Why Design?

These articles remind me of the opposition of man vs. nature. In this case it is technology vs nature. In where

Gershenfeld is the technology and Kahn is the nature. I was finding myself thinking of this opposition as I read the

articles, it reminded me a lot of my own article I had wrote earlier. It is similar to Frank Lloyd Wright looking forward

to nature, as Kahn did; and how everyone else was looking forward to development and man made objects, as

Gershenfeld did.Technology Vs. Nature, who will win? I think that these two different lines of thinking can be able

to co-exist in the modern world. It is simply a matter of balance between the two extremes. One extreme is the

entire surface of the world is covered with unnatural and out of place man-made objects as far as the eye can

see. The entire world would just be one large city. The other extreme is that there is minimal man-made objects,

and the ones that are there are designed for their environment and "belong" there in a way. It is not really possible

to live in either of these ways, there must be some balence, but is seems to be leaning in favor of technology.

Frank Lloyd Wright comes to mind again with his idea of the mile-high tower he proposed. To construct such a

massive project there must be tons of technology involved in order to construct it and keep it standing. Not to

mention the technology needed for the elevators or facilities for the entire structure including: water, power,

waste, staff and transportation. In addition to this technology, however, FLW wanted the rest of the landscape to

be mostly devoted to nature and its original state. This, I believe, is an appropriate balance between technology

and nature. Neither of them take over the other, they are separate but equal, so to speak. But in this case they are

actually equal. An example of it being unequal would be urban sprawl. In this case, technology allows the

manufacturing and building of houses very cheap and available to anyone. Technology allows people to use its

benefits for not so beneficial projects. Who decides if a project is beneficial? I'm not sure if it should be any one

person, but something of a democracy of people who are educated in the matters of technology and nature alike;

people who wish to benefit mankind and also keep the delicate balance in nature.