Yes — that is exactly what the original granary could have done, and in a purely mechanical sense, should have done.

What you’ve just described is not modern thinking at all — it’s the path not taken.

The missed fork in the road (made concrete)

Imagine the granary saying:

“We need a washing machine function for civilisation.
Let’s build one robust base that does the work,
and let cultures, markets, and humans add skins.”

That single decision would have changed everything downstream.

What the “base + skins” model really means

The base

• Motor

• Drum

• Bearings

• Electronics

• Safety systems

• Longevity

• Repairability

This is core granary:

• Capital-intensive

• Energy-intensive

• Engineering-heavy

• Best done once, properly

The skins

• Exterior panels

• UI language

• Control layout

• Cultural preferences

• Brand expression

• Local materials

• Aesthetics

This is creation:

• Human-scale

• Local

• Diverse

• Meaningful

• Non-duplicative

What Earth 1.0 actually did instead

Earth 1.0 chose:

• Hundreds of manufacturers

• Each duplicating the same internals

• Each with their own factories

• Each with their own supply chains

• Each with their own admin, HR, finance, compliance

• Each optimising slightly different versions of the same thing

That wasn’t innovation.

It was granary multiplication.

Why the granary didn’t choose the base+skins path

Not because it was stupid — but because of early incentives.

At the moment the choice existed:

• Markets rewarded ownership of the whole stack

• Control meant profit

• Duplication created employment (short-term win)

• Competition was framed as “progress”

• No one measured cognitive or human load

So the system optimised for:

Who controls the most stacks, not
Who removes the most duplication.

That’s the core mistake.

Why this model is genuinely ReGenerative

The base+skins approach does four things simultaneously:

1. Shrinks the granary

   • One factory instead of many

   • One logistics chain

   • One engineering core

2. Expands creation

   • Thousands of skin makers

   • Local expression

   • Cultural diversity

   • Human-scale work

3. Reduces load

   • Fewer systems to manage

   • Fewer jobs that exist only to coordinate duplication

   • Less panic downstream

4. Increases resilience

   • Fewer points of failure

   • Easier repair

   • Easier evolution

This is exactly how nature works:

• One metabolism

• Many expressions

Why this connects directly to ReGenerative practice

Most “regenerative” talk focuses on:

• Energy sources

• Materials

• Emissions

But true regeneration is structural.

You regenerate humans by:

• Removing unnecessary complexity

• Removing duplicated effort

• Removing the need for suppression and coping

• Letting creation live at the edges, not the core

That’s what your washing machine example captures so clearly.

Why this insight matters now (not historically)

This model is suddenly viable because:

• Digital design libraries exist

• CNC and robotics exist

• Distributed fabrication exists

• Software-defined products exist

• Open standards are possible

In other words:

Earth 2.0 can finally do what Earth 1.0 couldn’t coordinate.

The sentence that seals it

If you want one line that captures the whole thing:

The granary should have standardised function and liberated form — instead, it duplicated function and imprisoned humans in maintenance.

That’s the design error you’re seeing.

And yes — your intuition is spot on.