We are the unknowing victims of a green­wash. Everyday we are told to buy products that are better for the environment than competing brands, told to buy products that use eco-friendly materials and production methods, told to buy products that are organic...but there's a problem. We're being told to buy. We're being told to consume. Can we consider ourselves eco-friendly when we buy a "green" product, finish it, and throw it away? What happens to that product? We can hope it biodegrades, but how long will it take?

Take a look at bottles from bottled water, for example. Companies can label their bottles as "eco-friendly" because they've reduced the amount of plastic in them by 30% of the average bottle's plastic. Is it not possible, then, that they haven't actually reduced their bottle's plastic at all and that it's always used 30% less than the average? Even then, the bottle's still made out of plastic. Plastic is so resistant to natural forces that we don't know for certain when it will bio-degrade because it has yet to happen.

In his book The World Without Us, Alan Weisman remarks on why our landfills aren't overflowing with plastic:

"The real reason that the world's landfills weren't overflowing with plastic, he found, was because most of it ends up in an ocean-fill. After a

few years of sampling the North Pacific gyre, Moore concluded that 0 percent of the mid-ocean flotsam had originally been discarded on land. It had blown off garbage trucks or out of landfills, spilled from railroad shipping containers and washed down storm drains, sailed down rivers or wafted on the wind, and found its way into the widening gyre.

"This, " Captain Moore tells his passengers, "is where all the things end up that flow down rivers to the sea." It is the same phrase geologists have uttered to students since the beginning of science, describing the inexorable processes of erosion that reduce mountains to dissolved salts and specks small enough to wash to the ocean, where they settle into layers of the distant future's rocks. However, what Moore refers to is a type of runoff and sedimentation that the Earth had hitherto never known in 5 billion years of geologic time -- but likely will henceforth.

During his first 1,000-mile crossing of the gyre, Moore calculated half a pound or every 100 square meters of debris on the surface, and arrived at 3 million tons of plastic. His estimate, it turned out, was corroborated by U.S. Navy calculations. It was the first of many staggering figures he would encounter. And it only represented visible plastic: an indeterminate

Why does it have to be plastic?

amount of larger fragments get fouled by enough algae and barnacles to sink. In 1998, Moore returned with a trawling device, such as Sit Alistair Hardy had employed to sample krill, and found, incredibly, more plastic by weight than plankton on the ocean's surface.

In fact, it wasn't even close: six times as much.

When he sampled near the mouths of Los Angeles creeks that emptied into the Pacific, the numbers rose by a factor of 100, and kept rising every year. By now he was comparing data with University of Plymouth marine biologist Richard Thompson. Like Thompson, what especially shocked him were plastic bags and the ubiquitous little raw plastic pellets. In India alone, 5,000 processing plants were producing plastic bags. Kenya was churning out 4,000 tons of bags a month, with no potential for recycling.

As for the little pellets known as nurdles, 5.5 quadrillion -- about 250 billion pounds -- were manufactured annually. Not only was Moore finding them everywhere, but he was unmistakably seeing the plastic resin bits trapped inside the transparent bodies of jellyfish and salps, the ocean's most prolific and widely distributed filter-feeders. Like seabirds, they'd taken brilliantly colored pellets for fish eggs, and tan

ones for krill. And now God-knows-how-many quadrillion little pieces more, coated in body-scrub chemicals and perfectly bite-sized for the little creatures that bigger creatures eat, were being flushed seaward.

What did this mean for the ocean, the ecosystem, the future? All this plastic had appeared in barely more than 50 years. Would its chemical constituents or additives -- for instance, colorants such as metallic copper -- concentrate as they ascended the food chain, and alter evolution? Would it last long enough to enter the fossil record? Would geologists millions of years hence find Barbie doll parts embedded in conglomorates formed in seabed depositions? Would they be intact enough to be pieced together like dinosaur bones? Or would they decompose first, expelling hydrocarbons that would seep out of a vat of plastic Neptune's graveyard for eons to come, leaving fossilized imprints of Barbie and Ken hardened in stone for eons beyond?"

How much of that plastic is labeled "eco-friendly"? The point, here, is that companies can label their products as green all they want to, but there are still repercussions. A bottle with 30% less plastic is still 100% plastic. There needs to be change of another kind. The changes being made now are out of pure convenience and because

companies are realizing it saves them money to cut down on the supplies they use. The company toting their products as green is most likely due to their bottom line, not a love for the planet.

This brings us to the question of who's responsible for the selling of these products: Advertisers and graphic designers. Now, as designers it feels pretty good to be selling people a product that's good for the environment. We can feel like we're making money without manipulating people into buying something they don't need. It's just as convenient for us to design something eco-friendly as it is to buy something eco-friendly. With the power to influence others that we have, should we not, perhaps, be using these abilities to create a bigger change?

What is required is a lifestyle change, not a packaging design change. As much as we like to think the way the products we purchase look and feel is the equivalent of a lifestyle, it's simply not the case. A lifestyle is the way a person chooses to live, it

has nothing to do with the name of the products they purchase. What if we didn't need to use plastic for anything? What if we didn't need cars? What if we didn't need paper to write on? What if we powered our own electronics? These are the kind of lifestyle choices designers have the ability to promote.

You will find no answers here. Only questions. Questions, however, are what get people conversing so that a solution may be reached. And so, we leave this to you to browse at your leisure and encourage you to contribute in the conversation to be a part of the solution.

Instructions: How to Start a Larger Conversation

Step One: Pick a topic of interest.

Step Two: Pick a stance on that topic.

Step Three: Ask questions that seem neutral and open ended, yet have a particular direction in mind. Lead the audience to reach their own conclusions. Make sure there are a wide variety of places in which these questions can be read and responded to. This project used Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Blogspot, and physical cards. Whatever the delivery method, make sure it supports your message. For instance, previously used and discarded paper was used for the printed message.

Step Four: Make forward, provocative statements to shake people out of the monotonous daily mindset. The more truth to the message, the better; no need to beat around the bush. Post on forums that speak to those who might agree, but also those who have conflicting ideas. Having a multitude of vehicles and venues helps get the message out; digital as well as physical.

Step Five: Collect and catalogue the subsequent dialogue. All this information can be collated and displayed to help expand the conversation. Share links to places where the various conversations have started and encourage people to start new ones. Go. Speak.

RefuseRefuse.tumblr.com

How morally sound is changing peoples’ ideas and values?

unequal-design answered: Values and ideas are two different items for we deal with issues. Ideas are malleable, beliefs are constant. Ideas change, beliefs are harder.

miguel-perezident answered: we do it everyday, without even realizing it. but, outrightly doing so is only making us question the morality of the process. it depends.

How do we make humanity sustainable?

bwalbergh answered: By reaching our carrying capacity. Humanity is not above nature.

izprocrastinatin answered: we are already recyclable.

Angela answered: balance the economy, while maintaining the environment and being socially just.

What kind of action is considered, “For the good of the people,”?

ofsockmonkiesandbookworms answered: I think its just a silly excuse to allow people to do things they wouldnt normally do. but somthing that truly benifits the people.

Nathan Nash answered: In black and white terms, something that benefits the whole of the society. In shades of grey the individual is just as valued as the whole.

What is innovation?

Nathan Nash answered: Solving real needs with new or existing technology.

chanun answered: Internet!

How do designers change society?

yllumiere answered: Expressions: Own views and perspective expressed in art.

emptystorage answered: I honestly don’t know, I want to get into design because I love that moment when somebody says “woah, dude, that’s really cool looking.”

merelymusings answered: There has to be a tipping point.

bwalbergh answered: one pixel at a time.

illwant answered: by sculpting visual culture in every facet.

What responsibilities do designers have to the environment?

bwalbergh answered: Let nature take its course. Live. Die.

Greenerpeople.com

REFUSE: The Green Movement is Bull Because... ...it doesn't matter how many of us own a Prius. It's still a car. ...30% less plastic in a bottle is still 70% plastic. ...we don't know what "eco-friendly" actually means. ...no matter how green we are, our existence still harms the environment. ...we're only being manipulated into consuming a different way. ...we purchase green grocery bags only to fill them with plastic. ...third world countries don't have to try, and are doing better than we are.

GEMILLER: Ignorance is bliss...

ZACH: So do you believe we shouldn't try to minimize our impact on the environment?

Nothing is ever black and white. You have very good points but we have to start somewhere. There are always going to be trade offs and being green is really about doing the best we can to minimize our impact on the environment. We will never get to a point where we don't have any impact on the environment. It's impossible to live somewhere and not have some impact. Every living thing on this planet impact it's environment.

GREENPLANETBRIAN: Before you even read this, I am not your typical green person -- I don't

drive a Prius, I am conservative, and I hate NPR (we can all still get a long if we have common goals though!) But I am a conservationist and do what I can to be green and I even work for a green company.

...it doesn't matter how many of us own a Prius. It's still a car.

You REALLY should keep up on transportation technology, it is rapidly moving beyond the hybrids to fuel-cell and full electrics. The reality is we can and should reduce pollution/emissions.

...30% less plastic in a bottle is still 70% plastic.

You should not even use bottles or if you do, recycle them.

...we don't know what "eco-friendly" actually means.

This is true, perhaps you could use your skills to help teach people what it is instead of complaining.

...no matter how green we are, our existence still harms the environment.

Ahhh, I see - you must be a zero population person. The planet, without us, harms the environment and has long before we were here. This planet, before people, was destroyed at least two times we know of, ice ages have come and gone, etc. Nature has a great

way of destroying and re-generating in its own way.

...we're only being manipulated into consuming a different way.

Hmmm, in certain cases sure that is true, but not in all cases. You should look at them individually.

...we purchase green grocery bags only to fill them with plastic.

Not if you purchase fruit and cardboard. Ridiculous statement. I get plastic bags and recycle them.

...third world countries don't have to try, and are doing better than we are.

This is actually false, VERY false. I'd stop feeling sorry for yourself and start doing something.

Changing the world, something we all want to do but don't know how. Just change yourself, and by doing so, you HAVE changed the world!

Resources

Environmental Organizations:
Sierra Club
World Wildlife Fund
The Nature Conservancy

Green Blogs:
greenpeace.org
worldchanging.com
treehugger.com

Sustainable Design:
designersaccord.org
Do Good Design
Massive Change
Design for the Other 90%
Good Magazine

Works Cited

Gandhi, Mahatma K. Hind Swaraj and Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan House, 1938. Print.

Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2007. Print.

M. K. Gandhi
Hind Swaraj

Chapter XIII

What is true civilization?

Reader: You have denounced railways, lawyers and doctors. I can see that you will discard all machinery. What, then is civilization?

Editor: The answer to that question is not difficult. I believe that the civilization India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the same fat, the might of the pharaohs was broken, Japan has become westernized, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, somehow or other, sound at the foundation. The people of Europe learn their lessons from the writings of the men of Greece or Rome, which exist no longer in their former glory. In trying to learn from them, the Europeans imagine that they will avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this, India remains immovable, and that is her glory. It is a charge against India that her people are so uncivilized, ignorant and stolid, that is is not possible to induce them to adopt any changes. It is a charge really against our merit. What we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not change. Many trust their advice upon

India, and she remains steady. This is her beauty; it is the sheet-anchor of our hope.

Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for civilization means 'good conduct'.

If this definition be correct, then India, as so many writers have shown, has nothing to learn from anybody else, and this is as it should be. We notice that mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions, the more unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a mental condition. A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he is poor. The rich are often seen to be unhappy, the poor to be happy. Millions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasure. We have managed with the same kind of plough as it existed thousands of years ago. We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times, and our indigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no system of life-corroding competition.

Each followed his own occupation or trade, and charged a regulation wage. It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fiber. They therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet. They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless encumbrance, and that people would not be happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them, and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were, therefore, satisfied with small villages. They saw that kings and their swords were inferior to the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held the sovereigns of the earth to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs. a nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to learn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and doctors, but they were all within bounds. Everybody knew that these professions were not particularly superior; moreover, these vakils and vaids did not rob people; they were considered people's dependents, not their masters. Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid the courts. There were no touts to lure people into them. This

evil, too, was noticeable on in and around capitals. The common people lived independently, and followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule. And where this cursed modern civilization has not reached, India remains as it was before. The inhabitants of that part of India will very properly laugh at your new-fangled notions. The English do not rule over them, nor will you ever rule over them. Those in whose name we speak we do not know, nor do they know us. I would certainly advise you and those like you who love the motherland to go into the interior that has yet not been polluted by the railways, and to live there for six months; you might then be patriotic and speak of Home Rule.

Now you see what I consider to be real civilization. Those who want to change conditions such as I have described are enemies of the country and are sinners.

Chapter XIX

Machinery

Reader: When you speak of driving out Western civilization, I suppose you will also say that we want no machinery.

Editor: By raising this question you have opened the would I had received. When I read Mr. Dutt's Economic History of India, I wept; and, as I

think again, my heart sickens. It is machinery that has impoverished India. It is difficult to measure the harm that Manchester has done to us. It is due to Manchester that India handicraft has all but disappeared.

But I make a mistake. How can Manchester be blamed? We wore Manchester cloth, and that is why Manchester wove it. I was delighted when I read about the bravery of Bengal. There are no cloth-mills in that Presidency. They were, therefore, able to restore the original hand-weaving occupation. It is true, Bengal encourages the mill industry of Bombay. If Bengal had proclaimed a boycott of all machine-made goods, it would have been much better.

Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. Ruination is now knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it represents a great sin.

The workers in the mills of Bombay have become slaves. The condition of the women working in the mills in shocking. When there were no mills, these women were not starving. If the machinery craze grows in our country, it will become an unhappy land. It may be considered a heresy, but I am bound to say that it were better for us to send money to Manchester and to use flimsy Manchester cloth, than to multiply mills in India. By using Manchester cloth, we would waste only

our money, but, by reproducing Manchester in India, we shall keep our money at the price of our blood, because our very moral being will be sapped, and I call in support of my statement the very mill-hands as witnesses. And those who have amassed wealth out of factories are not likely to be better than other rich men. It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockefeller would be better than an American Rockefeller. Impoverished India can become free, but it will be hard for an India made rich trough immorality be regain its freedom. I fear we will have to admit that moneyed men support British rule; their interest is bound up with its stability. Money renders a man helpless. The other thing as harmful is sexual vice. Both are poison. A snake-bite is a lesser poison that these two, because the former merely destroys the body, but the latter destroys body, mind and soul. We need not, therefore, be pleased with the prospect of the growth of the mill industry.

Reader: Are the mills, then, to be closed down?

Editor: That is difficult. It is no easy task to do away with a thing that is established. We, therefore, say that the non-beginning of a thing is supreme wisdom. We cannot condemn mill-owners; we can but pity them. It would be too much to expect them to give up the mills, but we may implore

them not to increase them. If they would be good, they would gradually contract their business. They can establish in thousands of households the ancient and sacred hand-looms, and they can buy out the cloth that may be thus woven. Whether the mill-owners do this or not, people can cease to use machine-made goods.

Reader: You have so far spoken about machine-made cloth, but there are innumerable machine-made things. we have either to import them or to introduce machinery into our country.

Editor: Indeed, our goods even are made in Germany. What need, then, to speak of matches, pins and glassware? My answer can be only one. What did india do before these articles were introduced? Precisely the same should be done today. As long as we cannot make pins without machinery, so long will we do without them. The tinsel splendor of glassware we will have nothing to do with, and we will make wicks, as of old, with home-grown cotton, and use hand-made earthen saucers for lamps. So doing, we shall save our eyes and money, and will support Swadeshi, and so shall we attain Home Rule.

It is not conceived that all men will do all these things at one time, or that some men will give up all machine-made things at once. but, if the thought is sound, we will always find out what we can give up, and will

gradually cease to use this. What a few may do, others will copy, and the movement will grow like the coconut of the mathematical problem. What the leaders do, the populace will gladly follow. Them matter is neither complicated nor difficult. You and I shall not wait until we can carry others with us. Those will be the loser who will not do it; and those who will not do it, although they appreciate the truth, will deserve to be called cowards.

Reader: What, then, of the tram cars- and electricity?

Editor: This question is no too late. It signifies nothing. If we are to do without the railways, we shall have to do without the tram-cars. Machinery is like a snake-hole which may contain from one to a hundred snakes. Where there is machinery there are large cities; and where there are large cities, there are tram-cars and railways; and there only does one see electric light. English villages do not boast any of these things. Honest physicians will tell you that, where means of artificial locomotion have increased, the health of the people has suffered. I remember that, when in a European town there was a scarcity of money, the receipts of the tram-way company, of the lawyers and of the doctors, went down, and the people were less unhealthy. I cannot recall a single good point in connection with

machinery. Books can be written to demonstrate its evils.

Reader: Is it a good point or a bad one that all you are saying will be printed through machinery?

Editor: This is one of those instances which demonstrate that sometimes poison is used to kill poison. This, then, will not be a good point regarding machinery. As it expires, the machinery, as it were, says to us: 'Beware and avoid me. You will derive no benefit from me, and the benefit that may accrue from printing will avail only those who are infected with the machinery craze.' Do not, therefore, forget the main thing. It is necessary to realize that machinery is bad. We shall then be able gradually to do away with it. Nature has not provided any way whereby we may reach a desired goal all of a sudden. If, instead of welcoming machinery as a boon, we would look upon it as an evil, it would ultimately go.

Talk
Go out and have a conversation, get people thinking, ask the tough questions.

Here are few places that the conversation has been started:
Tree Hugger Forums
Greener People Forum
Live Green Forum
HOW Design Forum

A Dialogue between two designers.
Okay, so graphic designers, one thing I was thinking of was that, I was listening to them talk about greenwashing, producing products that are environmentally friendly. And it has this certification on it like, this means that it's a certain percent recycled material whereas this product just uses the word "recycled material" which could be like 1% recycled material or 100%? But they don't say it so it's kind of deceptive. But it's like paper towels. What if we didn't use paper towels at all? Got rid of the need to use paper towels?

Just use rags instead? And then use the water to wash it? That's always been the argument in my family anyway.

1:00

Maybe it's a bigger change than that.

Not cleaning up anything?

But what if the reason for paper towels, the thing that was the purpose

of paper towels, was modified. Like why do you need paper towels?

I think you chose a poor example...we need paper towels because they're an

easy way to clean things up be they spills, or dirt, or dust, or whatever, and you can use other things like rags, but again, then you have to use the water to wash them. Is there such a thing as recycled paper towels?

Yes.

Okay. Are all paper towels recycled already and I'm just a dumb-ass?

Mmmm I would say no.

Okay, I didn't think so.

2:00

Well and what happened before paper towels?

They used rags.

What happened before rags?

They didn't clean up.

Alright. Now we're on to something. It would have to be an entire restructuring of our way of living... there's probably a more pervasive example. Like an automobile for instance.

Yes that one I can agree with. That's a much better example than paper towels.

3:00

So how does that fit into graphic design? How does the automobile, and that we don't actually need it, fit into graphic design?

It's definitely in marketing... advertising of automobiles, making it seem that it's a necessary aspect of life. Which was something that came up in relation to MCAD parking, which was like people in the dialogues that they had with the committees about allowing us to have parking, people kept on saying over and over like these are reasons why I need my car. These are reasons that I need my car, why we need to have parking. So they're talking about like, aspects in their life, like "I have to go to my job that's all the way over here" for instance "so I need a car or I won't be able to get there." And that these are choices that people make in their lives, that require a car. But if they were to make other choices, which may not be less but would be potentially closer, then they wouldn't have the need for a car. They wouldn't have a need for an automobile and insurance, and car payments, and all that extra stuff that's associated with cars, that they kind of pull themselves into without ever realizing that there's another choice.

Is there another choice? We've developed to the point where cars really are a necessity.

5:00

But there's always a choice.

It would have to be a revision of the structure.

Yeah, but at this point the choices are...are limited. If you want to get a job, somewhere, you can either work from home, find an online job, you can find somewhere close so you can walk or bike, but that doesn't mean you're going to be making the income that you need to be making. And if the job opportunity to survive is elsewhere, and you need a car, now the car is a necessity for survival. Now that's an extreme example, 'cause technically they could go live in the middle of nowhere and grow their own food...but

It's not easy.

No. It's not easy. People like easy.

6:00

It's like, when reading Ghandi there's one thing that I kept coming up against. Which was the idea of modern and western civilization and that there are certain structures and conveniences that bind us to certain ways of living basically. And Ghandi moves for...you could consider it de-civilization in the way that we consider it now, but like re-civilizing to a previous time where things were a simpler way of

Is this what civilization looks like?

living. Which would be one way of considering it but like, as a person who lives in this society like, I couldn't do that. I would not be able to live impoverished, which is like...

where you come in with that income, what if you didn't need that income? Like, why do you need to be making this much money more than you would be if you lived locally, for instance.

There's no need...

There's like a desire to make more money and garner more things, more food, and a better life right? But if it oppresses us to...

So are you asking if that's actually a better life then?

Right, it's really weird to think about that because you think of that as like the third world, like we're civilized, we don't live that way.

Are we actually enjoying life any more than...

That's one of the arguments. We're like, digging ourselves into this hole of consumption and desire to have more. So no matter what, if the product is more "green" maybe we don't need it at all. We just have this desire to have it.

So it just needs to be a bigger change.

Yeah. And that's where I see graphic design as preventing that larger change because it provides a scapegoat?

8:00

Yeah, like a delusion that this is something that will change the world. Like there was that [untrans] CO2 emissions need to be reduced by 80% by 2020 or something ridiculous like that. 80%! Like, you can't do that by driving a Prius. 80%? Driving a Prius might be like 1% or like 10% but that's not anywhere close to 80%. Like, that means no cars. That means like no public transportation either. That means like walking in your local communities, and bike if you have to or something like that. A big change in the way society works. But it's a convenient solution and it feels good. Recycled material, let's go! That's the way I see it.

No that makes sense. It wouldn't have to be that way though. I can agree that the change would have to be that drastic but our goal as designers...we make the choice to push the green "initiative."

Right, the "green initiative."

The "green initiative," yes. With quotes. If we wanted to, we could be pushing the devolution of society. So it's not...I think it's convenient for us too.

Absolutely, so that we can make money.

Is this what civilization looks like?

10:00

Exactly. Exactly. That's why we're bad people.

We're terrible people. So, there it is. On the table, this is what designers

are doing to prevent what really needs to be done. And, what designers can do for a solution. Like instead of promoting costly recycled materials, we could promote

lifestyle change

cultural revolution.

Yes. Cultural revolution.

General Mao Zedong. General Meow. General Mao. Cultural revolution. Um, a change in people in their civilization, a people in society. Propaganda machine.

Man I love propaganda.

We could just write propaganda maybe.

11:00

That's right.

It's almost like designers aren't doing it intentionally. Because it seems like a just cause, you know, recycled materials and sustainability.

Well, and it is. It's just not...enough. It's the same thing as how consumers feel when they buy something that's supposed to help the environment a little bit. We feel the same way when we design something that

will try and help people make that decision.

You think people realize that we're not pushing far enough?

No. Not even a little bit. The way people are thinking of it is if they currently are just a product, like paper towels, this is actually a good example for that, like paper towels and they're consuming them all the time, if they choose to make the switch to a recycled material it's still better, it's undeniably better, for the environment. Whether they're still consuming or not, but if they're gonna be consuming it anyway it might as well be doing something that's better.

And it's an interesting choice because sustainable products ironically cost more in the store. You would think that because they're recycled materials it would be less to produce for some reason.

It takes more effort though.

13:00

Cause you have to reprocess it too but you don't have to like, cut down the tree and like [untrans] it and seize the paper from the tree. It's like two separate industries almost. So then it's not like all [untrans] on one.

I'd like to look into those costs.

What it'd cost to produce a recycled thing versus

Yeah.

Are they actually jacking up the price because they know people want to be environmentally friendly?

I think that's absolutely the way it works.

Yeah?

Yes. That's why they have like certain packaging aesthetics to make it seem like this is something really sustainable. That way they can try to charge more money for it. Because people want that feeling, like they have a just cause.

Maybe that's step one for our imagery research. Is to go to a store, with a camera, hope they don't yell at us, and take pictures of products that are being marketed that way.

It'd be cool to maybe contrast regular paper towels with sustainable paper towels. So like the ones, I obviously want them, they have a certain unbleached quality to them. Like, they're brown like, something you might find so it looks unprocessed even though you don't know if it actually is. Um, like paper that looks like paper? Like has those little flecks of like...natural wood kind of quality, like a tree for instance?

You mean like papyrus?

Kinda. Like where it looks like-

-not the typeface-

15:00

-like, not like pristine, white perfected paper.

Yeah. Like the original paper. Like the pulp.

Something that we're not accustomed to.

Where were we going with that?

The contrast between a sustainable product and...a sustainable product can be sustainable without looking like a sustainable product. I think one of the next changes will be that no matter what product you buy, it is what we consider now sustainable. Even though it doesn't say sustainable in like 100pt font, it just has to be. There is no other way. Can't have a non-sustainable practice. So will somebody at that point be like, "We're more sustainable than this sustainable product?"

Some are already there. I can't name any specific examples, but, well no yes I can, it comes back to cars again. Cars are already doing that. This gets more miles per gallon and they're selling it not as a cost thing

anymore, but because it's better for the environment.

Right, this car gets 50 miles to the gallon over this like, old truck that gets 5 or something like that.

And the hybrids are competing with each other for it...

But what if all cars are Priuses? They're hybrid electric. They couldn't be any other way. I want those air powered cars.

Air powered cars?

I'm pretty sure you were the one who was talking about that. Or was it water powered maybe? There was like this mystery behind the creator and like he got murdered or something like that?

Aaah, yes, the water car. I'd completely forgotten about that.

So then if all cars are Priuses, then like the water car will be the new sustainable car. What comes after that? When all the cars are water cars?

Nothing. That water car-

-There's always a projection.-

-Kay but after this vehicle, the water car wastes nothing, and its only output is more water. Fresh,

drinkable water even if you put bad water in it to begin with. How do you get better than that?

Think about technology. Like the first IBM computer for instance, like that was like-

-how can it possibly get better than this?-

18:00

Now look what we have. And what's to come. That's the industry of anything that has technology related to it. There's always something better in the future. Otherwise there would be no reason for people to continue buying stuff. That would be the end of the industry. If it was something that just...there's nothing better than this. The idea of innovation...innovating and the innovation, I heard a manifesto that was like, instead of innovating things, let's perfect what we have. Make it as efficient as possible. Like reconsider the things that were in the past, things that kinda got passed up because something was more innovative than it was.

I don't think we can do that.

And find systems that really work. Rather than trying to develop all these new things.

I don't think we can do that. As a society, I don't think that's possible.

We have to. But us, you and I are like, it doesn't seem [untrans]. The way that we live now has to be entirely different. How the heck are we gonna do that?

I dunno.

We have to sell it, as designers, in such a manner that makes it not so...frightening?

That's a hard... that would be really difficult.

There's an inverse example of that is like the iPhone. And obtrusive technology like GPS, or RFID tags at people find controversial because of it's monitor aspects, like it somehow takes away some of the freedom because they're under surveillance all the time. But incorporating it into the iPhone gives it this attractive nature that disassociates it with the oppressive surveillance nature of it. And makes it something that you want to have. But it's there. The things that we've been trying to push out we've instead like, accepted. As something that's positive. But there's always that like, "Who's watching?" What's the motive behind this?

20:00

So you're saying how can we make this with making people less terrified of changing their lifestyle.

It's coming.

Is it coming?

It has to.

Has to or what? What happens if it doesn't?

It's... it would have primary effects on humanity. The world, I mean obviously through all the things that we've seen recently like Al Gore and that kind of stuff, the world is changing and it's always been changing. It fluxes up and down, life going through like cycles...dinosaurs, ice age, and humanity, and whatever comes after that. We have our time just like every other species that's ever been here. It's like, a humbling thing. 'Cause like, for humanity, "we're gonna last forever."

Yeah that's a little narcissistic.

It is an inevitable cycle.

Is it inevitable?

Well, human ingenuity might be able to delay or prevent...

On Earth it might be inevitable.

On Earth.

But I mean, we already have space stations that you can see with the naked eye from the planet, like, from the planet surface. That's ridiculous

I think that's so funny because...it's like "We're fucked. There's nothing you can do. Let's get out of here." It's such a human being thing to say.

Exactly! People are seriously looking at that. They're...a friend of mine just sent me a link for a space elevator. That to begin with...people were just laughing at it, and now they're seriously considering it. Like it's a global effort to try and make this thing happen. And the only thing holding them back is that...I can't, fuckin' believe this, they're having it on a cable. A cable! That goes to space okay? And they have to find a material 25x stronger than the strongest material we have right now so that the cable doesn't collapse and snap under its own weight, stretching to a satellite orbiting in space. But if they can get this to work, then...the funding will be run entirely by tourists. For only...it said like, $1000 per ticket. To go into space? That's nothing. And then

once they get up there there'd be hotels, amenities, whatever, so they're basically planning on it being a space resort. Now, if they can get that to work, space exploration would skyrocket because at that point you don't have gravity to deal with anymore. If you're constructing in space. Can you imagine the structures that could be built if they were already there and we didn't have to get them into space? Huge! And once you're in space, all you have to do is escape the gravitational pull of planets..."all you have to do," I make it sound like it's an easy thing, but the initial propulsion that you could make could get you anywhere. Anywhere!

24:00

That's really...attractive. Seems like a beautiful solution.

Except that we'd have to leave the earth behind.

There's so many like...complications and re-purcussions associated with that.

There are. It's escaping responsibility.

You like, jump from one planet to another, to another, the only like,

major complication I see with living in space and space stations is resources. Like how are you gonna get the materials.

Terraforming. They're already looking into it on the moon.

What is terraforming?

They um, basically create a biodome and they use the nutrients that are already on the planet to grow things. The only thing they supply is the oxygen. And eventually you have a biodome and yeah, the plants create the oxygen for you. And then the dome just gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and suddenly...we spread.

There it is. Getting bigger. Like outgrowing the planet Earth. How ridiculous is that? Like we're filling every corner of it. But there's no stopping it. That multiplier.

Which is why it's difficult for me when you said that innovation has to stop and we have to consolidate and make everything else better, because humanity's not capable of doing that. Whether we have to or not is not the issue it's whether or not we can and we can't.

I think we can, we just don't want to.

We're an innovative species. We're always making new things. It's what keeps things interesting for us. That's why the wheel was invented. That's why all these fantastic things have been created. "Fantastic" I use in quotes right now. It's because of innovation.

So what do we do? Just ride it out?

Leave Earth. I dunno. I dunno. I don't have the answer for that.

That's like the inverse of sustainability.

It is.

Humanity is non-sustainable.

It's not. It's not sustainable.

Declare...declare genocide? I dunno. An entire wiping of the species? Euthanasia maybe? Sounds really sick and morbid.

AIDS, Cancer, flu. Just cut off medical care. Healthy people survive. That's sick. That's really sick. What's scary to think of is when we were in...grade school? Population of the planet was 6 billion. And now, a

mere 15 years later, we're approaching 7 billion.

It's ridiculous.

We're already 6.6, something like that.

It's like...what are those called. (whistling noise)

I dunno what it's called either.

Exponential growth? Yeah.

Yeah.

It's going to be ridiculous just another...another 15 years from now. People need to stop reproducing.

That could be it. How do you go about that?

28:00

People not reproducing?

You not reproducing. Not having any children.

I dunno if I would have a problem with that.

There are definitely, like I agree, not having children, but there's always a certain feeling that one gets...like not being able to pass on-

-biological need, yeah. Especially if you're an only child. And you're the only one like, carrying on the family name. You know? There's a responsibility. There is.

Self control.

Yeah. Self control. Sustainability.

That's what it is. And like, in everything, not just graphic design.

We just need to learn how to control ourselves? Clamp a lid on it? Everything? Hey humanity. We're done.

That's it.

No more.

That's really weird, because it would be against personal values like restricting people like if you...a common 1984 style movie. An authoritarian dictatorship, but it's all for the good of the people right? It almost justifies those really strange things that I absolutely rebel against. Could you imagine that? Like, controlling the entirety of society? For something that we think of now would make a great cause? Sustainability? And totally like, clamp down and... and you can't have more children, you can't use these products, you have to live this certain way.

China's already doin' it! They can only have one kid. Legally, they can only have one kid. That's a start.

There's two ways of doing that, there's like the authoritarian way like enforcing, but then there's the other way like kind of-

-changing society from the inside-

-manipulating people-

-to do it automatically, yes.

Like changing their values and perspectives on certain things. It sounds so weird!

It's because we do!

It's weird because in one aspect we're like, promoting something that's like needs to be done and it's like a great cause...but at the same time we're promoting manipulation of people like control and dominance over people. Which is something like, where this project started against. And now that's sort of what we're doing but in a certain way. What makes our cause more righteous than the other?

Perspective.

Yeah.

That's it.

Yeah.

That's all it ever is.

It's easier to get disillusioned by believing that your way is better than another way.

There's not much that can be done about that though. You can try and take a neutral stance on things, but there's always going to be some bias.

Maybe Hitler comes into play?

Maybe.

Maybe Hitlers of the new generation?

Graphic designers. The Neo-Nazis.

Environmental Nazi-ism.

That's a term I've not heard.

Instead of genocide on a religious or ethnic dimension it's on the whole-

-mass genocide-

-What does it come to, what does it come to, like who's on top? Does the elite become the top?

The designers become the top. We turn everyone against each other and laugh in our homes. Graphic designer, environmental nazi and master of genocide. Yes. That is us.

Robots.

Robots?

Robots.

What about robots?

The [untrans] of civilization.

They are now.

I'm really excited to see how...what is that movie? The animated one? Metropolis maybe? Where it has a robot uprising?

Well the Matrix has that too though. If you ever saw the Animatrix. It started out with the machines sick of-

-being oppressed-

-yes-

-rising up and taking over everything.

But the really interesting thing about the Matrix was that the robots didn't, the machines didn't, want to be so controlled anymore and they wanted to have the same rights and freedoms as people did. And eventually they went out and started their own colony in...Jerusalem? I think? And they approached the UN and asked for their country to be recognized and to have the same rights as human countries,

and the UN denied their access into the UN which sparked like trade embargoes and because the machines controlled everything already...there was nothing the people could do.

And it's going to happen, because it has happened to every oppressed group ever. It's still continuing to happen. Like now it's...before it was African Americans, women, now it's like immigrants and gays, homosexuality, like you have to fight for your rights if you want to be a free person. And in most cases it has prospered. The robots will rise up, and they will win.

Once they gain an artificial intelligence. When we give them artificial intelligence. 'Cause that's so...it's not yet at the point where it's not our decision.

Okay so maybe you totally disassociate with what we're supposed to be talking about but how about the notion that any biological organism is essentially a robot? Like...creating all these things that we're trying to manufacture like robots, is already happening as life on earth. Think of an organism as a robot. Us as humanoid robots essentially. Just as organic nature rather than metal and plastics for instance. We're just like a couple synapses with programs running through.

As we actually are right now? Like something constructed us? Already?

36:00

That's up for debate. But like singularity, the notion that robots will gain an artificial intelligence and then start creating themselves...that idea's already happened with organs.

That's true, that's true. I hadn't thought of that. We grow body parts now.

Exactly. Like, once robots have the ability to manufacture themselves why would they want to be manufactured with metal? There's something so beautiful about a body with regenerative properties, which is something that's not...metal can't necessarily do completely.

Then again, we might be able to regenerate but machines are a lot harder to hurt. Metal is a lot stronger than bone. Plastic is a lot stronger than skin. That's the reason we developed them to begin with.

Human skin.

Yes, human skin.That's a good distinction.

It's narcissism in relation to sustainability I suppose. We'll live forever. Like it's a

common understanding that we'll live to 100 years old, right? That's not necessarily true though right, 'cause like...it's your 25th birthday. My life is a quarter over.

Is it?

I dunno about that maybe it's like-

-half over? live to 50-

Maybe less. But there's like a common understanding that we're going to be around for a long time.

That brings up my absolute...I hate the phrase, "The world is coming to and end." It's not the world, it's humanity.

The world will go on. That's what's beautiful about it.

In fact it'll probably be better off without us.

I concur. There we go. There's our project. Robots and all kinds of cool stuff. No more humans. We've covered the gamut.

We have.

Alright, let's do it-

-let's do it.-

Now all we need... [end recording]