The main point I gathered about the planetary reference is that we live on different ‘Earths’—one represented by a globe of trade, another centered on security and conservatism (the Earth), and a future Earth planning massive migrations. People understand the planet differently, so how do we find a common, habitable place? If we are not living on the same Earth, the need for communication and exploration becomes increasingly vital. Although diplomacy might not always play a significant role, it becomes more critical when the international order is fragile. Even if the pursuit of diplomatic resonance starts off fragmented, we must not unify too swiftly as this could revert to an atmosphere dominated by the defense of interests. What we need is a new kind of diplomatic engagement, one that solves the challenge of bringing together people and issues with different stances.

From the perspective of speculative design and narrative, the author’s views are entirely accurate. Narratives require historical nodes as links to form effective content, and speculative design promotes dialogue and thought. Isn’t speculative design one of the solutions for future diplomacy? However, in the development of the discipline, some have proposed the next stage of CSD, which generally involves moving design from inspiring thought to stimulating action. Historically, design seems to have served to accommodate people’s needs and desires, so the current trajectory appears to be: serving desires, inspiring thought, and stimulating action. I used to think this iteration was an evolution, but given the current global context, I believe it is not—it should be seen as a cycle and coexistence. This is an enlarged version of a problem-solving and exploring cycle, also an expanded version of action research. Therefore, statically defining the stages of design development post-globalization is inherently problematic. How, then, should we view this cyclic coexistence from a global perspective?

During my undergraduate studies in Beijing, amidst a highly developed commercial environment, my learning was primarily aimed at problem-solving because there was a significant demand for commercial design; people’s consumer desires were not yet at their peak but were rapidly increasing. Designers were exploring the potential in various fields like the internet, exhibitions, e-commerce, mainstream entertainment, and traditional culture promotion. The market needed more designers to adopt innovative strategies that matched the times and environment to keep up with the possibilities created by established capitalist countries. Therefore, in a fast-developing commercial context, designing to solve problems was entirely rational. However, after arriving in London, I realized that the commercial consumer environment here is relatively stable. Perhaps London experienced a similar consumer boom and diverse consumer services decades ago as Beijing. In such contexts, design for consumption would evolve further. But actually, when most people, including myself, realize that an environment matches a certain type of design, society already has latent new needs. This is the dynamic nature of change.

Today’s globalization might disrupt some local tendencies, such as policy tightening on consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic and continued policy support afterwards, which could impact societal needs for design. Perhaps some developed countries will rediscover an economic vitality similar to earlier times, and in such moments, speculative design may shine once more. Research should not be limited by modernity, but studying the future detached from reality is a complex and challenging process. Yet, the concept of planetarity has furthered my understanding of the significance and necessity of exploring the future.

In complex situations, advocating action through design may indeed be meaningful, but no one can predict the future’s pace or progression. Perhaps in six months or even a month, people will be prompted to act by environmental trends, making design seem rushed and busy at the moment, but this is certainly not the predicament we desire. Thus, from this perspective, design does need to look to the future—a modernity’s future that genuinely troubles us and evolves from our problems. Perhaps compared to abstract and reality-detached explorations of artistry and origins, we should still embrace modernity, but it remains a matter of balance, much like the oft-discussed link between exploration and resolution. Keeping track of economic trends, global situations, and even regional circumstances might always be an essential part of design I hadn’t realized before.