Design Control Evolution

I was trying to think of an easy way to start this blog section, but then I watched an episode of "Life" by the BBC last night and was fascinated. One of the aspects I actually teach in my creative thinking lessons is how nature can inspire design. And there it was, a programme showing the remarkable ways that reptiles and amphibians have adapted in order to survive. What was remarkable was the simple fact that these two species of 'Earthlings' have been on the planet the longest, and have many close links to their dinosaur relatives, and thus gives great respect to their ability to survive for so long under earthly conditions. One such reptile that amazed me more than most was a desert chameleon, who through the power of its natural design can pigment its flesh dependent on the angle of the sun. Making one side of its body dark to absorb sun and the opposite side white in order to reduce heat loss. Now, regardless of how clever, or developed or even good at design we think we are, there is no way that we have managed to counter such natural brilliance.

Maybe this is the starting point of the notion of design control. Call it 'natural selection' or what have you, but does the limits of man as a refined ape make his ability to design or natural design, give him limitations. A point I make in my lessons is that the one physical difference we have attained from our simian cousins is the 'opposable' thumb. A physical attribute that is suppose to distinguish us from all other creatures. Giving us the opportunity to shape and use tools. Now if this is the only thing that gives us an edge over other creatures then our natural evolution hasn't come a long way, really. However, it is not the only thing that makes us different. We have evolved a pre-frontal lobe and cognitive state. This gives us the ability to think, analyze and solve. All positive things you would say. However, maybe the process of analytical deduction in itself is a design control.

Many thousands of years ago we set off on our journey of discovery. Making steps that would create the world we now live in. One of which was a remarkable step forward and difference from all other creatures. In a cave in France there was found a remarkable discovery. On a wall, deep inside the cave, were imprinted stenciled images of human hands. According to a BBC documentary called "The Story of God", these hand prints were an attempt to show a connection between the real world and the spiritual world of deity that the human's believed was through the solid divide of the walls. The fact that there is a religious overtone to this has no part in the understanding in design, that there was a beginning in communication. This in many respects was a key element and is the premise by which design is now so prolific. Design is simply about communication. From that simple 'hand' print and the process of evolution we gained alphabet and that is how we have arrived to today's status. What maybe a argumentative statement, is that the simple holding of alphabet and letter form is in fact a design control, but more deeper and semantic than that, is the notion that what this language has done is created a communication that has defined the design control. I don't want to actually deliver the word 'censorship' at this point, as there will be another debate about that. But what we have done, over the thousands of years of development, have given definition to all the things that have existed.

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, the thread by which this post is aiming, but can you imagine the difference between the brilliance of no-debated, or non-defined designed that the desert chameleon has achieved over years of evolution next to the structured, analyzed and communicated design of humans. Would human design be any better without the control of analysis, argument and criticism? Is it a good enough argument to believe that design could be more capricious or more evolved if the process of explanation was taken out of the process. A very hypothetical debate, as we do exist in the system and our ability to analyze, as previously stated, is now part of our genetic make-up. However, what could be seen as an interesting aspect to the whole gamut of design and creative development is that a group of individuals, over time, have been able to define criteria by which we all work. And even more so, in today's environment and society, there seems to be even more control through regulations, laws, morality issues, etc. What is meant by criteria? Well, that could be as simple as defining except-ability, or even the aspects of process. Not to play on the religious aspect too much (as this will feature in the censorship section), but in a sense their definition of faith through their writings has in a sense caused a control. This has nothing to do with the notion of faith, but the way that man under the guise of faith and religion has been able to tell the masses what they define to be right and wrong. A simple example would be the portrayal of the human form.
One of the most effective designs ever existing on this earth, that was created by man, is the simple wheel. It has not evolved in any practical sense since its original inception. This makes its design fundamentally perfect, as a functional device. What has occurred over the centuries are many variations to improve on it, but ultimately the design is good. The communication of improvement has not actually improved on its original starting point.

So, in an attempt to start the ball rolling, the staring point to this debate would be a simple query in "what would your views be on the idea that becoming a more 'thinking' creature is in fact a hindrance to the design process, and that design should really be about natural evolution over analytical control and social reform?"