Writing

Technological advancement is something we're all familiar with, new things change our way of life on a daily basis. Generation after generation, the young look towards the faults of the old and find a better way of doing things. We're told to do things one way or another from points of view that are out of touch with the new world. We're told we need to choose a path and stick to it, that we can't do it all. The question, why not? often gets answered with various subjective answers based off of past experiences. In the new and emerging world, we can do it all. In fact, it's human nature to do it all. We are and have always been creatures of divergent exploration and expression.

Long before the modern world we had to do it all. There was little room for specialization. Everybody was a hunter, a farmer, a butcher, a chef. If you had no shelter, you built one. You went and extracted raw materials for yourself. You sewed your own clothes and washed them in the creek you collected your drinking water from. Communities still had some roles, but things weren't so cut and dry. You did what you needed to do to survive. Whatever need you or community had, it was up to those involved to take care of it.

Civilization developed further; specialists became more common as practice of skills developed to become more advanced. We started relying on the services of others more than we relied on ourselves. This worked to our benefit at the time. It allowed us to create more efficient societies with a higher quality of life.

As society kept growing, so did our skills and our creations. The tools we once used to engage in our crafts evolved into machines. The industrial revolution helped usher in a new era in humanity. What were once skilled and multifaceted crafts became broken down into a series of sub-roles that striped away the value of the individual and turned them into yet another machine. This divergence of skills and abilities was necessary and beneficial to the advancement of society and creating a increasing our quality of life. But at what cost?

What were once small, self-reliant economies evolved into a highly complex globalist system. Mom-and-pop shops were replaced by huge megacorporation's that centralized and streamlined their supply chains for the sake of profit. Eventually this well-oiled machine developed computers. Computers did for humanity what the industrial revolution had done not terribly long ago. While it did create some new opportunities and industry, computers signaled the start of convergence, rather than divergence of human activity.

How did computers do this? The same way tractors turned workhorses into play horses, they can do the same thing we can do, but better. Word processors trimmed down the teams at newspapers. Spreadsheets cut back the number of accountants it took to balance company books. Algorithms could detect and visualize patterns and insights that previously took entire teams of people to accomplish. They didn't necessarily change what we do, just how we do it. What previously took the combined effort of many people began to be managed by fewer and fewer workers.

The power of computation was only amplified by the internet. Once a purpose-built military communication tool, it became an unavoidable part of modern living. Rather than computer activity being limited to single devices or wired networks, anything anywhere can now work in sync with anything else. It has fundamentally altered the structures of our society. The COVID-19 pandemic further exemplified the change it can give us, given the reason to change. Nobody thought the world could operate fully online, yet we all did it.

The recent developments in Ai, natural language processing, and other forms of generative computing pose a deeper dive into the convergence of human activity. These tools allow us to work faster and more efficiently than we previously could, and further lowers the barrier to entry various opportunities. While the quality of work is debatable, it undeniable that these things enable individuals to continue to do even more work with less effort than ever before. It is easier than ever for anybody to be an entrepreneur and start a very professionally presenting business.

The entrepreneur of the future is likely to look quite different than what most people consider it today. Even in the current era there is a divide between what traditional business considers an entrepreneur, and some of the most influential entrepreneurs of the modern world, internet creators. People like Mr. Beast have created multi-million-dollar empires that encapsule various entities that historically have been independent enterprises. Live event production, large scale media production, physical merchandise, fast food, and more, all under one entity.

Many of these new-age entrepreneurs have no formal education in anything that would enable them to easily find success in these ways. They are a prime example of what these tools have done for us, made human knowledge universally accessible. It is no longer about what you know, but your unique perspective and what you do with it.

What does this mean going forward? It means we have an incredible opportunity to be part of creating a return to a holistic way of living. We can help build tools and shape systems that enable the individual to engage with the world how they see fit. No longer do people need to find a specific role or career path that defines who they are. We can help the masses get in touch with their core desires. Social media lets people express their perspectives, but how easy is it for people to live exploring their identity these ways? It's not, but it doesn't have to be.

As things have always gone there will be some growing pains, but we will no longer be required to sacrifice exploring ourselves in order to survive. A tipping point has been reached. Another renaissance. We can do what we want to do rather than the paths society has defined for us. We can find a way of living however we see fit.

Originally published on noahvanhart.com

© 2023 Noah van Hart. All rights reserved.

Originally, we only lived to survive.

We searched for food and shelter.

First, we made tools that made it easier to survive.

Then, we controlled fire.

Fire gave us safety and security.

But things were still tough,

we still had to search for our food.

That is, until we didn't.

We began to gain control over the natural world.

We grew our own plants and farmed our own animals.

Meaning shifted from survival, to sustenance.

We used fire to build better things.

We developed new tools and materials that made it even easier to survive.

We started writing, to preserve our understanding of these things.

Meaning shifted from providing for yourself today, to your community tomorrow.

We made the wheel, and with-it roads, allowing us to move more freely amongst ourselves.

We started living as communities of unique individuals with specialized skills.

We started making schools to build upon what we had already learned.

We invented the concept of ownership, to identify something as yours and nobody else's.

Is the meaning of life still just to survive? Or is it something more?

As society became more complex, so did our lives.

We kept pushing and came up with complex solutions.

Early analog computers helped us solve our problems.

Gears arrived and introduced mechanization.

The printing press gave us mass distribution of knowledge.

We applied that knowledge and created the steam engine, and electricity.

Before you know it, mass manufacturing and distribution changed everything.

Companies start producing things for the entire planet.

It takes a large workforce to make that happen.

Capitalism sweeps us off our feet.

People are working so they can buy things and buying things keeps people working.

A new identity is formed where one takes pride in their place as a worker and expresses themselves through the objects they own.

Mass-media gains traction through film and television.

The internet comes along and connects us all.

Consumerism becomes deeper entwined with human culture.

Things are now traded at the push of a button without even leaving your home.

Media is constantly a click away, and we are constantly consuming it.

TikTok, YouTube, Netflix, Xbox, iPhones, Amazon, all connect us while letting us escape from the responsibilities we once had.

They entertain us, teach us, provide for us, and let us communicate how we've always wanted to,

but not the way we always have.

What is your purpose when you have the world at your fingertips?

It doesn't stop here, in fact, this is only the start.

The technology gets better, life gets easier.

Artificial intelligence is quickly catching up to us.

It already knows you better than you do.

What you'd like to watch, what you want to buy.

It's in our factories helping us make stuff.

It's driving our cars too.

What happens when it keeps simplifying our world for us?

When technology is at the point when we no longer need to do anything for ourselves?

What does life look like when we don't need to work anymore?

When technology does the work for us.

If we exist to survive, what do we do when survival is effortless?

How does technology keep us satisfied in a world without challenge?

We create opportunity for challenge.

We create new experiences.

We create media that knows us, is tailored to us.

We create media that lets us explore our own stories and the stories of others.

We create opportunity to learn from the past, the future, and the now.

An opportunity for real and imagined realities.

An opportunity to find new meaning.

We find a new way to feel alive.

Originally published on noahvanhart.com

© 2022 Noah van Hart. All rights reserved.

This study of the Washington State Legislature's Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee public hearing on SB 5799, An act relating to fair servicing and repair of digital electronic products, was performed to gain a deeper understanding of the viewpoints and experiences surrounding right-to-repair activities and help inform the direction in which further research into repairability and sustainability should take.

Planned obsolescence and sustainability have been prominent topics of discussion in recent years as consumers recognize the decline in quality and lifespan of their products and the effects of climate change become more prominent. Capitalism and consumerism have given rise to fast-cycling trends and rampant wastefulness. Powerful corporations have influenced standards and policies to suit their best interests over the best interests of the people. Old habits of maintaining and reusing your products and possessions have faded out as people constantly want fresh and new artifacts. Systems in place meant to support sustainability such as recycling and repair services further push company interests and support their profits rather than the interests of consumers.

The following questions address the issues related to the bill for further research and potential development of a solution:

The hearing of bill SB 5799 asks groups of interests with contrasting opinions of the bill to tell their stories and justifications for either passing or rejecting the bill in Washington State Legislature. Debates around the bill cover the implications it could have for sustainability, the environment, recycling, economy, market competition, and benefits to the everyday person or bottom-line consumer and overall, the bill would have great impact on society and the systems consumers interact with.

One issue that consumers face that adds difficulty to consumers ability to repair is the fact that many manufactures refuse to fix devices repaired or modified by outside parties. The following excerpt is a statement given by the sponsoring senator Hasegawa

The senator tells their story of having an independent repair booth fix their phone battery, a relatively quick and simple repair that consumers should have choice in picking an accessible and convenient service provider while being able to support local businesses. However, when a following issue occurred that she was not able to have fixed by an independent repair service (due to the inaccessibility of the adequate tools and resources to make proper repairs) the manufacture refused to service the device. Manufactures voiding service to customers that fix their own devices or have a third-party repair can be both inconvenient and costly to the consumer while reducing sustainability and limiting market competition in addition to economic prosperity.

This point is further driven home by a question Senator Shelton asked Senator Hasegawa comparing the practice the well established and regulated auto industry.

The auto industry is an industry that most American, especially older Americans are already familiar with and comparing it in this way simplified the understanding for Senator Shelton and also other committee members who might not be as familiar with new technology and the practices of these technology manufacturers.

The extent in which manufacturers restrict repair efforts and fail to provide adequate repair service is demonstrated by Adrian Avery Johnson, who owns his own repair shop in Portland, Oregon.

Adrian shows a large amount of time and therefore money is lost due to his need to source parts and schematics to figure out how to repair new devices without the direct resources from manufacturers. Some manufacturers such as the ones Adrian reached out to failed to offer effective repair services, and only offered to replace the device, wasting the entirety of the device when only 1 small piece needs replacing. Replacing the device is costly and consumers should have access to a more affordable service that does the small repair and allows them to keep their existing device and data.

            The failure of manufacturers offering of efficient service and accessible repair is demonstrated in comparing new products to older products by Lois Rothman of Rosman Repair group.

Lois's statement is easily one of the most powerful given in the hearing, he starts by calling back to historical pretext for manufacturers providing simple resources for repairs. He then brings up Apple's move to limit their parts and prevent reselling to third-party vendors. The exemplification of this shift is further explained by sharing the $1,500 repair cost Apple charges to fix the device, demonstrating that this monopolization has only been brought on because of greed. Manufacturers argue that repair the devices is unsafe for individuals, but he also invalidates this point by bringing the conversation back to the well-established car industry again, mentioning an AutoZone commercial in which a mother and daughter repair a car's breaks without prior experience. This is something that is perfectly legal and acceptable despite the great risks and hazards associated with driving and car repairs, further invalidating manufacturers arguments and revealing their greed in withholding repair resources.

 After establishing the role manufactures play in limiting repair services, repair of modern technology is shown to be essential by comparison to the profession of Cobblers by senator Rolfes.

Senator Rolfes starts by making a clear example of essential and expensive items, shoes, being something, people historically would have repaired as to expand the lifetime of the product rather than replacing something that does not need to be thrown away. By comparing a historical standard to today's technology practices, she shows how behavior towards everyday products has changed and explains the difficulty faced by the everyday citizen faced with the challenges of the current system while making it easier to understand for the government officials who may be more out of touch with the average citizens financial situation.

            Following the exemplification of the need for accessible repairs Olivia Webb, and employee of a company called iFixit, a company that provides parts, tools, and resources for repairing devices demonstrates the demand for easier access to what her company provides.

Despite what manufactures may claim, Olivia Webb makes it evident that demand for repair resources is prominent as 1.3 of 7.6 million Washingtonians accessed their services. She also explained the difficulty of finding quality parts (thanks to manufacturers restricting supply) while the act of repair being easy and safer than manufacturers make it out to be. Going as far to exemplify anybody can learn to repair devices with the right resources by sharing her own skill development, learning to fix multiple devices without any prior experience. These points were important to call out to the committee who likely would have the money to pay for the repairs or replace their devices without concern and are less likely to repair the device themselves.

            Not only is lack of access to parts and repair resources a concern for the average citizen, it also puts the less fortunate in a position where they are at a disadvantage. Adel Palmer, the digital inclusion manager at free geek in Portland Oregon gave a statement to the committee to demonstrate this.

In today's day and age, its easy for people to assume that everyone in a first world country has access to the internet and modern technology, but that view is out of touch as it simply is not the case. Adel Palmer reminds the privileged senators that many individuals and communities struggle to access or afford modern technology. She also further reinstates the earlier point when explaining issues, they face in their charitable efforts as they have to break devices they could give out or spend extra time attempting to repair devices due to the lack of access to resources needed. By increasing accessibility, it would improve their efforts and equip people with tools needed to integrate into modern society and improve their quality of life.

The most prominent ethnographic technique used to analyze this hearing was observation. Observation is the act of witnessing and describing one side of an event/interaction contingently, with the observation being contingent as the meaning may change when another distinction is added to the previously described observation (Rabinow, 2007). I also used modes of inquiry while assessing the hearing to judge potential presumptions, data, and biases the senators and questioned attendees may have (Fortun, 2017). Coding and theme selecting techniques for Processing Fieldnotes; Coding and Memoing by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw were used to analyze the hearing and create a storyline from the themes discussed. Analyzation techniques and structuring were also drawn from the following chapter by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, Writing an Ethnography.

            Through analyzing the hearing, it was made prominent what the issues surrounding the right to repair entail, how they effect the everyday citizen, and why companies have chosen to operate this way. Manufacturers are ineffective in their repair efforts as they refuse to work on products repaired by third parties, charge exorbitant amounts to fix devices, while clearing data or completely swapping damaged devices with new ones as part of their repair process, all process that are unfair towards the consumer. The problem is clearly artificial as seen in the historical context of repairability in devices and the context of other, more dangerous modern industries, a choice companies make to boost profits. Companies choose to monopolize this aspect of their business at the detriment of everyday citizens and small business prosperity.

            In conclusion, Washington State Legislature provided an adequate platform for those informed and affected by the issues the bill covers to share their stories and attempt to help make the change. Many of the points made and issues addressed were covered by Joe Biden's presidential order to promote market competition in the US under the right to repair section, which somewhat answers the research questions. The executive order influences manufacturers and trade organizations to operate more accessibly, sustainably, and with more convenience to consumers.

Originally published on noahvanhart.com

© 2021 Noah van Hart. All rights reserved.

In the current state of society, we have been consumed by trends and capitalism. Everyone is quick to jump to the next new and fresh thing and throw out old or worn items. Wastefulness and planned obsolescence have become the norm rather than a culture that respects the planet and property by fixing, reusing, or effectively recycling our products. The current norm of sending much of our waste to dumps creates toxic chemicals that leach into the ground and pollute our atmosphere, starting garbage fires and ruining groundwater.

Currently there are ways we can mitigate the harms of these byproducts. The leachate produced by decomposing waste can be collected and applied to the newer waste to speed up decomposition of garbage, and the methane gas produced can be collected and put into our natural gas systems (ACS Engineers 2016). While these methods do help mitigate current harms, they do little to stop the problem from beginning in the first place.

One might propose attempting to look towards recycling efforts to help with the landfill problem. Design more wasteful products to be recyclable and improve convenience of recycling systems. Exemplified in Asia, recycle practice can be beneficial not only to reuse materials, but is traded amongst high- and low-income countries. It brings employment and easy access of resources to low-income countries that are unable to produce materials independently while reducing pollution and creating profits from waste in developed countries.

However, exporting waste can be beneficial when it's for reduced labor costs, yet often waste is exported to avoid environmental regulations in the originating country (Okubo et al. 2016). This is not only harmful to the overall environment when recycling is not processed in an environmentally friendly way, but sometimes recycling is exported just to be dumped into a landfill.

CBC Marketplace found in 2019 Canadian consumer recycling in Malaysian landfills that was illegally shipped into the country. Malaysia has had to close almost 150 factories over dumping waste and only 62 companies are legally allowed to import plastics. Their minister of energy has expressed the seriousness of the issue as thousands of tonnes of Canadian plastic were seized in their ports in June of 2019.

Despite knowing the consequences of their actions, Canada has yet to ban the export of plastics. A spokesperson from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change stated the government tends to heavily restrict plastic exports in 2021 in accordance with the Basel Convention, an international treaty from 1989 intended to restrict trade waste to combat environmental issues (Szeto et al. 2019).

Recycling has been looked to as the main method to curb waste to appease capitalism and mass production, yet society overlooks the order of the three R's, as recycling should be that last resort after reducing or reusing materials.

Our current systems of handling waste are simply a response to our economic development, capitalism and mass production have led to massive profits that corporations love and operate in a way to maximize it. As technology improves and markets grow governments and corporations have failed to have foresight in the sustainability of our development, so much so that in 1992 the World Commission on Environment and Development defined the need for development that satisfies the present without compromising the future.

Their efforts including laying out principals to reduce emissions and negative impact on the environment:

While it purposed concepts for new international institutions to help manage and regulate states consumption habits, it failed to provide groundwork for planning and managing these conceptual institutions. States could incorporate oversight and regulation into existing institutions or establish new ones while striking deals and providing financial incentives and demonstrating the benefits of the model. Nothing about recycling helps restrict unsustainable growth but rather act reactively to the problem (Papa 2015).

With the current state of society, it is blatantly obvious we have a problem with overconsumption and wastefulness. Rarely do people take it upon themselves to have property repaired and maintained (with exception to large purchases such as homes, cars, appliances, etc). Objects are made with planned obsolescence to increase profits. The system is set up in a way in which people struggle or are not incentivized to keep objects long term, everything is now disposable.

Society needs effective systems to develop and operate in a sustainable manner, the current state of the planet is deteriorating due to our failure to effectively plan and regulate our economic activity. An opportunity is presented to create frameworks to enable sustainable economic activity.

Originally published on noahvanhart.com

© 2021 Noah van Hart. All rights reserved.

While society grows and vastly changes with new societal innovations, the relationship in which well-designed products attract users remains unchanged. First, defining what relationships exist to create a well-designed product, the relationships proven by established designers will show consistent with front of the line innovation, exemplified here in the Tesla Model S.

Before examining the relationship between historical good design and the new era of design effected by technological advancement and innovative fabrication, we must first establish what good design has been. Good design can be narrowed down to three main components:

When approaching a new object, designers must anticipate what the object might evoke in potential observers. Any object has the potential to be found unusual and jarring to the observer. This can be avoided by drawing inspiration from the established norms and designing in unity with user norms and expectations to create familiar connections with the new object.

It is noted in Designer Maker User that early electronic devices such as gramophones and televisions were stylized to resemble furniture, making it easier for early adopters to welcome them into their homes (Newson, 2016).

Molly Long reported on Studio System's use of familiarity when exhibiting the work of Dieter Rams in a department store. Rams' work is intended to be minimal and blend in, seemingly out of place in a department store filled with eye-catching displays. The Studio System's team in turn designed an exhibition space replicating a living room, screening room, and study, allowing observers to feel familiar with the environment and exemplify the connections and unity in the pieces to allow immersion in Rams' aesthetic (Long, 2020).

In an interview with Fumiko Ito for his exhibit with Naoto Fukasawa, the Super Normal, Jasper Morrison discusses how being unconcerned with the visual characteristics of an object and anticipating how an object might be lived with and its impact on that atmosphere could increase the likeliness of creating a Super Normal object (Ito, 2017).

This sentiment is parallel to that of Chuck Harrison and Dieter Rams, who in his paper Omit the Unimportant, communicates the need to design universally for all users and avoid novelty and individuality (Rams, 1984). Harrison states "If it doesn't do what it's supposed to do or look like what it does, then I frown on it. I don't think a nutcracker needs to look like an elephant" (Gambino, 2009).

Innovative technology has rapidly altered the world we live in, and while we work and interact with the world in new ways, the relationships with objects that make them valuable has remained the same. Although these new innovations are creating vastly new realities, we are still integrating and becoming familiar with them similarly to that of past innovations.

New objects such as digital assistants have used similar tactics as old TVs. Specifically, the Google Home series uses a fabric cover to give the hard computational device a softer and more inviting appearance that resembles other house furniture textiles.

Using familiarity is also being used in the opposite direction, bringing established objects or brands closer to innovation. A good example of this would be GM, who rebranded from a strong, firm logo representative of the toughness in oil and manufacturing to a softer and more refreshing logo to signify they are still the same brand but adapting to a cleaner image with sustainable electronic vehicles (Wong, 2021).

The Tesla Model S is a key symbol of today's technological advancement and played an influential role in the widespread normalization of electric vehicles. While electric cars could be purchased before the release of the Model S, Tesla was the first company to generate excitement around electric vehicles and helped push the car industry into making electric the future norm.

Tesla built their cars completely from scratch and parallels many of the previous examples in this essay in the creation of the Model S. As Tesla built the car from the ground up, they could have designed a completely new and futuristic form for a car aiming to change the game. They later did this with the Cybertruck, and while it did generate a lot of attention, it did not have the same widespread appeal of the Model S.

The goal of the Model S was not that of the Cybertruck - by maintaining a conservative and familiar form, they demonstrated that electric vehicles could be the new normal and made them desirable to combustion vehicle owners. They also maintained familiarity while trying to stand out and appear innovative.

The Model S was also designed to drive autonomously, something humans have only ever imagined, and designing that feature in a way that people would feel safe and comfortable in could be a challenging feat with the older generations.

With the increased functionality, Tesla wanted to avoid a crowded dashboard and inserted a tablet-like display instead of an analog dashboard. This display enabled better integration of modern technology and allowed them to illustrate partially how the autopilot function works in a way that is intuitive to users to understand while also familiarizing users with the now commonplace touch screen interface.

Through breaking down good design and applying it to the accomplishments of the modern world, it is established that the relationships that make "good design" today remains the same as they were pre-technology boom. The Tesla Model S serves as a perfect example of how these timeless principles can be applied to revolutionary technology while maintaining user comfort and adoption.

Originally published on noahvanhart.com

© 2021 Noah van Hart. All rights reserved.