was extremely long but hopefully it will be our last for a while.

Emily Schaefer | Reading Response 6

The introduction to the last Speculative Everything chapter talks about how the “radical left” has relied too much on reason, and not enough on fantasy in their attempt to woo the public into joining their side. I kind of disagree with that, I think that a lot of people don’t take the left side seriously enough. I do agree with the point that we’re often stuck working on projects that promote capitalism, even if we want to do more left-aligned projects. Not that I’m “anything” aligned, but I can see how the system is at play.

Raby and Dunne talk about how speculative design has the power to blur the real from the unreal. I think that this is what I’m most attracted to with the subject, making “normal” things seem less normal. Cameron Tonkinwise would probably say something about how “good design should do that anyways” but the sad truth is that it doesn’t. We live in a commercial world, and not only have the authors of Speculative Everything been clear about this, they’re also the ones proposing how to successfully design with this in mind. That is what their whole book is about. We have a set reality and we can design our way out of it. You know why? Because “we all have our own realities”.

I very much admire how they literally speculate everything within their book, even questioning who is calling the shots on all of the designs we’re currently making:

They inspire us to question why the real is “real” and the unreal is not; who decides? Is it market forces, evil genius, chance, technology, or secret elites?

I almost wonder if we’ve become numb to design. Luckily, we haven’t had any World Wars lately, but at the same time, we’ve had nothing to push us to do anything amazing. I don’t think that sending emojis with facial recognition counts. So far, companies are in control of calling the shots, and most of them are shooting at the wrong targets.

One can’t help but wonder if ideology is at the source of true innovation in the sense that new ideas and thinking come from new and different ways of viewing the world.

With this:

Change can happen in a number of ways : propaganda, semiotic and subconscious communication, persuasion and argument, art, terrorism, social, engineering, guilt, social pressure, changing lifestyles, legislation, punishment, taxation, and individual action. Design can be combined with any of these but it is the last one – individual action – that we value most.

I often forget that real changes only happen after trials. I’m used to hearing change being talked about in a more positive light. I like to believe that change happens when “we all work together” and “pull ourselves up by our boot straps” so it’s very sobering to hear words like “guilt” and “punishment” being thrown around.

I wonder which of these “change factors” have effected me on a personal level, and especially with my designs. I wonder which of these are the most effective, and also ones I could apply to my speculative vision.

For the Cameron Tonkinwise article, I found myself Google searching if this guy was even a designer or not. He makes some really radical statements, which I was somewhat off put by, and then again, somewhat enlightened by. In all, I think the guy should’ve stopped after the first two paragraphs, because after that it was a little choppy. The farther you read, his paragraphs turn into sentences that bounced around from one idea to the next.

Anyways, I did agree with some of his stuff. I liked the beginning rationale statement about how design should be speculative in it’s nature. It’s just a name game, I don’t think that anyone meant any harm by specifying “speculative” design from other types. Raby and Dunne also believe that design itself should be able to do all of the things Tonkinwise is talking about, if only it were free from commercial agenda:

Can design achieve this, too, if it is decoupled from narrow commercial agendas? We think so. By embodying ideas, ideals, and ethics in speculative proposals design can play a significant role in broaden ing our conception of what is possible.

I also approved of his thoughts on how design can change the future by making it. I think in all of our hearts, we know that one of the best perks of being a designer is that we have the possibility make the future a better place. We all hope that we can use our skills for something amazing and life changing (I hope). After sifting through some of his rambling, I thought this was a fun statement:

“There is nothing whatsoever disturbing about dystopias. People pay good money to see horror films

There is nothing whatsoever motivating about utopias. Nobody pays good money to see situations in which everything is fixed for good and so nothing happens.”

It’s a true point, even while designing motion pieces. The projects that make the best impression / are the most interesting, are the ones that have darker elements to them.

I’m pretty sure my teacher has used this as an example of good story telling: (Warning this video is scary)



Reading Response 6 // Niyah Jackson

Speculative Everything

According to this article, design can nudge our behaviors as consumers and get us to modify our decisions. This is quite obvious, but I’ve never heard this summed up in a word before: “captology.”

I like the way “micro-utopias” sounds. These otherworldly environments are meant to appeal to the desires of a single person or small group. These do exist already cults, sexual fantasy environments, but I wonder how else they can be used in the near future. This makes me think of the decked out underground bunker camps for the wealthy/elite that serves as protection against natural disasters.

“Much of today’s dreaming around technology is shaped by military priorities or a short term, market-led view of the world based on standardized consumer dreams and desires.” This is my favorite quote from the reading. I agree with the author in that we’re capable of thinking much bigger.

I like this idea of flipping the model of design around technology products and services to look at the new reality first, then create scenarios, and last persona’s to bring it to life. I had to do this a few times during my internship at LPK. We created futuristic “brand worlds” for clients, wrote a narrative of what everyday life is like in this new world, and then created a fictional character and gave them attributes to help bring it all together in a cohesive story.

When I got to the anarcho-evolutionist’s world, I laughed when it said one of their modes of transport is “human”, but I paused to think about the genetically modified animal powered vehicle. I’ve never thought about that before, and I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea, but it is an interesting one. I mean we did once used to ride horses to get from place to place. I wonder how fast a genetically modified horse could go and the implications of that.


I like how the author outlined that designers are creative, optimistic, and idealistic which leads them to naturally generate futures. In turn, there’s really no need for categorical divisions based on certain types of design, because at it’s core this is what it should do. I also appreciated that the author mentioned designers must work with others to bring their vision to life (ie.  funders, users, contractors, marketers). It would feel like a huge burden to be expected to come up with consistent brilliance on our own.

My favorite quote from this piece was “Putting technology at the center of anything is profoundly conservative. The only change is change to social practices.” It seems to tie right back to my favorite quote from the other reading. Both are saying we’re limited on our views about what technology can accomplish.