Designing for Decay

Entropy, Impermanence, and the Aesthetics of Sufficiency

Photo by Alex Gruber on Unsplash

Every engineer learns, early on, that entropy always wins. Leave a system alone and it’ll drift toward disorder. Energy dissipates. Structures degrade. Materials fatigue. In physics, this is just how things work. But in most design cultures today, particularly in the Global North, we behave as if we can outwit time itself. We try to cheat decay with permanence, fortress-like construction, synthetic coatings, and sealed plastic shells. Growth societies design as if immortality were a reasonable goal.

This obsession with permanence isn’t just bad engineering; it’s a philosophical error. The real world doesn’t run on static preservation. It runs on cycles of transformation. It composts. It rots. It evolves. And if we’re serious about building for a future within planetary limits, then we need to stop treating entropy like an enemy and start designing with it in mind.

What does this mean in practice? It means designing for sufficiency instead of excess. It means letting go of the fantasy of the eternal object. And most importantly, it means making things that know how to die well.

The products of growth-driven design are easy to recognize. They gleam. They dominate. They shout, “I will last forever.” From reinforced skyscrapers to single-use electronics, the ideology is the same: resist entropy at all costs. But in reality, these objects often die prematurely, not from entropy, but from obsolescence. As sociologist Giles Slade outlined in Made to Break, planned obsolescence has been deliberately engineered into everything from cars to kitchen appliances since the early 20th century.

But there’s another way to design. Not for built-in failure, but for graceful decomposition. Consider traditional Japanese design, where impermanence is not just tolerated but honored. The concept of wabi-sabi recognizes the beauty in transience, in materials that change with time. A tea bowl that cracks, darkens, and softens with use isn’t flawed, it’s alive. It carries history. It participates in time.

Western traditions have their versions, too. Gothic cathedrals were never finished. They grew, decayed, were rebuilt, and aged with the cities around them. Even now, we admire buildings with patina, artifacts with wear, and garments with visible mending. There’s a quiet dignity in things that last just long enough.

Architect and theorist Julia Watson, in Lo—TEK: Design by Radical Indigenism, documents how Indigenous architectural practices are deeply adapted to natural cycles of degradation and renewal. In these systems, structures are expected to fade, to compost, to be rebuilt anew from the same living landscape. The goal isn’t to conquer nature, it’s to collaborate with it.

In contrast, modern “green” design often tries to bolt sustainability onto fundamentally unsustainable objects. A solar panel on a luxury yacht doesn’t make the yacht ecological. The frame, the engine, the intent, it’s still a machine built for domination, not sufficiency. What we need is a shift in the very logic of making: from longevity-at-all-costs to lifespan with context.

Let’s talk physics for a moment. The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy never decreases. This doesn’t just mean your desk gets messier. It means energy degrades in quality. Structures require effort to maintain. Nothing stays tidy without input. But nature doesn’t fight this. A leaf falls, decays, and feeds the soil. Its structure dissolves, but the matter becomes food for something else.

We could call this “planned impermanence.” Unlike planned obsolescence, which makes things fail for profit, planned impermanence designs things to transform. The material doesn’t disappear, but instead re-enters a cycle. A chair made from mycelium or hempcrete doesn’t need to last a century. It just needs to serve its function, then gracefully return to the earth.

Compostable design is catching on in some circles. In fashion, there’s been a surge of interest in garments made from fully biodegradable materials. Designers like Christien Meindertsma have experimented with single-fiber wool garments that can be disassembled, reused, or composted without synthetic contamination. This isn’t nostalgia. It’s precision. Making something simple enough to decay requires attention to every layer.

Even in technology, the idea is surfacing. The Fairphone, a modular smartphone designed to be repairable and recyclable, tries to break the cycle of endless upgrades. It’s not perfect, but it points in the right direction: materials chosen for longevity, repair as a feature, and parts designed to be swapped by hand, not soldered in secrecy.

Designing for decay doesn’t mean designing for failure. It means designing with time in mind. A structure that falls apart on schedule, and does so without poisoning the soil or the people who built it, is a triumph of engineering, not a shortcoming. It’s easy to make a thing that seems to last forever. It’s harder to make one that vanishes responsibly.

Buddhist monk and peace activist Thích Nhất Hạnh wrote, “Thanks to impermanence, everything is possible.” It’s a strange kind of freedom, but a real one. When we stop trying to lock things in place forever, we open up space for flexibility, renewal, and adaptation. You don’t need to preserve every brick if you’re willing to rebuild with care.

And here’s the kicker. Designing for decay isn’t just ethical, it’s beautiful. Weathered wood, rusted steel, and frayed edges all speak of time, use, and story. They remind us that permanence isn’t proof of value. It’s often the opposite. Monumental things tend to be monuments to ego. But things made to return, to shift, to die well? Those are monuments to life.

There’s a joke among engineers that entropy isn’t just a law, it’s a career path. Everything falls apart eventually, and someone gets paid to fix it. But maybe we don’t need to fix everything. Maybe we need to build in the awareness that some things are meant to end.

To design for sufficiency is to ask not, “How long can this last?” but “How well can this serve, and how gently can it go?” It’s to design chairs that rot, shirts that fade, buildings that breathe and crumble in rhythm with their place. This isn’t failure. It’s a different kind of success.

And in a world nearing ecological collapse, it might be our best chance at survival.

---