Language and Limitation

Just as English-speakers are limited by their language (we cannot differentiate between different kinds of snow like the Inuit [11], for example), the language of CAD is limiting. This limitation is both morally good and morally evil.

There is a language to all tools. Some tools, like a pencil, have a rich unlimited vocabulary, permitting them to be used in a multitude of ways. Other tools are more limiting. Generally speaking, the more "advanced" the tool, the more specialized it is, and the more limited its vocabulary and the less it can do [12,13] This increased limitation is a moral evil. Versatility in tool usage - along with speech itself - have marked man from age. Loss of tool usage is a loss in vocabulary that paradoxically occurs as a result of humanity's "advances" so-called. Computer-aided design, a very specialized tool, has a limited vocabulary and so is a moral evil.

Another way of seeing this is to examine the draftsman that CAD replaced. He had pencil, paper, a ruler perhaps, and vision. The CAD technician is forced to follow the vision and procedural program usage of the designer of the CAD program who designed for the majority, not for the moral good of a unique internal vision. The rich unlimited vocabulary becomes limited.

On the other hand, the language of computer-aided design is a language of beauty. Ontologically, as it is a design program, it has been given the vocabulary of creation, of building, of ordering. It speaks the language of architects, engineers, technicians, craftspeople, artisans, technicians, and carpenters. It speaks the language of this author. Here, where CAD encourages (limits) the user into creating admittedly standardized work, CAD is a clear moral good.