Architecture, like so many things is based in part by our culture and our beliefs. It is why we find both good and bad in everything. Is there a way to get over these hurdles? Let’s suppose we could write a computer program that would only accept what was logical, and would refute all that was illogical. Suppose that this program would analyze all languages, mathematics, science, government, and religions, and in the process it would automatically delete anything and everything that didn’t make sense; that when it was done man would have one near perfect language, indisputable math and science, a workable form of government, and an ethical set of ideas on which to base our beliefs. Would anyone stand for this? Would democracies accept what was good in communism, or Christianity accept what was good in Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism and so on? Would all societies accept a single concept? It is generally asserted that the only way, the true way, is my way. Is it any wonder that the world is at odds? So what has the world sought as a solution? Certainly many see no alternative but to eliminate opponents. Wouldn’t it be sad if that happened and all of a sudden we were left with the flaws of one society, one language, one government, and one religion to proliferate around the world. Will men ever take it upon themselves to adopt the best and discard the nonsense?
It is sad to believe that lies, dishonesty, deception, and other ills that are embedded in our past are something we are willing to cling to. It is sad that these concepts proliferate into everything we do, even in the ways we build and manufacture. For example, we invent to serve an immediate purpose, and once we have made an investment, that invention will influence all that follows, even after the idea is obsolete or proven lacking. For further explanation, let me give you an example that demonstrates how something bad can become a standard. When typewriters were first invented the mechanical mechanism couldn’t keep up with the typists, thus the machines would jamb. The solution was to create a more difficult layout on the keyboard to slow typists down, thus the QWERTY layout. When the mechanics were improved the layout remained although there were studies and proposals for much better keyboards. Even with computers that could care less about the layout, we still type on QWERTY keyboards.
So how does this relate to the architecture of OsumPODS? In designing OsumPODS, do we continue to cling to the past or build something better? Do we insist that OsumPODS blend into what we accept as our models for architecture, or do we allow creative ideas to expand upon new models? Such new architecture will no doubt need to embrace the modular concept to be affordable. But, does that mean that the modular design will copy what we know, or will OsumPODS be adventuresome and go off in new directions? Will we build something new that will appeal to the masses? Only time will tell.