Is it an issue with our habits or is it an issue with the wasteful nature of products? Which is the bigger problem?
Does it mater? They both contribute to it. They both need to be dealt with.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Why Redesign Objects
New Thesis Direction: Instead of getting people to change, to change the objects them selves. Looking at altering the objects related to the habits to be less wasteful. For it seems out of everything, the main issue in the identified habits is our tendency to be wasteful.
Trash into Treasure
Found this article from national geographic about a campaign to get people to become more avid recyclers. It is based on a rewards system where the more you recycle the more green store credits you get. Each recycle bin would have a code that the pickup truck can scan. It then weighs how much recyclables you have and that translates into credits you can print from the web. A number of cities have tried this new system, and they've increased their recycling 10 times the original percentage. My questions here are: How much of what the homeowners deem recyclable were really recyclable? Are they also faking it to get the vouchers? Does the recycling system really work that well anyways? Recycling has it's own downfalls too, it can be seen as route to alleviating the guilt of consumption resulting in more consuming.
It's a good idea though in the sense that it becomes a cycle of rewards.
Shutting Down Computers
- Automatic shutdown after 20 min no use ("Of the $250 billion spent every year on powering computers worldwide, only about 15 percent is spent computing; the rest is wasted idling."- World Changing)
- Makes beeping noise like cell phone in 10 min cycles of no use
- Makes beeping noise like cell phone in 10 min cycles of no use
Water and Faucets (sinks)
- 7 to 10 second automatic turn off
- low flow faucet heads
- water drains to living machine like tank - gray water then used to arrogate lawn and back yard
- motion detector - turns on only when there is a object under faucet
- toilet sink lid - attach water intake hose of toilet to sink lid - can wash your hands after going and that water can help flush your excrement
- reuse gray water from all sinks into tanks for toilet flushing
- use your foot to turn on water instead of hands - gets rid of unhygienic hands on faucets
- low flow faucet heads
- water drains to living machine like tank - gray water then used to arrogate lawn and back yard
- motion detector - turns on only when there is a object under faucet
- toilet sink lid - attach water intake hose of toilet to sink lid - can wash your hands after going and that water can help flush your excrement
- reuse gray water from all sinks into tanks for toilet flushing
- use your foot to turn on water instead of hands - gets rid of unhygienic hands on faucets
Lighting a Space (Light Switch)
- it would beep every ten minutes like a miscall on a cell phone when it is on
- continuous humming or ticking when on
- motion detectors that automatically turn off and turn on lights in the room when you leave/ enter
- cycles of blinking lights every couple of minutes
- automatic turn off every ten minutes
- windows with self adjusting opacity - light and temperature sensitive
- open and close door detecting devices that control on and off switch - when ever door is closed lights turn off
- continuous humming or ticking when on
- motion detectors that automatically turn off and turn on lights in the room when you leave/ enter
- cycles of blinking lights every couple of minutes
- automatic turn off every ten minutes
- windows with self adjusting opacity - light and temperature sensitive
- open and close door detecting devices that control on and off switch - when ever door is closed lights turn off
Monday, November 10, 2008
Am I doing the right thing?
My thesis is about taking action over just pointing at the problem - to change unenvironmental behavior. Thing is that who am I to say that unenvironmental behavior is bad, that's just my opinion. I came into the process with a pre-supposition of a negative. Is that smart? Is habit change really the problem?
Look if I were asked is environmentalism really worth pursuing if the world is not in a gigantic crisis, I would say yes. The way we're living may or may not impact future generations as severely as it is popularly advertising today, but we should live with respect for our fellow species. That means a change of ways, and a paradigm shift of thinking of our selves in relation to other Earth creatures. A change in our everyday behaviors can aid in living more symbiotically with one an other but it's most likely only with relatively minimal effects. What it does do is train people to consider and question their actions so that they may make better decisions with bigger choices. Like allowing the dumping of wastewater into lakes and rivers by factories.
Stopping people from doing the things they like doing is different from altering habits. One is open to desire, people act that way because they like to. Habits on the other hand
Look if I were asked is environmentalism really worth pursuing if the world is not in a gigantic crisis, I would say yes. The way we're living may or may not impact future generations as severely as it is popularly advertising today, but we should live with respect for our fellow species. That means a change of ways, and a paradigm shift of thinking of our selves in relation to other Earth creatures. A change in our everyday behaviors can aid in living more symbiotically with one an other but it's most likely only with relatively minimal effects. What it does do is train people to consider and question their actions so that they may make better decisions with bigger choices. Like allowing the dumping of wastewater into lakes and rivers by factories.
Stopping people from doing the things they like doing is different from altering habits. One is open to desire, people act that way because they like to. Habits on the other hand
Environmental Hysteria
I was shown a video on environmental extremists called Penn and Teller - Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria. It basically talks about how this trend into environmentalism is just a political ploy in conjunction with people's natural tendencies to join something.
Environmentalism as a cloak for anti-corporatism, anti-globalism, and anti-business.
Patrick Moore a founder and former president of Green Peace argues that environmental language has been cleverly injected into various political agendas to garnish support - misinformation and scare tactics.
1970s Crisis verse 2000 Crisis
The 70s was different because the issue then was the cut off from cheep oil, thus people had to find a new way of sustaining a large modern population's needs and wants. The 2ooo crisis is the belief that the environment is being drained of it's usable resources.
Anything to help the "Environment"
In the video they documented an experiment to see if people really knew what they were supporting, or do you just have to use buzz words like "it's for the environment" and they'll sign anything. So they ran a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which is water (H2O) by using environmental language to explain it's effects on people and nature. Waves of people signed the petition. This is probably because yes, people are joiners, they like to belong and being part of a group. It's a survival instinct, human beings are relatively fragile for an animal so we're more likely to live and last longer if we come together in packs. So when individuals see that a particular group is getting bigger (meaning higher likely hood of the pack's survival), they want to join. Problem is, they don't understand what they're choosing to participate in.
Is Global Warming really happening?
If you take the recorded average annual temperatures and draw up a graph with a trend line, it seems the Earth is warming up. Theoretically this will cause alterations in weather patterns, and we see this happening now. But did we cause this? How will this effect us? Some say that climate change may result in the melting of most of the polar ice caps (which will flood the earth and drown cities among things), a dramatic increase in natural disasters, and perhaps even push the earth towards the run-away greenhouse effect (basically turn the earth in to a second Venus). Others conclude with the fact that the earth has gone through these cycles of heating and cooling through out it's history of existence, we're due for an other one, and thus it's happening now. They cite that if you look at the averages of the total contributors of green house gases in the atmosphere, that you'll find the human contribution to be quite small compared to the rest. Environmentalist counters with saying that this may be true but the Earth's ecosystem is a delicate balance, that little bit may be enough to cross the line. All in all it seems that we just don't know, everything is theoretical (we're supposing). It seems the argument is yes the world is warming up, we don't know exactly what that means but we should perhaps prepare for the worse.
Bad News Sells
After watching this video, I found that the main issue with the eco movement seems to be the lack of reliable information. I've heard arguments for global warming and those that say it's just a natural occurrence that the Earth goes through. Thing is that despite all the research and theories, what it comes down to is that science is not fixed. No one knows these things for sure, and even if they say they are, things could change in reality and then they would cite that science has always been based on theories. They're human, and humans make mistakes. My point is that no one knows the future, we can only predict it, and predicting is different from knowing. It is also important to note that all information is presented with a bias, you'll never know what you think unless you examine the data your self. It like what happened with Bjorn Lomborg, he looked at the data for him self and came up with a conclusion opposite to that pro-environmentalist. I'm not saying he got it right nor that he got it wrong, just that the data spoke differently to him.
Personally, since grade school I've always liked plants, trees, and animals. I believe that we all share and live in this one closed space and we each have something to offer in sustaining that space. Therefore we should respect one an other, respect life, to promote co-existing. Rather then the Earth belongs to man kind thus we are authorized to act with out consideration to all the other creatures that are here with us.
But the thing is that this is how I think, who am I to say that this is how others should think. It was discussed before that my thesis should revolve around education, perhaps it should center on getting them to actively look for their own answers and conclusions over just copying someone else's. Get people to question. To stop the repetitive behavior of just sitting back and being spoon fed opinions and get up to form your own.
Environmentalism as a cloak for anti-corporatism, anti-globalism, and anti-business.
Patrick Moore a founder and former president of Green Peace argues that environmental language has been cleverly injected into various political agendas to garnish support - misinformation and scare tactics.
1970s Crisis verse 2000 Crisis
The 70s was different because the issue then was the cut off from cheep oil, thus people had to find a new way of sustaining a large modern population's needs and wants. The 2ooo crisis is the belief that the environment is being drained of it's usable resources.
Anything to help the "Environment"
In the video they documented an experiment to see if people really knew what they were supporting, or do you just have to use buzz words like "it's for the environment" and they'll sign anything. So they ran a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which is water (H2O) by using environmental language to explain it's effects on people and nature. Waves of people signed the petition. This is probably because yes, people are joiners, they like to belong and being part of a group. It's a survival instinct, human beings are relatively fragile for an animal so we're more likely to live and last longer if we come together in packs. So when individuals see that a particular group is getting bigger (meaning higher likely hood of the pack's survival), they want to join. Problem is, they don't understand what they're choosing to participate in.
Is Global Warming really happening?
If you take the recorded average annual temperatures and draw up a graph with a trend line, it seems the Earth is warming up. Theoretically this will cause alterations in weather patterns, and we see this happening now. But did we cause this? How will this effect us? Some say that climate change may result in the melting of most of the polar ice caps (which will flood the earth and drown cities among things), a dramatic increase in natural disasters, and perhaps even push the earth towards the run-away greenhouse effect (basically turn the earth in to a second Venus). Others conclude with the fact that the earth has gone through these cycles of heating and cooling through out it's history of existence, we're due for an other one, and thus it's happening now. They cite that if you look at the averages of the total contributors of green house gases in the atmosphere, that you'll find the human contribution to be quite small compared to the rest. Environmentalist counters with saying that this may be true but the Earth's ecosystem is a delicate balance, that little bit may be enough to cross the line. All in all it seems that we just don't know, everything is theoretical (we're supposing). It seems the argument is yes the world is warming up, we don't know exactly what that means but we should perhaps prepare for the worse.
Bad News Sells
After watching this video, I found that the main issue with the eco movement seems to be the lack of reliable information. I've heard arguments for global warming and those that say it's just a natural occurrence that the Earth goes through. Thing is that despite all the research and theories, what it comes down to is that science is not fixed. No one knows these things for sure, and even if they say they are, things could change in reality and then they would cite that science has always been based on theories. They're human, and humans make mistakes. My point is that no one knows the future, we can only predict it, and predicting is different from knowing. It is also important to note that all information is presented with a bias, you'll never know what you think unless you examine the data your self. It like what happened with Bjorn Lomborg, he looked at the data for him self and came up with a conclusion opposite to that pro-environmentalist. I'm not saying he got it right nor that he got it wrong, just that the data spoke differently to him.
Personally, since grade school I've always liked plants, trees, and animals. I believe that we all share and live in this one closed space and we each have something to offer in sustaining that space. Therefore we should respect one an other, respect life, to promote co-existing. Rather then the Earth belongs to man kind thus we are authorized to act with out consideration to all the other creatures that are here with us.
But the thing is that this is how I think, who am I to say that this is how others should think. It was discussed before that my thesis should revolve around education, perhaps it should center on getting them to actively look for their own answers and conclusions over just copying someone else's. Get people to question. To stop the repetitive behavior of just sitting back and being spoon fed opinions and get up to form your own.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Forget-me-not Campaign
Since the problem I identified with poster campaigns in influence change was that it relied on viewers to remember to act, why not involve a reminder aspect to it. A couple decades back, a piece of string tired to the finger was used to remind people of things they should not forget. Perhaps something similar could be implemented as an interactive part of the campaign, that people could take something of the campaign with them as forget-me-nots.
Suggested Idea and I Ran with It
I was told this idea that I ran with in terms of thought. I don't mean to do it, but it might be a direction to head towards. So one of the major problems with over using water (long showers, washing machines, etc.) is that people can’t physically see where that water comes from and where it goes. We know about it, that there are lakes, filtering plants, and pipes involved, but we don’t directly see our actions’ effects. So even though we’re told the negatives about it, we still can’t relate to it (hence lack of response). Thus I figured if I could some how reveal those hidden facets and the effects that using water has on it them, then it might influence a behavioral change.
The idea begins with an installation piece where a sink is attached to a tank with a fish swimming inside. The waste water then goes into another tank and put through a time-consuming filtration process. But basically each time the sink is used the water decreases in amount and the fish has less space to swim. So to wash our hands has a direct and visible affect on the lively hood of the fish. In addition to it, there could be graphics put up in bathrooms around the area that has an illustrated version of the installation. (thus the first part would be in a public area like an art piece, the second part would be where the action occurs)
Other iteration for different habits are definitely possible.
The idea begins with an installation piece where a sink is attached to a tank with a fish swimming inside. The waste water then goes into another tank and put through a time-consuming filtration process. But basically each time the sink is used the water decreases in amount and the fish has less space to swim. So to wash our hands has a direct and visible affect on the lively hood of the fish. In addition to it, there could be graphics put up in bathrooms around the area that has an illustrated version of the installation. (thus the first part would be in a public area like an art piece, the second part would be where the action occurs)
Other iteration for different habits are definitely possible.
The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis
Article from Adbusters quotes:
"It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.
"It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion.
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation Congress.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase will expand the scope to other natural systems.Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.
“Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.
“Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why don’t you speak with so and so politician or such and such business.”
Generational Gap
In order to effectively communicate to the masses, one must understand that different age groups react and responds to things differently. So to be successful in engaging them, one must acknowledge those variances.
The three major generational populations that contributes to the human impact on Earth are the Baby Boomers (40 - 57 years old), the Gen Xers (27 - 39 years old), and Gen Yers (7 - 26 years old). Each population segments response to differently to varying stimuli as well as cues. The Baby Boomers relate to themes of achievement, status, and performance, Gen Xers value imagination, creativity, and relationships, while Gen Y responds to fun, interactivity, and experience.
The three major generational populations that contributes to the human impact on Earth are the Baby Boomers (40 - 57 years old), the Gen Xers (27 - 39 years old), and Gen Yers (7 - 26 years old). Each population segments response to differently to varying stimuli as well as cues. The Baby Boomers relate to themes of achievement, status, and performance, Gen Xers value imagination, creativity, and relationships, while Gen Y responds to fun, interactivity, and experience.
What Makes Life Worth Living ( Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi)
I came across this video on Ted Talks that looks into how human beings derive pleasure and lasting satisfaction in life. He proposes that money is not that driver, but rather a state of mind that he labels as "flow". Examples of entering this state are when composers, athletes, artists, performers, even movie goers, become completely absorbed into what they're doing. Often times so much so that that they lose sight of the self, as if everything did not exist not even your self only your actions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
NOTES
- changing the perspective on change
- to not look at it as a bad thing but as a possitive
- how can I be most effective in terms of audience, who do I need to communicate too to encurage a result (older generations, perhaps rich people)
- do research and design, keep coming up with different solutions
- to not look at it as a bad thing but as a possitive
- how can I be most effective in terms of audience, who do I need to communicate too to encurage a result (older generations, perhaps rich people)
- do research and design, keep coming up with different solutions
Driving Over Short Distances
It's amazing how some people will still use a car to drive down a block or two. They're so used to driving that when ever they travel out side, they'll drive. But to waste so much of the worlds resources and produce extra green house gases for actions that would have taken just as long, seems shameful.
"Just Throw it in the Garbage"
People are so just to just throwing everything out in the garbage, to be taken away from their responsibility. You don't even have to thinking about it, when you don't have use for the thing any more you chuck it to the trash. But landfills are not the best place to take care of most of the things we throw away. I'm sure by now most people realize this fact, and are even informed of some of the places where they can take their unused left overs to be dealt with. They're just so used to throwing stuff out with all the rest no matter what that may mean.
Used to Temporary Packaging
People are just so used to having temporary packaging, it feels a lot more convenient then having to drag your own containers around. And we're so used to that availability that we gravitate to that particular action of purchasing products in temporary packs over bringing your own.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Buying Water
It's very strange to think some times how often bottled water is purchased for the price they're charged, but it's convenient and portable. But the problem now is that they're filling up our landfills and plastics are building up in our seas. So the next time you're anticipating looking for water on the go, think about taking a stainless steel bottle with you instead and just refilling. If you're worried about it being heavy, look for one that's thin bodied hence lighter. They're also more durable then plastic water bottles, they don't break, leak, crack, nor leach toxic chemicals.
Styrofoam Food
Everyone's experienced fastfood containers before, typically they're made out of styrofoam. It's a cheep and toxic way to transport food. Not only is the food you're getting not good for you but the container you're getting it in, leaches out toxins when heated (note food is hot). Hence the better choice may just be to develop a habit of bringing your own container from home. By reusing it, you can help lower the styrofoam build up in dumps and give your self some sort of piece of mind about eating fast food.
Leaving Computers on Over Night
This was one of the habits that I identified while shadowing a wasteful friend. He would leave his computer on for most of the day then over night to download anime or something. A lot of the time he would leave the light on too (which is an other habit, but this one happened because it was the computer room). He could go away for hours even out the door and just leave all the stuff on. Most people are probably not that bad, but still to some level this happens quite a bit. What people don't know is that when computers are running, they also off gas CO2. Every year millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are released by them. This does not only sit badly with the environment but also the user as well, it creates a toxic space to be around. So remember to turn off your computers when you don't need it for you own good literally.
Dishwashers?
Personally I've never lived in a house with a dishwasher before, and I've only seen it used once at a friend's place. I have to say I don't really understand the use of it (this might be because I'm so used to just hand washing, it can be a nice time to just do something repetitive and think). Either way dishwashers are big resource hogs, they are major users of both electricity and water. But it seems that people tend to use them as frequently as they can. So the suggestion is to wait till they're full to use it, even try to cut down on the number of plates and utensils used at meals to reduce having to clean them, and to try to let things air dry over machine dry which takes extra electricity. Better then all of them would be to return to hand washing, and control the amount of soap and water you use and let run down the drain.
Leaving Lights On In Unused Rooms
This is probably one of the most commonly known habits that's discussed on sustainable living, to simply turn off lights in rooms that are not used. Yet it seems people still have problems tackling it. They often forget, or they'll think the usual "I'll be back there real soon." I even know some people who argue that they just don't like being in a house with so many dark rooms. It makes me think that perhaps just getting people to remember to turn of the lights isn't enough, maybe we should show them an alternative to lighting the room.
The sun has worked in the past, why not now? Plus according to studies on the eye, the spectrum of natural light creates less stress on our cones and rods, which is better for protecting our eye sight. So instead of turning on lights, why not just open the curtains and add a couple more reflective surfaces to extend the light usage.
The sun has worked in the past, why not now? Plus according to studies on the eye, the spectrum of natural light creates less stress on our cones and rods, which is better for protecting our eye sight. So instead of turning on lights, why not just open the curtains and add a couple more reflective surfaces to extend the light usage.
Washing/Drying Machines to Do Our Laundry
They are perhaps two of the worst, most environmentally unfriendly devices that we all seem to have a home. Yet we are so attached them, they spew out chemicals, and drains energy like mad but they also keep our hands wrinkle free, and accomplishes a job that would have other wise taken us hours to accomplish. And having this luxury, has also created couple other wasteful habits. We tend to wash our clothes more often since it's so easy, draining extra resources to clean things that aren't really dirty.
What I would propose to do would be firstly to try to wash our clothes less often; maybe that pair of jeans can be worn more then once or twice. And to also consider hand washing in cold water. But if you're that attached, there's always setting your washing machines to cold water even if it's for a couple loads, you might even be surprised at how much you end up saving. If you wash four out of every five loads of laundry in cold water each month, you’ll save about 35 kilograms of CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere. If you wash 80 per cent of your laundry on the cold/cold cycle every year, you’ll save up to $100 or more on your energy bill.
The Drying Machine is also just as bad, it's one of the leading contributers to your monthly electric bill (especially at my house with three families living together). But if you give this action much thought, it seems strange to be paying so much just to do something a hanger can do for so much less. So it may take more time and it wont make your clothes smell better. But hey you already had a level of fragrance from detergent washing. So perhaps next time when you're not in too much of a rush to have things dried, you might want to just air dry them.
What I would propose to do would be firstly to try to wash our clothes less often; maybe that pair of jeans can be worn more then once or twice. And to also consider hand washing in cold water. But if you're that attached, there's always setting your washing machines to cold water even if it's for a couple loads, you might even be surprised at how much you end up saving. If you wash four out of every five loads of laundry in cold water each month, you’ll save about 35 kilograms of CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere. If you wash 80 per cent of your laundry on the cold/cold cycle every year, you’ll save up to $100 or more on your energy bill.
The Drying Machine is also just as bad, it's one of the leading contributers to your monthly electric bill (especially at my house with three families living together). But if you give this action much thought, it seems strange to be paying so much just to do something a hanger can do for so much less. So it may take more time and it wont make your clothes smell better. But hey you already had a level of fragrance from detergent washing. So perhaps next time when you're not in too much of a rush to have things dried, you might want to just air dry them.
Wassup Short
Found a funny video on YouTube about how change is happening now. The video is called WASSUP, and is part of a series. It never cease to surprise me how a lot of the most clever and most inspiring things can come from humor.
Setting Your Heaters, and Air Conditioners Too High
Everyone doesn't like being cold in the winter, and hot in the summer and when you have gadgets like Heaters and AC you don't have to anymore. You can even make it so that you can wear that top that makes you look amazing anytime you want. But the thing is that people now a days are so used having that control that they begin to over use them. Everyone remembers the big black out that summer 5 years ago. If we learn to dress more warmly and trap heat in our rooms in the winter and dress more loosely and turn off all non essential devices, we could probably avoid such occurrences in the future. Plus it also saves money which working people always love. So instead of going to the thermostat or AC to solve your room temperature problems go to your closet.
Additional Facts:
- Lowering your thermostat by 10-15 per cent for 16 hours each day can save you up to 20 per cent on your bills.
- Open your windows at night to better circulate cooler air
- Take note of possible air pathways to create your own wind to cool down
Turning off Heaters and AC in Unused Rooms
This is probably a separate habit but it's still related so I'll group them together. When the room is not being used it's probably smarter to not pay to heat or cool it. I often hear that they were thinking that they'll be going back to the room at some point in the day but then just happen to not as a reason. If the person is doing that a lot then they're probably going to end up spending a lot of extra energy that's bad for the check book and the world.
Additional Facts:
- Lowering your thermostat by 10-15 per cent for 16 hours each day can save you up to 20 per cent on your bills.
- Open your windows at night to better circulate cooler air
- Take note of possible air pathways to create your own wind to cool down
Turning off Heaters and AC in Unused Rooms
This is probably a separate habit but it's still related so I'll group them together. When the room is not being used it's probably smarter to not pay to heat or cool it. I often hear that they were thinking that they'll be going back to the room at some point in the day but then just happen to not as a reason. If the person is doing that a lot then they're probably going to end up spending a lot of extra energy that's bad for the check book and the world.
Open Curtains During the Day and Close Them at Night in the Winter
Most people tend to forget that sun light can do more then just light a space, but it can also heat it. When light particles travels and converts kinetic energy, part of it gets transformed into waste heat energy, this is what we can use to heat our homes and spaces. So open your windows in during the day in the winter and help cut down your heating costs, and your electricity consumption.
But when the sun sets and night comes, it's important to close those blinds. This is because heat escapes at night. When there is a state with greater and less heat energy, a gradient is created because the side with more will always try to spread out to the lesser. It's like osmosis but with heat. Hence by closing the blinds you're creating an extra barrier for the heat to escape, as well as providing a surface for the light in your room to bounce off of to continue offering it's heat energy to your room.
Also note that when light passes through glass, it increases the amount of heat exhaust produced, thus more glass in the room, the more free heat you'll have.
But when the sun sets and night comes, it's important to close those blinds. This is because heat escapes at night. When there is a state with greater and less heat energy, a gradient is created because the side with more will always try to spread out to the lesser. It's like osmosis but with heat. Hence by closing the blinds you're creating an extra barrier for the heat to escape, as well as providing a surface for the light in your room to bounce off of to continue offering it's heat energy to your room.
Also note that when light passes through glass, it increases the amount of heat exhaust produced, thus more glass in the room, the more free heat you'll have.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Note to Self
- bikes open up local business over reducing casual business
- looking to the future, planing bike lanes as an alternate to oil motor vehicles
- looking to the future, planing bike lanes as an alternate to oil motor vehicles
The Green Agenda Question
Canada just had their Federal Election and one of the major issues discussed was Canada's green initiatives. (to be continued)
Smoke in Public Places
This is a poster from a campaign is about the effects of smoking in public places, and the fact that it effects more people then just the smokers. The balloons illustrates what you send up into the air for all the non smokers in the room.
Free Range vs Office Grown Human
A simple image can say a thousand words, a concept that this series certainly does by juxtaposing our concept of purchasing chicken meat and the human condition. It questions which do you think is the healthier choice, the free range or the confined version. Which path would you take?
Subway Temperature Awareness
Simple, clear, fast, and to the point was this campaign to raise awareness for the problem of heat exhaustion in the London Underground. The use of a gradient and the dynamic of stairs leading into a transition of cool to hot is a simple one but very elegantly done at the same time. The news paper cover as a fan was just genius. Again it altered perspective through education.
I-DO-NOT_EXIST
I came across I really interesting campaign about the importance of design in our world called The I-DO-NOT-EXIST Workshop. Though it is geared towards children to demonstrate how design can be just as fruitful a pursuit as medicine or engineering, I think it has a great potential to move the mind of an adult as well. I'm especially impressed by the simplicity of the campaign provoke a change in view point (zing, similar pursuit to mine). It didn't elicit a viewer's guilt over their previous notions, rather it opened the door to a new line of thought drenched in truth.
The Blame Game
During the initial trials with my proposed idea, a question arose about the popular usage of guilt to induce behavioral change. It was concluded that it was a failing method for it typically resulted in annoyance and adversity. I came across something that looked deeper into the psychology of that claim.
An online article by the name of Avoiding Responsibilities in Life by Robert Vibert discusses how the human mind cognates the sense of guilt in conjunction with the painful feeling of shame. The article argues that people today are avoiding responsibilities for their actions with denial, by blaming others for even their smallest mistakes. The reasoning for this, it explains, is that most modern day people are confusing the presence of guilt with the emotion of shame. Shame is an emotion that conjures pain, while guilt is one that provokes self analysis. Guilt can be alleviated when you correct your mistake, it teaches you not to do it again. Shame brings humiliation hence activating our pain avoidance tendencies. Thus when the two gets confused together, we blame others for our smallest mistakes to avoid pain.
An online article by the name of Avoiding Responsibilities in Life by Robert Vibert discusses how the human mind cognates the sense of guilt in conjunction with the painful feeling of shame. The article argues that people today are avoiding responsibilities for their actions with denial, by blaming others for even their smallest mistakes. The reasoning for this, it explains, is that most modern day people are confusing the presence of guilt with the emotion of shame. Shame is an emotion that conjures pain, while guilt is one that provokes self analysis. Guilt can be alleviated when you correct your mistake, it teaches you not to do it again. Shame brings humiliation hence activating our pain avoidance tendencies. Thus when the two gets confused together, we blame others for our smallest mistakes to avoid pain.
Change Happens
Recently I came across quite a difficult conundrum that has thrown a wrench into the purpose of my pursuit.
It was suggested that our planet changing is unavoidable. Ice ages come and go while wiping out entire species and most of the life on Earth. Large asteroids will fall and decimate a whole continent perhaps. Theses things have been happening to our planet for eons and it's most likely safe to say that we view this as a natural course of the planet existence, things will die out and new life will take it's place. Thus who is to say that what is currently happening to our planet (global warming, glacial melting, polluted air) is wrong and unnatural. Because we caused it? Well it would be retorted with who says we're not a natural course as well? Human beings are so used to thinking of them selves as out side of the natural sphere, but the truth is that we are not. Sure, our species seem to behave and operate quite differently then the other living things on our planet, but that doesn't mean we're not just an animal like the rest of them.
But we might say that we forced the change by choice, the other great natural disasters where made unconsciously. This still doesn't refute the fact that we are also part of the natural course of the planet. Thinking and choosing is part of our nature, thus that is the type of natural forces we exert. Plus who says that our effects will generate that much of a fire in the woods in the grand scheme of things. To the Earth our existence is but one key on the large piano of it's life, the Earth is highly adaptive. So our impact may take a couple eons to dissipate fully, either way it will happen. The only real threat here is to our selves and our species' survival. That is the concept that we really have to realize. The Earth will fix it self, but it probably wont be fast enough to save us. The only one's we're harming (other then the other life forms that currently inhabit the planet with us) is our selves. When the Earth can't sustain us, then what? Space, with it's lack of fertile land for food, and nomadic way of life?
It was suggested that our planet changing is unavoidable. Ice ages come and go while wiping out entire species and most of the life on Earth. Large asteroids will fall and decimate a whole continent perhaps. Theses things have been happening to our planet for eons and it's most likely safe to say that we view this as a natural course of the planet existence, things will die out and new life will take it's place. Thus who is to say that what is currently happening to our planet (global warming, glacial melting, polluted air) is wrong and unnatural. Because we caused it? Well it would be retorted with who says we're not a natural course as well? Human beings are so used to thinking of them selves as out side of the natural sphere, but the truth is that we are not. Sure, our species seem to behave and operate quite differently then the other living things on our planet, but that doesn't mean we're not just an animal like the rest of them.
But we might say that we forced the change by choice, the other great natural disasters where made unconsciously. This still doesn't refute the fact that we are also part of the natural course of the planet. Thinking and choosing is part of our nature, thus that is the type of natural forces we exert. Plus who says that our effects will generate that much of a fire in the woods in the grand scheme of things. To the Earth our existence is but one key on the large piano of it's life, the Earth is highly adaptive. So our impact may take a couple eons to dissipate fully, either way it will happen. The only real threat here is to our selves and our species' survival. That is the concept that we really have to realize. The Earth will fix it self, but it probably wont be fast enough to save us. The only one's we're harming (other then the other life forms that currently inhabit the planet with us) is our selves. When the Earth can't sustain us, then what? Space, with it's lack of fertile land for food, and nomadic way of life?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)