Prediction

Home Design Predictions: 2030

pollywannamath

I recently watched a MasterClass on interior design taught by Kelly Wearstler. Although I don’t share her taste, the class caused me to think about interior design. When thinking through the trends over the next few years, I developed a few predictions:

  • Stainless Steel Appliances will be out. I think this trend is underway already with the number of matte colored appliances on sale. I don’t expect every kitchen to sport red or yellow ovens, but I think slate, greys and subtle colored appliances will be the dominant sales trend. Brass/copper will come back in a big way.
  • Grey will remain in style (kind of). Right now neutral and cool colors dominate. White, blues, grays, and sandy wood are everywhere. I think gray will remain in style, but will carry warmer pink and yellow undertones.
  • White is out. Potterybarn and Anthro killed it.
  • Fabric? On Walls? I anticipate seeing more fabric wall covers of all sorts in 2030. Expect to see a rise in Persian rugs, accent rugs, and fully fabric walls. Stick-on/removable wallpaper will continue to grow in popularity and esteem.
  • Location-sensitive design. No I don’t mean that people will hang a kitschy neighborhood map in their front hall. White, grey, and blue with stainless appliances are in everywhere. Grey wood is in everywhere. Sandy tones are in everywhere. That will start to change. People will start to take regional cues. Colors and uses of space will be defined by the geography and needs of the area.
  • Smaller Rooms (at least in the north). Similar to the point above, the trend toward sustainability will infect home design. Big open floor plan houses with 10 ft ceilings and a ton of exposed metal are hard to cool and heat. Home design will start to incorporate smaller spaces with zoned HVAC to better serve the environment.
  • Funky Floors. Vinyl floors are back and there is no reason they need to look like wood. This trend will start with wood grain look that includes a few Easter eggs and transition into funky patterned floors.
  • Wood Paneled Walls. Sorry Bamboo, I’m not talking about you. Dark wood paneling and billiards green. Name a more iconic duo. Like Bill and Ted, these two took some time off but expect to see them back and better than ever in 2030.
  • No, tech will not be embedded. Internet of things will still exist, but only in accessories, not embedded into the home itself. You will have a “smart” lightbulb, but not smart wiring for all lights. Technology growth outpaces home design so it will never make sense to build a truly “smart” home. Sorry, Disney.

All of these predictions point to a larger trend away from cool, minimalist interiors with lots of negative space into warmer, more personalized and intermate spaces. People from very warm climates will likely keep their large rooms designed for airflow, but will incorporate the spirit of this trend through warmer vinyl flooring and fabric wall accents.

Legal, Observations

What Firemen and the Military Get Right

pollywannamath

A building is burning; inside an elderly couple is struggling to survive. A group of firefighters arrive on scene. Seeing the fire, they decide the elderly couple are likely to die and drive away.

The United States is on the precipice of war, the military is on alert and readies all troops, aircraft, and ships. Before the enemy can attack, the entire US military evacuates to allied nations. The US is bombed and US citizens pay the price.

Both scenarios are unbelievable. The military and firemen understand that they exist to protect the citizenry. I expect that both groups would be willing to face a greater chance of dying at a chance save a US citizen. Firemen and members of the US military take place in a social contract where their lives are valued less than the lives of other US citizens. For that reason, we celebrate these civil servants; they value their lives less than they value the lives of an average citizen.

Are police civil servants? Did they sign the same contract? Obviously not, although I’m not sure how the police ended up in a different position in the societal priority stack. In contrast to the military or firemen, we value police lives higher than the lives of other US citizens. As evidence of this claim, we need only to look at rates of police deaths vs deaths caused by police in the US. In 2018, 106 police officers died on duty (an increase over the year before). In contrast, in the same year, police killed 582 people--in California alone… Nationally the police killed over 900 people. I could never point to a statistic where US firefighters killed 8 citizens with fire per one citizen saved. It’s evident that society values police lives at over an 8:1 ratio in favor of police lives.

Is that because police arrest criminals and firefighters save innocents? I hope not. If that were the case than the US should abolish the innocent until proven guilty standard. It should not be up to the court of public opinion to determine the position of a police officer compared to the life of an alleged criminal.

Is it possible that the police have only killed alleged criminals that pose an imminent existential threat to numerous, non-police citizens? Sure it is possible that it is sometimes the case, but it wouldn’t explain the death of George Floyd (see Protests for more info).

What am I advocating? I’d like to see the US reprioritize where police fit in the societal priority stack. Disarming traffic cops is not a radical proposition when compared to the expectations of firemen and our military. I am not advocating for the total removal of police or creating a government that is unable to protect its citizens. In fact, I am advocating the opposite, a police force that kills more than is killed is incapable of protecting us.

Observations

What Changed?

pollywannamath

In my last post concerning the Minneapolis protests, I said that this time feels different. Is it different because people no longer blame themselves for their material position or position in society?

Kurt Vonnegut describes the American Dream in Slaughterhouse Five:

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, ‘It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.’ It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: ‘if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?’ There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.”

Criticizing the quote, or that I chose Vonnegut as my reference point is easy. Maybe its warranted, but why have the protests persisted? Maybe its just a result of the COVID lockdowns, but maybe the Vonnegut passage was once more true than it is now.

Uncategorized

How to think about the Twin Cities (Protest Series 3 of 3)

pollywannamath

I started this series by admitting that I am not the right person to discuss the experiences of those who led to the protests for equal justice. I am not equipped to speak to the structural and systemic mistreatment of black people in this country. This post has been the hardest for me to write, because I planned to focus only on the tactical elements of the current civil unrest, now that appears calloused and ignorant. Although I still plan to focus on the tactics and lessons learned from the first two posts in this series (Please read 1 and 2 first), I must start by acknowledging my full support for the current protest and for criminal justice reform in the United States.

Minnesota Goddamn. Although I don’t have the data to support my claim long term, this round feels different. Most Americans support the protests over the killing of George Floyd. That wasn’t true during the Ferguson protests. Hopefully this time brings substantive policy change. For the rest of this post, I won’t spend much time on the background of the protests. Watch the video of his death, it’s more powerful than what I will provide.   

Why would this time be different? 

It seems like the nation protests for equal justice every couple of years to little benefit; is it my optimism or are there valid reasons to be excited this time? 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 saw national protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Often these protests resulted in an offending police officer fired, they did not result in systemic change.  

There are a few reasons that this time is likely different:

To phrase my list as a story: This time will be different because we have a ton of young adults that have no jobs to prevent them from attending protests, do not need to choose between civil protest and bars/restaurants/sporting events, want to leave their house and do something, have watched a number of atrocities committed by police and have finally internalized the message “Black Lives Matter” and are not worried about the political ramifications of speaking out because they hate the US president and have the lowest trust in government of their lives. 

What could prevent change?

There are two primary risks that may prevent change:

  • COVID lockdowns cease and it becomes harder to convince masses to protest at scheduled times
  • Footage of looting and rioting reduces popular support for the act of in-person protests enough to weaken the entire “Black Lives Matter” momentum

In both cases the result of the risk realised is that the protests and movement once again become a “black” issue without enough popular support to affect change. Unfortunately these two risks cannot be mitigated by the movement. Protest organizers cannot prevent governments from opening to disincentivize protests and even if 100% of people that protest are peaceful, there will be others who want to capitalize on the mass of people (e.g. agent provocateurs, social media opportunists, and criminals hoping to steal) that will result in riot footage. If the two risks above are avoided, there are others to be aware of:

  • Over-willingness to compromise
  • Nebulous aims prevent focused change
  • Over-politicization of the movement
  • Discouragement due to lack of progress
  • Hope that things will improve with time

Of the additional risks, the last one is the most subtle and perhaps the most concerning. After a spike in 2015, shootings by police have fallen each year. The Wall Street Journal already published an opinion denying a widespread racial bias in killings by police. For those that are lukewarm allies, finding incremental improvement may serve as a drop-off point for their support.

Lessons to Apply:

The first two posts in the series provide a framework for mitigating the major and minor risks to the justice equality and black lives matter movements. The Hong Kong protests have continued, unwaveringly for a year. They promise to continue unless five goals are met. Malcolm X’s legacy remains a topic of debate for the general public, but there is a reason that he stands out in a movement full of brilliant leaders fighting for positive change. 

What are the lessons from those posts that should be applied to the protests in the US?

  • Make the goals of the protest and the movement widely known
  • Make clear demands that can be reasonably met
    • Ensure all centrally planned activities relate to the goals and demands of the protests
  • Continuously produce content that is easy for the general public to digest and share
  • Protest for and not against
  • Do not rely on politics alone
  • Give society a worse alternative to your demands

The protests in Hong Kong have perfectly adapted to a world of social media. The protesters came to a consensus on five demands and have remained remarkably consistent for over a year. Each week I see new videos of the protesters dealing with tear gas, being held subject to a new law, or sharing new social media posts. These updates keep the protests relevant and digestible. The fact that the protesters only have five demands that all could reasonably be met by China prevents extremists from co-opting their message. The five demands also allow the protests to have a defined exit criteria, preventing burnout from the protestors. 

Although in all protests one expects to see us vs them language, popular support will coalesce behind messages for something. In this case protesting for equal justice and reform will hold more public support than protesting against the police. With a generally accepted message and clear demands the movement can grow without being attached to the worst conduct of a protest. 

To this point in the framework, I’ve focused on making the movement something that will keep and maintain public support, but I don’t want to lose the lessons that we should take from Malcolm X. Be prepared for the protests to get worse and don’t fully distance the movement from the looting and negative outcomes. I am not advocating violence, but it is clear to me that the threat of doing nothing to improve criminal justice outcomes must be greater to society as a whole than allowing the status quo to continue. Block roads, protest in busy areas, make life difficult in targeted ways even if it limits public support for the protests. The demands are reasonable. And if nothing improves by November, but a wave of Democrats are elected, don’t stop.

Unfortunately, “black” issues and concerns generally do not gain political traction after an election. There are many reasons for this and they deserve their own post (urban concentration, low % of voting pop, assumed Democratic, etc.) but elections will not solve police brutality, nor unfortunately will they solve many of the other systemic issues facing black people today. 

But have faith:

“Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.”

Uncategorized

The Role of Malcolm X (Protest Series 2 of 3)

pollywannamath

This is the second in a three-part series on the current protests. Read What’s Next for Taiwan before this post.

I went to college at a majority-white liberal arts college in small-town Indiana (probably didn’t need to include majority-white). At this majority-white college I was a member of the Malcolm X Institute of Black Studies (virtue-signaling, I know). Malcolm X, not Martin Luther King. 

As a freshman, I didn’t understand why the college would glorify Malcolm X. Now it seems obvious. Early this year, Netflix released a documentary, “Who Killed Malcolm X?” The documentary spiked interest in Malcolm X at the beginning of the year and surfaced the debate about his legacy that has raged for more than 50 years. 

As a freshman in college, I considered Malcolm X as a violent radical. A foil for the saintly Malcolm Luther King. Malcolm X prevented progress. MLK fostered change.

Malcolm X scared white America. Malcolm X scared Christian Americans. The Civil Rights movement coincided with the Vietnam and Algerian Wars abroad. The Vietnam War first saw the integration of white and black troops. The Algerian War proved that black people could fight for, and win, independence and equality from an empire. Black militarization domestically led to a series of gun laws aimed at limiting black gun ownership.  

Malcolm X desired more than integration, he fought for equality. He was willing to fight by any means necessary, violence was a tool–but it was not the only tool. Now we arrive at the thesis for this post: Martin Luther King and the peaceful civil rights movement would not have been successful without organizers such as Malcolm X demanding more and threatening to use any means necessary. 

Martin Luther King strove for equality, but chose tactical battlegrounds (integration of schools, businesses, and police protection). He was willing to work with lawmakers and civic leaders for incremental progress toward a grand vision. Malcolm X was not, Malcolm X rejected the label of a civil rights activist because “if one is a citizen, one should not have to fight for one’s civil rights.” He rejected any movement that strove for incremental change. By challenging integration as a primary goal, Malcolm X threatened to undermine the tenuous support that mainstream civil rights leaders were receiving from the government and white liberals (the Guardian). 

American leaders were presented with two options: work with Martin Luther King and improve the relative position of the black community, or face a community that will fight, unrelenting and by any means necessary, for equality. Not just equal rights, but equality. In Malcolm X’s words, “the people need to listen to Dr. King, or they will have to listen to my alternative.” 

The people heeded that advice. Malcolm X’s legacy remains tarnished because the “people” grew to accept MLK’s path forward. A nonviolent, incremental path. Would the “people” have grown to accept MLK if Malcolm X (and others) did not present a worse alternative?

I recognize the view stated above is reductionist, and fails to recognize the struggles of the black community, the atrocities committed by a ruling party, and the need for incremental change; however, it was not stated to minimize the experience of the black community. The goal of this post is to provide a framework, based on my thesis, to think about social change:

People will always do what is convenient and comfortable. One cannot expect people in power to relinquish that power based on their own virtues if it will lessen their status and their comfort. Change requires stimulus and the threat of worse outcomes given the status quo.

Continued in part 3: How to think about the Twin Cities (Protest Series 3 of 3)