Naive Realism

Population density. Data from the G-Econ project, Yale University

There are innumerable recommendations for surviving current crisis. I propose naïve realism.

Think for a moment that there were 2 billion people in the world in 1940; that we are now 6 and will be 8 billions inhabitants in the world in 2050. Sum to it that our planet can not possibly feed that amount of “animal spirits” (Keynes). John Gray insists (see “Homo Rapiens and Mass Extintion”, 2002, in his last book Gray’s Anatomy, Allen Lane, 2009) that the “plague of peole” is not going to reach the “Era of Solitude” (Wilson), when humankind would be alone because all the rest of animals have been killed, nor the eradication of humankind (Lovelock): The future is going to be a combination of genocide, war, epidemic, natural destruction and the sort of generalized social collapsed that has taken place in post-Comunist Russia.

Just as we do everyday, that we live knowing that we are going to die, we have to choose what kind of life we want to lead in a world that is condemmeded to change radically and violently in the next future. I call it naïve realism, adapting slightly Keynes' “naïve optimism”. Gray puts it this way: "From a human point of view, this may be a discomfiting prospect; but at least it dispels the nightmare of an age of solitude".

What architects and artists should do in such a situation?. Well, maybe to preserve the aesthetic as a value, as some of them have always done: the harmony of the aesthetic experience is the only way humans experiment their subjective unity authentically. There is nothing more we can do, but we should not do either anything less.

Collaborative Education or Eco Buddhism?

An image from Avatar, the film, taken from the Eco Buddhism Blog

The RAL (Reflexive Architecture Laboratory) is a design studio like any other but collaborative oriented. The result is that for the first time students start talking about ethics, tolerance, objectiveness in judgement, etc. Design itself has been even better than before at the RAL. It is incredible that this pedagogic technique has been ingnored for so long. The Chronicle ofHigher Education puts it this way:

Distributed and collaborative learning, with its emphasis on mindfulness, attunement to others, nonjudgmental interactions, acknowledgment of each person's unique contributions, and recognition of the importance of deep participation, can't help but foster critical thinking skills and greater empathic engagement. In that sense, collaborative learning transforms the classroom into a laboratory for empathic expression, which, in turn, enriches the educational process.

The article is by Jeremy Rifkin, the same author of The Empathic Civilization (this links to a good article extracted from the book) . I have no doubt about the effectiveness of collaborative applied to architectural education. In a wider political scope I am not so sure. John Gray, for example, thinks Rifkin's empathy becomes naive when it gets too green.

By the way, Rifkin says it was "Jane" Abercrombie at the University College London Hospitals who started this kind of education in 1950's. What about Vigotsky then?