Always judge a project by its title.

My title. My big beefy project title. I'm told it should be simple enough for your nana to understand, but my nana is dead, so I went with this:

Being green without looking brown: an investigation into the use of design rhetoric to evolve sustainable design practice to a position of normality.

Basically I wanna know why we treat sustainable design like an optional extra - "would you like to reduce your carbon footprint today?" It shouldn't be a fucking option! It's not fries! I should want to reduce my carbon footprint. What am I? A total asshat? I am definitely not an asshat! But unfortunately most people are. Some of them want to reduce their footprint, but they're just a bit cash-strapped so they can't right now, but mostly people are just asshats. Why should they pay more for something they can't see or touch or interact with? Do they get something? Yes dickhead, you and yours get somewhere to live for the next hundred thousand years! 

But if the only option provided was one that was sustainable and reduced your footprint then we wouldn't have to worry about people's ethics affecting their decision making abilities. We would know that carbon footprints were being taken care of. Nice idea right?

But the issue of sustainability is bigger than an eco-concern. It's a social and economical concern too. We need to care about more than our carbon footprint, we need to think about our society, our culture and what is local to us. We need to consider the well being of everything in our immediate vicinity as well as around the world - it's a bit of a "think global act local" approach. And local is one of the easiest ways to act, local is where I'm at. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure acting globally is technically impossible unless you are a superhero. Just saying.