As they say, the enthusium was great in the beginning. But I think reciently most designers, myself included, are starting to get a little dissillusioned and have found that they cannot change the world. The reason is many, including the a designers area of influence espically when i comes to business decisions.

Karim Rashid also “…wants to change the world” but it would be interesting to see how he feels now a few years on from the date of his published book.

My favourit exerpt from it is a quote from San Diego designer Bennett Peji, “[n]ow I see that anything is possible through graphic design.”

uh… sure dude, what ever you say.

Of course there is no indication that design was involved in any policy level work helping to create the strategies to help mitigate healthcare predicaments. Rather design seemed to be involved at a more tactical level, to help conceive of solutions to particular problems. This makes sense given that design is about solving problems. Policy, however, is not.

So while, as Jess says, designers have something to contribute and should contribute, I really don’t think that the world have been waiting anxiously for design to come along as save it–a hubris I’ve heard from some design academics, and one that makes me feel the discomfort you mention Niti. I never really had the language to make sense of this discomfort until Richard Farson spoke to me about the differences between “problems” and “predicaments,” and how addressing a predicament as a problem is a grave mistake.

Yes Jess I totally see your point about the term “intractable” and how such a notion could easily discourage people from contributing, because well, what’s the point? Well, the point is not to solve a problem, but to make the best out of a predicament since the can’t be solved. But if designers approach predicaments as soluable problems they make the situation worse.

Isn’t it better then to admit that there is no solution, that we shouldn’t try to impose one, and then focus on how we can best live with the predicament by mitigating its negative impacts? I’m certainly not trying to encourage abdication; I’m trying to discourage the hubris–because in terms of social predicaments, if Farson is right, such hubris could be very destructive.

Effective public policy demands a design mindset at the table to develop effective approaches for mitigation. This may not mean a designer at the table, but people with a perspective about possibility and exploration is crucial. I’m wary that qualifying a situation as “intractable” leads to abdication, when what is needed is better tools (including that abductive approach) for policy development.

While we won’t *solve* world hunger, war, poverty, healthcare, the environment, or short-term thinking endemic in the markets and elected office, there’s a false assumption that the objective is a universal solution that eliminates the situation. Designers have a contribution and an obligation - but not a monopoly.