cindy moon_utopia

People always dream utopia. It usually means ideal and useful corrective positivism. However, the concept of utopia is not always happy because its actual meaning is no place or not existed place. (Mumford 3)

Lewis Mumford said utopia has been in Greek and Rome period. The base idea about utopia is from Plato and Aristotle. However, actually the word ‘utopia’ started using at. It means when philosopher thought about system of society, they didn’t define their dream as utopia.

As from Plato, utopia is always related with city because it has to be explained between the relationships between people. Community or hierarchy, everything is from society and it goes to the space of where people have been. At first, it was used for how people who have athuority control the society well for their will. Plato was to rationalize and perfect the institutions to make ideal pattern for creating structure. In contemporary societies, his concept is so far from utopia. However it was one way to achieve society’s ideal at that time.

After the system or structure of society has been changed because of mechanical progress, the concept of utopia became different. As St. Thomas More talked about, discussion about power in society moves to about system. In this example, we could see archigram for the plug-in city. They try to make continual circulation and blur the boundary but unified by continuous architecture (Sadler 57). Archigram dreamed about superimposing new society; however it is different from new Babylon. while new babylon was focused on view from exterior, plug-in city started from interior. Because of this difference, plug-in city could approach about conjectural and more legible and dynamic life in modern society.

However, archigram emphasized too much about mega structure of architecture, even though they want to connect the space. They ignored the changing flow and only concerned about hardware. They thought all the hardware could solve the problems and realize the utopia. Also after new Babylon which already was defined as failure disappeared, archigram lose their opponent subject to lead their topic. Even though many architect got influence on their works, there is no philosophical utopia right now. We just devote the phenomenon for the next good progress.

Utopia

According to Mumford ”the first Utopia was the city itself” (p3). He describes the creation of ancient cities as the creation of utopia. Unfortunately the utopian city is very fragile and the distance between the utopia and the dystopia is not that great. Mumford mentions isolation, fixation, regimentation, standardization, militarization as attributes to the utopian city. Later in the Mumford reading the utopia is called: “sterile dessert” (p10). A very negative description.

Fustel de Coulanges and Bachofen describes the city as a religious phenomenon with the primary function to create order. The city was an ideal form “a glimpse of eternal order, a visible heaven on earth, a set of life abundant- in other words, utopia.” (p13). On page fifteen again there is the description of the unstable condition of the utopia. Almost immediately it changes to its opposite, the dystopia. To create the utopia there needs to be a collective force. Described by Mumford as the human machine, the platonic model of all later machines.

The Plug-in city and New Babylon looked forward towards the end of labour and towards automation. New Babylon looked into the far-distance and Plug-in city to the near distance. New Babylon tried to create new social places, without an exact recipe. Peter Cook and Michael Webb with their plug-in city were more interested in the creation of an organizational system with smaller individual units. In both New Babylon and The Plug-in city the working class had disappeared. Sadler writes: “convinced that the qualities of the everyday could be enhanced by design, and that technology could lift the passions of humanity from the quaqmire of the street into the city of the sky”. The vision of a modern utopia.

Utopia

Architecture 209X, Spring 2007

Words and Cities: The rhetoric and meaning of statistically improbable phrases

Nicholas De Monchaux

Qing Wang

Utopia

Utopia, a word has been always associated with city context. It was born with city. The origin of city was the idea of centralized dwelling. It is the materialized will of kingdom. It is the idealized form of dwelling. The idea of Utopia is to realize the human commonwealth which never has been conceived. But the city becomes the perfect ground where Utopians test their thoughts. The interesting thing about Utopia is that Utopians care the human commonwealth but not the single person. It pursues the collective benefits and ignores the personal difference. That’s where Utopia fails. Each person is different and irrational. Utopia tries to uniform the condition of dystopia reality and gives the solution. In fact, Utopia is seen as irreal fiction as opposite of reality. It is always related with sci-fiction. Actually, the paradigm of modern Utopia – Archigram inherited this fiction quality. The cartoon like cover always implied the content of their projects belonging to the future not the present reality. Their project – plug in city also looks like the machine from sic-fi movie Star War. In Japan, Metabolism also shared some similarity with Archigram. In both of their projects, there are some mega structures with infrastructure connecting the city network. The living units can be added or subtracted by the change of the city. Paradoxically, Plato’s utopia was refused to change. It was conceived as a perfect stable system can be sustained forever. Metabolism and plug in city tries to adapt this dynamic quality of the city to make it sustained. The chaotic and changing reality is more complicated than this ideal single system can accommodate. That’s where reality and utopia differs.

utopia

What is interesting about the word utopia is that it possesses both a positive and a negative meaning. Positive, which is its primary use and as defined by the dictionary, is an imaginary place and a place of ideal perfection and social condition, which some strive for and believe that lays somewhere in the future. Negatively, defined as an impractical scheme for social improvement, the term is used to describe something which is too advanced- goal that is un-reachable.
All three texts deal with both, the positive and negative, which seem to probably go hand-in-hand, rather than either-or, when talking about utopia.
All three texts look at the possibilities of and desires for achieving this place of perfection, and the failures of doing so. Lewis Mumford is the only one whose thesis in Utopia, The City and the Machine tries to argue that utopia actually did exist and that “the concept of utopia is not a Hellenic speculative fantasy”, but that “indeed, the first utopia was the city itself”(Mumford, 3). Even though this is a speculative thought, what is more interesting to note in this statement is that utopia is equated with the city. In Sadler’s article New Babylon versus Plug-in City, Constant’s New Babylon and Archigram’s Plug-in City are hypothetical projects of hyper-structures also striving for utopia in the form of a city.
Marvelous works for their time, the Plug-in City and New Babylon respond to the current need for change evoked by the “disappearance of the working class” (Sadler, 65) post the industrial and mechanical revolution and its replacement with the new mobile “leisure class”.
The word ‘avant-garde’ continuously comes up when reading all three articles. Our desire for control and advancement, instrumented by science and technology is what allows us to constantly look ahead in search for what Plato regards to as a “self contained unit”, that is enough self-sufficient to “have enough land to feed its inhabitants and make it independent of any other community” (Mumford, 5).
Utopia, in the positive sense, is in the future and only avant-garde and progressive thinking can bring us closer to utopia, which constantly gets re-defined. Does this mean that the state of utopia is actually un-achievable, and the positive notion of utopia will always go together with the negative, as un-reachable goal? I do not know, but “the only limits to what might be accomplished… were those of the human imagination” (Mumford, 13)

Utopia

The Article ‘Arcology’ is a try to find ideal city type in relationships between environments and human resources. For grasping an image of the arcological city, divided analysis and clarification of purpose are effective strategy for the nebulous image of utopia. It is because investigation of every connected factors related with city is necessary for building a logic of ideal city. However, when I meet arcological discourse which is focused as our utopia, I have a same impression. It is a sort of manifestation not an imagination or emerging. Big premise is that we should go that direction because we are here.

Through architectural history, efforts to visualize or architecturalize utopian city were truly challenging works. A sketch concerning future city has a philosophy toward utopia or would-be dystopia. Archigram’s works were amazing even on the view of contemporary position. Their paper works involve a little archeological view but more are focused on outlining the future in excavating the patterns of the past. (58, New Babylon versus Plug in-city) That’s reason we can feel their insight is quiet keen even in current base. The comment “If man is no longer bound to production-labour, he will also no longer be forced to stick to a fixed place.” is can be applied in mobility and ubiquity based on current technology. It’s one of evidences their ideas were actually future oriented. Main key that they could imagine some relatively reasonable ideas-with current base not at that time- was they faced era having plenty of changes within short scroll. They could concentrate the changing phenomenon itself.

I assume expecting future city and drawing it might be easy in 1950~60 than now. They were stepping an apparently changing stage as the physical environment. But, now we are standing on the changed changing cites in terms of physical settings but invisible human environment is changing more quickly than modern times. Then, how can be our future city imagined? What is the relatively strong process to keep an eye on contemporary world. And, what is the keen view and thoughtful insight anticipating our future. Archigram had acutely aware of supposed freedom form dogma. Then, are we too free from dogma? Or, our future cities totally are not free from economical dogma?

The Transmigration of Utopia

The Transmigration of Utopia
Utopia has roots dating back to the Hellenic period and whose literal translation means “no place.” Lewis Mumford writes in depth about utopia in his “Utopia, The City and The Machine” starting with a philosophical description and ending with a more historical explanation of the concept.
Lewis Mumford shows the utopias have generally been relatively unimaginative considering the emancipated class of the Hellenic period and questions why they found such problematic regimented models, as stated by his example of the humane More. Though Mumford thought of More as being tolerant and magnanimous on the subject of religious convictions, More eventually succumbs to the limitations of other utopian authors namely: isolation, stratification, fixation, regimentation, standardization, militarization. He continues that the reason for this failure is do to the individuals inclination towards self preservation or greed, thus abandoning the "liberating sources of unpredictable and uncontrollable creativity." Interestingly the quest for a perfect place for all humankind turns out to be an exclusive club Med with servants to fight your wars to boot.
On the other hand, Mumford questions this premise for a more grounded historical explanation in the sense that utopia, particularly in Plato's case, may have not been sterile, but rather looking towards the historic city. It is sort of like combining the best of both worlds by taking a republic, minus its' failing politicians, and an ancient city, minus all of the often forgotten hardships. Interestingly enough, he dives deeper than these philosophical assertions to back his reasons for the rise in utopian ideals as coming from establishment of the city by a king that represents God and who is constantly trying to "hold chaos at bay and ward of inimical spirits." The establishment of the cities infrastructural eternal order and its' mark as a sacred place for the Gods create an otherworldly appearance. The final conclusion is that modern philosophers like, More, Cabet, and Bellamy all reverted to the kings urban organization as a reaction toward their new free market economy.
The final conclusion is that we eventually reach utopia through science. Kings and Gods are all rejected by the elite and machines through science have improved and explained the physical world. Mumford notes astonishingly however that the collection of these machines in a totalitarian system has become society’s God, and therefore has crushed the notion of utopia. Further he asserts that the only people that can see the destructive nature of the Invisible Machine are the scientist and the artist. While the they arrive at their conclusions differently, the resultant is dystopia.

Utopia

Utopia

Liwen Zhang

The word utopia is very interestingly intertwined with visions and discussions concerning the city and lives of its inhabitants. The ancient mythological city of Atlantis, as Mumford’s article mentions, is what Plato refers to as utopia, divine perfection, or “a visible heaven on earth”. Such strong convictions around the idea of a utopia and its strong ties to the city suggest how man has privileged the notion of progress from the very start, since ancient times, when we constantly strive toward a better future. Thus Mumford makes it clear that there is an inherent human need to control technology and live within reach of the divine, whether it be religion, kingship or through the need for technological advancement.

In Sadler’s article comparing and contrasting Constant’s New Babylon and Cook’s Plug-in City, both schemes could been seen as visions of what Plato would have called utopia, plans that placed control, progress and the need for technological advancement on to a entirely new level. Although both schemes were in response to the same problems that cities were encountering in the mid twentieth century, over population being the main challenge, they are both very different in terms of conceptual and formal approach. However despite their differences, what is important to note is that in both schemes, the increased need and thus response toward collective living and leisure is heavily emphasized. This increased need for community and leisure is facilitated by heavy mechanization and explicit spatial organization, where the city can again reinvent itself to become a solution and thus a utopia where its citizens can thrive.

The vision of utopia and the need for progress forward illustrates a sense of both believing and longing for the future which will be better then the past. As our relationship with technology becomes increasingly dependant and taken for granted, new problems and new responses will arise, along with the need for advancement, our visions of what utopia constitutes will continually be rewritten. It now seems apparent that such visions are not only dependant on human aspirations, but also our inherent need for direction and perception.

Human Utopias

In both the Soleri and Sadler articles, a definition of Utopia seems to find negative definition. Everyday living is described as ‘The week veneer of life ridden with blight and stillness, which megalopolis and suburbia are…’ (Soleri, 9) and Sadler relates the sentiment that ‘technology could life the passions of humanity from the quagmire of the street into the city of the sky.’ (Sadler, 58) Ignoring the obviously begged question of why the elevation of a street prevents it from being a quagmire, we can begin to see a difference between these two articles and the Soleri article, which accepts the limits of our human condition, this quagmire, and posits a historical instance of Utopia in the form of the ancient nascent city.

Mumford proposes that ‘every utopia is, almost by definition, a sterile desert, unfit for human occupation.’ (Mumford, 10) In the very next paragraph, he posits his thesis that this Utopia existed, like a child without Mortal Sin, but quickly lost its innocence, leaving, ‘as it were an after-image of its “ideal” form on the human mind.’ (Mumford, 11) The human collective is introduced as an ideal most utopias seek. Later in the text, this ideals most current form, that of the Invisible Machine, is vehemently warned against as an illusion. The idea of the city as home for God has been supplanted by scientific progress as god, and it’s heretics, the avant-garde artists, championed as ‘the only group that has understood the dehumanizing threats of the Invisible Machine’. (Mumford 23) The siren seduction of utopia is then contrasted to these avant-garde artists’ dystopic vision and Mumford concludes that neither rdystopia nor utopia hold human salvation. If this is the case, what good is a utopia.

Wittgenstein likened an ideal to a flat plane of ice; beautiful to behold, impossible to walk on. (I’m sorry I can’t find the reference.) And yet our formal explorations as architects often engage the flat stillness of water as an ideal surface. Most every building engages the flat, found only in ice and water outside the manmade world. So whether salvation is to be found or not, lessons are to be learned. Hence the importance of the lessons (some of them) found in Arcology; ‘They are not real, they are utopian’ (Sadler, 10). Arcology specifically deals with the ecology of the city and its future. #4, Arcology and Dimension, recognizes the need to humanize our architectural intentions. In #17, we see lessons in common with Archigrams vision of the individual. ‘Care for oneself will tend to be care for the whole.’ (Sadler, 11) Again in 34. ‘the individual user is always eccentric to the whole; symmetry in the whole, singularity in the parts.’ (ibid, 16) Above all, it seems Arcology is not a utopia that appeals to progress of the invisible machine of technology, but of human potential. ‘The creation of truly lovable cities is the only lasting solution for land conservations.’ (ibid 10) This appeal to emotion as a metric for city building is a refreshing break from the technological positivism that haunts architectural utopias.

hi all, the reading for Utopia has been posted in the resourse page.Is there anybody knows how to move the two pdf files into the Week 4 folder?Enjoy the weekends~~

sorry, fell asleep before posting.

All of the readings seem to approach the idea of system from different angles, with different strategies on the method of engagement with the system. The Kansai Airport inhabits a system of air flow, while the Swiss Re seems to be a creation and manipulation of a specific system of organization and structure. Fuller descends into the topic of the human system in a sort of Powers of 10 narrative, starting from the universe to the planet to the human to the plants to the animals to the actual DNA and RNA that form the basis of the system. In some ways his definition of a system is very spatial, with a system being a subdivision between the outside and the inside. This seems to lend itself to Bantham's idea of systems but Fuller introduces the idea of indeterminism as a way to perceive systems as they exist across dimensions and scales, which forces us to understand systems by trying to perceive the whole or the general in order to accurately perceive the specific. Bantham's description of architectural systems as separate and almost competing elements attempting to garner attention and study, then, is a very bitter description that fails to see the "all" thinking of the system of building.
It is important, I think, to see systems the way Fuller describes the universe. He recognizes the finite quality of the universe as a sum of finite parts, but also is able to accept it as a system continually under transformation or evolution. The perception of systems as both micro and macrocosmic, or perhaps even scale-less, is something that is directly applicable to the practice of architecture and design. The parti moment, then, can become more of a realization and opportunistic use of the system affecting the design, rather than a scale-specific gesture.

WK3:SYSTEM

As with Fuller’s Spaceship Earth, the development of system is said to coincide with the development of human intellect. Creation of systems allow for organization to occur, which enables civilization. Once man was able to ‘generalize fundamental principles’ from his experiences, as with the tree leverage example, he then gains the ability to synthesize more complex modes of phenomena. Critical systems that have altered our conception of the world (as well as the way we live) include Darwin’s hierarchical phylogeny system, or the Fordist system of production, or the sub-atomic structures or DNA systems, etc. Systems, is in essence, the basis of all human knowledge.

Most, if not all, systems are inductively derived, through observation and experimentation – standardized through the scientific method. Analysis of collected data seek to find patterns of behavior, which then is formulated into a theory – or more simply, a system for understanding that particular study. Fuller describes the notion of an Earth Spaceship without a manual. Man can only begin to understand the inner workings of the world through inductive reasoning. An interesting drawback of inductive systems is that they rely on the data through which the system is modeled after, which is to say, if the data set is incomplete or flawed, so then is the system. So at best a system is an approximation of reality at work. Banham’s article talks about the flaw in the definition of a particular system – namely the architectural system’s failure to incorporate mechanical aspects into its scope.

In our current era, there is an increasing need for the awareness of advanced systems both visible and unseen. The advent of internet has proliferated the idea of network systems in including social and cultural realms. There has also been efforts to systematize traditionally non-systemic things. Such as the chaos theory, or algorithms that generate ‘randomness’. In the context of cities and architecture, a reinterpretation of system is necessary in part due to the failures of absolutist (inflexible) systems of organization of the previous era that failed to adapt to evolving demands of urban fabric. Potential new fluid systems will work in a multi-scalar fashion with the ability to merge with other systems or subdivide within itself to provide flexible ways of understanding the city.

Ted Rubenstein
Week 3: System

If we are to consider the concept of system in relationship to cities it seems that first we must first be very clear to define the central (indeed intrinsic) role that humans play in any system of human organization. I am struck initially by Buckminster Fuller’s metaphor of “Spaceship Earth” and how he situates humans in relationship to the system of the planet. He claims, “We have not been seeing our Spaceship Earth as an integrally-designed machine which to be persistently successful must be comprehended and serviced in total” (52). In typical Fullerian fashion this is a densely charged statement filled to the brim with assumptions that at the same time makes clear an impassioned plea to the reader. Fuller’s hinging of the sentence on the phrase “have not been seeing” and the word “must” makes his claim a moral call to arms; what has been wrong in the past must be made right in the future. By making this moral plea the grammatical armature of his claim, Fuller is more subtly dislocating humanity – “We” – from the system of the planet, or “Spaceship Earth.” This is important because it posits the “We” / “Spaceship Earth” relationship as a subject / object relationship, a relationship which (even though Fuller’s intentions here are of the noble “big picture” proto-environmentalist strain) grants humanity a willful leverage over the system of the Earth. Fuller’s argument would benefit from the assertion that humanity is inescapably integrated with the Earth.
Stranger still is Fuller’s earlier acknowledgement that humanity’s willful existence outside the system of Spaceship Earth is a modern phenomenon. He says, “Spaceship Earh was so extraordinarily well invented and designed that to our knowledge humans have been on board it for two million years not even knowing that they were on board a ship” (50). It is not clear to me why our knowledge of the Earth would somehow dislodge us from a strictly objective relationship with the planet. Perhaps Fuller puts more faith in our ability to comprehend such a large and chaotic system than I do (especially considering that we cannot draw a picture of this system without being self-referential). Perhaps there is some sort of holy sublimation that humanity can achieve by “thinking big” or holistically (59) that I am not able to grasp.

The Best of All Possible Systems

In the first paragraph of Unwarranted Apology, I was struck by the statement of an inhumane world’s division of buildings into two ‘intellectually separate parts’ – introduced reductively as mechanical and structural. This seemed to me to be a description of how buildings do what they do, but not necessarily what they are or why they are. (The metaphysical implications of this potentially false dichotomy between how, what and why are not to be explored here, but it’s important to note that this distinction is not drawn by Buckminster Fuller.) Fuller is concerned with an expansive world view, leaving out no variables, to systematically describe what is, or, perhaps more importantly, what we define the universe as within the limits of our systematic understanding.

Both Banham and Fuller argue for expanding our intellectual understanding of what is. Fuller is of course more ambitions by imposing no initial limits to this system of understanding, and Banham is uncircuitously concerned with buildings. Banham argues that the division of structure and mechanical makes no sense, and that ‘the mechanical environmental controls are the most obviously and spectacularly important, both as manifestations of changed expectations and as an irrevocable modification to the ancient primacy of structure…’ Contemporary buildings reflect these sentiments. When one looks at new buildings like the Federal Building or the De Young, or even buildings contemporary to this article, like the Kimball Museum or the Richards Memorial Laboratory, one can see the structure has lost its primacy, and elements like services and enclosure have become primary informants of the order and form of the building. Both articles address a new way of thinking brought about by the 20th century technological advances, and reflect a post-enlightenment idealism.

Spaceship Earth is laden with Candidian language. Every element of the system is ‘by design’ the best in the best of all possible systems. The phrase ‘by design’ comes up multiple times. I appreciate that in order to surmise on the systemic workings of the universe and to believe one has arrived at a comprehensive world-view one needs to be a believer. Fuller clearly is. The language doesn’t seem to recognize the ‘inhumanity’ that Banham describes. ‘Objective employment of those generalized principles in rearranging the environment seems to be leading to humanity’s eventually total success and readiness to cope with far vaster problems of universe.’

Once again, we see that nature is given primacy, (‘nature, which always employs only the most economical realizations…’) as is reason. Fuller recognizes that, like a bird in an egg, our resources are being drained and our inhabitation of the system will necessarily need to change. Perhaps the output of our natural tendencies toward preservation and propagation, mixed with our rationally defined generalized principles will someday synergize, producing more than the sum of the two parts. History has shown our nature and our intellect to be at odds. Cosmological stories from many religiions have to explain the conflict between these two, but Buckminster Fuller argues they will and must synergize. Surely, they could do no other such thing in the best of all possible systems.

System

System:
The Random House Dictionary has seventeen different descriptions of the word system with many of them varying widely. While the first description relates to architecture in the traditional sense stating "an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system," most others talked about a wide array of topics from numerology, biology, geology to the mundane checkers. Organization, organism, and cosmos are synonyms for system and while organization is a topic regularly used in architecture and organism's biological roots are sometimes introduced as descriptors, the cosmos, which is a large part of the word, is almost never used.
The Etymology Dictionary dates this word back to 1619 and describes it as an “an arrangement” in L.L. systema which was taken from the Greek root systema, an “organized whole, body.” It was then recorded in 1638 taking on a less physical description as a "set of correlated principles, facts, ides, etc." Approximately fifty years later, system begins to refer to our biological understanding of the word stating system in terms of an "animal body as an organized whole, sum of the vital processes in an organism." Finally the word refers to a "group of related programs" established from a recording "all systems go" by the U.S. space program.
A typical pragmatic architectural use for the word system is discussed by Nikken Sekkei when describing the Kansai International Airport terminal's jack-up stands. Stands made up of adjustable parts are use for mechanical services and huge stands are used for the buildings nine hundred columns. He does not talk about the parts being a system on the micro scale, rather these smaller assemblies together creating a working system to level the airport. Further a description of the Swiss Re Headquarters describes its' ventilating elements as a ventilation system, the typical use for describing many elements of the HVAC (Heating and Ventilating System). On the other hand the book Operating book for spaceship Earth uses systems to describe life, energy, and stars all within almost the same paragraph.

System

System
Liwen Zhang

What is interesting about the word system is the multiplicity of meanings and connotations it has both within and between differing and similar contexts. Take for instance in Banham’s Unwarranted apology, the word system tackles and brings to mind a range of meanings.

On the one hand, we think of the term system in reference to Banham’s assertion of the lack of systematic integration within buildings, for instance between a building’s structure and a building’s “mechanical services”. The term “mechanical services” is interesting because usually when in reference to the particular systems that operates in buildings, such as the structural system, the term mechanical system typically follows. However, in this case the term “services” replaces the word system. Thus we question what the term “mechanical services” actually means; especially bearing in mind that the underlying word assigned to the reading is the replaced word system itself. Upon further reading we realize that Berman intends the word service to imply a organized system of apparatus rather then the more specified definition attributed to the term mechanical system. For Berman, his “mechanical services” is a system that either provides “the basic life support that makes a viable or valuable environment” or facilitates “circulation and communication”.

On the other hand, the term system is used in reference to the institution of education and discourse. When Banham lays claim to how the “vast range of historical topics extremely relevant to the development of architecture is neither taught not mentioned in many schools of architecture”, he immediately brings about the critical questioning of what is lacking in the system of architectural education.

The presence of the word system and its multifaceted meanings can be strongly felt throughout Banham’s text. Thus it is no surprise that this multifaceted array of meanings can be brought to productive use when describing the conditions of cities in particular, as a city tends to induce and require descriptions that possess such multiplicity.

System
Bin Wang

After reading the four paragraph I’ve been impressed by an idea that architecture is a system; the society is a system; the universe is a system. Everything is a system while every system is belonged to a larger system. Therefore it gave me a new perspective about architecture and architects.
Some times we regard ourselves, architects, are principle of the world. We are the designer of people’s life. Actually , we are only tiny components of the world. What’s the difference between architecture and rocket? The answer may be “no difference”. They are both components of this world, which is a system. Even in the system of architecture, we architects are only part of it. Our job is just to make the system running normally and developing well. We really have little ability to influence the whole system.
In Spaceship Earth it mentions “If we don’t really know how big “big” is, we may not start big enough, and are thus likely to leave unknown”. So is it a big problem if we don’t know big enough? As a point of my view, we could always deal with what we know, thus we don’t need to worry about something out of the system. For example, right now we have no idea about the space outside the universe so architects are just designing buildings on the earth and are doing a pretty good job. However, if one day we know the outerspace enough , I believe we could deal with it as a bigger system, because human’s intelligence is unlimited.