I love how critical Cameron Tonkinwise is of Dunne and Raby’s paper. Its almost comical to read. I do find it interesting that Cameron picks up on the use of “we” and questions who it refers to. I feel like it almost makes designers the “royal we” and that they put designers in a higher class of their own. While many designers would like to believe that this is in fact true, there is no way you can say with good conscious that designers deserve the royal we. And while we seems to just be referring to designers, it is also referring to a particular background/class and the lack of diversity that exists in the design field. While I never really understood why there was such a lack of diversity, it does bring in to question some decisions designers make that could just be in response to one perspective.
I also found Cameron’s four points to add onto Critical Design to be intriguing. He says that designers need to act as “design critics” and that we should develop critical design with a scientific researcher. I think this could result in some interesting insights the design process. What if the scientist was able to provide a realistic sense to the future science of the imaginary objects so that they can get a more interesting response? What if the critical designer asks the right questions to make the scientist think more about the future effects of what they developing? Would this change their behavior? Would they stop developing a technology if it could lead to something terrible for society? Would this kind of practice stopped the development of the atomic bomb? Western Countries spend a lot of time talking about how particular mistakes and terrible events will never happen again because the people won’t let it. Would this be an effective method to ensure that claim?