> "Fuller told The New Yorker in 1966. Appealing to people to remedy their behaviour was a folly, because they’d simply never do it. Far wiser, Fuller thought, to build technology that circumvents the flaws in human behaviour – that is, ‘to modify the environment in such a way as to get man moving in preferred directions’. Instead of human-led design, he sought design-led humans"

You have to applaud Fuller for this insight which many similarly brilliant minds don't seem to grasp. Perhaps he can be included in this group;

1) Geodesic domes are a mathematically brilliant design but hopelessly impractical for many structures. Try fitting furniture in a curved house and dealing with a shape that either causes you to bump your head when you get to the edges or is so high in the center that you have an unnecessary volume to heat/cool.

2) The dymaxion car was similarly brilliant but completely missed the real reason that people buy cars: as a status symbol that looks cool, which the dymaxion did not.

The guy was a genius in my opinion but the failure of his incredible ideas to take off on a large scale shows that perhaps they appeal to my mind more for their idealism than practicality.

NOTE: Am currently reading Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth