A fundamental tenet of Humblefacture is the importance of scale. Yes, material composition of products is important. And certainly the location of production realative to use is also key. But the concept of scale implies that there are some intensities, or sizes, or durations which are simply too large to fit within the Humblefacture framework. The reason for this, it turns out, is that there is one common unit we all share - the human.
Showing posts with label systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label systems. Show all posts
Recently, Humblefacture (and our lab The Humblefactory) have been exploring the potential of open source product design as a part of a more equitable, appropriate manufacturing. Chris Anderson at Wired Magazine has also been interested in this sort of thing for a little while; A recent article of his profiled a number of small-scale producers using open design and flexible manufacturing to make niche products that can compete with the big boys. It's great to see a big voice like Chris behind the open hardware movement (even better, his money is where his mouth is, with the success of his DIY Drones company). Even so, we can't help but think that the future that Chris describes doesn't go far enough. Where "the next industrial revolution" he describes has an open, but still top-down manufacturing structure (finished objects are still made by single manufacturers, just smaller ones, more flexibly) we imagine something entirely new. With a few tweaks, we might have manufacturing with unprecedented accessibility and specificity. You might call it cloud manufacturing, and it could be the most important step toward true locally appropriate manufacturing.
Humblefacture might sound like a great idea, with two conditions. First, it will be possible in the future, but not now. And second, it only works for things like furniture, and maybe bikes, but nothing complex. In fact, the principles of Humblefacture can be applied to even the most complicated types of products, and using existing fabrication technologies. A perfect example of this is how the SSG framework, developed at The Humblefactory, allows currently available electronics to waste less, keep value longer, and most importantly, better meet the needs of their users.
It's all well and good to say that making is speech. It is something else entirely to work toward truly "free" making -- a goal made more difficult by the fact that the primary "oppressors" of freedom of making are systemic and economic, rather than individual or governmental. Simply making a law, like we did for speech, won't work. Instead, we need to identify new methods and research directions which will lower the systemic barriers of entry to making. I believe that three primary directions exist for this exploration.
Wired Magazine had a recent Op-Ed from excellent Human Landscapes blogger and scientist Erle Ellis (he also directs the Laboratory for Anthropogenic Landscape Ecology at the University of Maryland. The article -- "Stop Trying to Save the Planet" -- seems great from the outset, right in line with Humblefacture's ideals, particularly in passages like this one:
And it’s time for a “postnatural” environmentalism. Postnaturalism is not about recycling your garbage, it is about making something good out of grandpa’s garbage and leaving the very best garbage for your grandchildren. Postnaturalism means loving and embracing our human nature, the nature we have created to feed ourselves, the nature we live in. What good is environmentalism if it makes you depressed about the future?However, while this is a big step for the mainstream (is Wired mainstream now?) media to back away from the human vs. nature argument, the author stops short of a truly humble stance.
Posts
