Draft chapter for ‘Transformation Design’ by Wolfganag Jonas (BIRD, 2015) Collecve Metamorphosis: A combinatorial approach to transformaon design John Wood Emeritus Professor of Design Goldsmiths, University of London maxripple@gmail.com Can we design transformaon? This chapter argues that suitably trained designers could help policians address the problems of climate change and biodiversity losses. We live in a stridently humanisc world in which governments find it almost impossible to look beyond the short-term expediencies of polics. Their tools for change (e.g. legislaon, taxaon and the seng of targets) are too abstract or circuitous to be effecve (Meadows, 1999). However, although design can influence behaviour with a more direct and appealing approach it may need some re-designing. Aſter many aempts to make design greener, what we have learned is that piecemeal reforms are not enough. We have had a hundred years of eco-design and the world is geng worse. This is not to say that previous approaches were weak or dumb. Rather, they were weakened, or dumbed down, by the strength of prevailing economic forces. For example, we cannot 'design' human behaviour in the way we design products or services. By working with policians and sciensts, perhaps we could develop a methodology of transformaon design that makes ecological futures more imaginable, meaningful, desirable and aainable. This is an ambious idea. paradigms resist change because they are sustained by many vested interests and other enes that depend on them. Transformaon processes tend to make their own rules and boundaries, which probably means that it could only be controlled on a collecve basis (c.f. Kelly, 1994). If so, perhaps transformaon design would inspire a viable form of ‘creave democracy’ (c.f. Dewey, 1939; Jones, 1998). The need for self-transformaon Surprisingly, aſter a hundred thousand years of reckless behaviour (Ponng, 1991), our species is sll here. Perhaps this explains why we tend to see our bad habits as normal. Nonetheless, many sciensts are concerned that our lifestyles will trigger irreversible climate change (Lovelock, 2006), and exacerbate the current rate of species exncons (Leakey & Lewin, 1996; WWF, 2014). However, this scenario contrasts sharply with mainstream polical rhetoric. Whereas environmentalists see the world as a sensive ecosystem that includes Homo sapiens, governments like to present it as a hierarchy of economies in perpetual compeon. What we need is a vision of future prosperity that is ecologically viable (Jackson, 2009). Instead, what policians offer us is 100% employment and an economic system that measures its success in the number of transacons, irrespecve of how destrucve they are. Making currency systems bigger makes outward investment quicker, easier and more profitable. However, this dissipates collecve wealth in countless covert transacons (Douthwaite, 1992). Instead of designing our cies for diversity and access (Jones et al., 2010) we opt for mobility and speed. This forces us to work harder, just to maintain our sprawling transport industry. Economists and accountants hide the dysfunconal nature of the whole system in the dubious claim that economic growth is essenal (Douthwaite, 1992; Jackson, 2009). Corporaons then answer this call by increasing the net throughput of materials, money and energy (Meadows, Randers & Meadows, 2004). Only a transformave approach can put things right, and the best way to achieve this is by sharing visions, rather than offering dubious choices (c.f. Meadows, 1999). page 1