About
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Accounts
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
February 20 2012
Surviving Progress
Click here to view the embedded video.
Montreal filmmakers Mathieu Roy and Harold Crooks’ documentary feature, Surviving Progress presents the story of human advancement and reveals the risk of running the 21st century’s software — our know-how — on the ancient hardware of our primate brain which hasn’t been upgraded in 50,000 years. It is up to us to prove that making apes smarter was not an evolutionary dead-end.
Thanks Linda.
February 19 2012
Edible Implants
Why turn to implants when the female body can do it by itself? Dutch designer Femke Mosch came up with the idea of making edible implants that stimulate breast growth from within.
February 18 2012
Any Sufficiently Advanced Civilization is Indistinguishable from Nature
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” [1]
In Western cultures, nature is a cosmological, primal ordering force and a terrestrial condition that exists in the absence of human beings. Both meanings are freely implied in everyday conversation. We distinguish ourselves from the natural world by manipulating our environment through technology. In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly proposes that technology behaves as a form of meta-nature, which has greater potential for cultural change than the evolutionary powers of the organic world alone.
With the advent of ‘living technologies’ [2], which possess some of the properties of living systems but are not ‘truly’ alive, a new understanding of our relationship to the natural and designed world is imminent. This change in perspective is encapsulated in Koert Van Mensvoort’s term ‘next nature’, which implies thinking ‘ecologically’, rather than ‘mechanically’. The implications of next nature are profound, and will shape our appreciation of humanity and influence the world around us.
The Universe of Things, by the British science fiction writer Gwyneth Jones (2010) [3] takes the idea of an ecological existence to its logical extreme. She examines an alien civilization whose technology is intrinsically alive. Tools are extrusions of the alien’s own biology and extend into their surroundings through a wet, chemical network.
The idea of existing in a vibrant, organic habitat is an increasingly realistic prospect as living technologies are now being designed to counter the ravages of global industrialization. These can even be implemented at a citywide scale. For example, Arup’s Songdo International Business District, in South Korea, is being built on 1,500 acres of land reclaimed from the Yellow Sea. Incorporating rainwater irrigation and a seawater canal, this design suggests that the building industry is aspiring to use living technologies to revitalize urban environments via geoengineering. The Korean artist Do Ho Suh had proposed to build a bridge that connects his homes in Seoul and New York by harnessing natural forces and using synthetic biologies to literally ‘grow’ a trans-Pacific bridge.
The apparent science fictional nature of ecological-scale projects has prompted science fiction author Karl Schroeder to observe that the large-scale harnessing of ecologies might explain our current lack of success in encountering advanced alien civilizations. Schroeder explains the Fermi Paradox – the apparent contradiction between the likelihood that extraterrestrial civilizations exist and the lack of evidence for them – by speculating that we have not yet encountered our cosmic neighbors because they are indistinguishable from their native ecology.
“Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from nature.”
Despite our visions and desires for a more ecologically integrated kind of technology, the scientific paradigm, which underpins technological development, considers the world to be a machine. Ecologist Fern Wickson argues that humans are intertwined in a complex web of biological systems and cannot be included within a definition of nature where “an atom bomb becomes as ‘natural’ as an anthill” and wonders whether there is a better definition of nature [4].
Changing the definition of nature is not the solution to Wikson’s conundrum. The scientific method is actually responsible for this paradox. If the problem of human connectedness to the natural world is to be resolved, then science itself needs to change. Modern science relies on ‘natural laws’ that use mathematical proofs and the metaphor of machines to convey its universal truths. In the 1950s Robert Rosen observed that when physics is used to describe biology, a generalization occurs that distorts reality [5].
Alan Turing noted in his essay on morphogenesis that mathematical abstraction couldn’t capture the richness of the natural world [6]. Life is a complex system that is governed by a variety of unique processes that machines simply do not possess. Life responds to its environment, constantly changes with time and is made up of functional components that enables life the ability to self-regulate [7]. Complexity challenges the epistemological basis on which modern science and industry are grounded.
So what does complex science mean for our relationship with nature? Are we separate from or intrinsically connected to the natural world? In a complex system we are both. Our actions through technology are intrinsically governed by the physical and chemical constraints of the terrestrial environment, yet we also possess agency and a capacity to modify our surroundings. But if we are connected to nature, then is Wikson right that our propensity to innovate through technology becomes a meaningless idea?
Science Fiction author and cultural commentator Bruce Sterling proposes a further play on Clarke’s dictum and wryly observes that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from its garbage.”
You’ve got to hand it to Sterling – his observational powers are immaculate! Garbage explains how we can be connected to nature – but not in an unlimited way. We subjectively distinguish ourselves from the natural world by ‘editing’ our networks through the process of making garbage. We choose what is important to us by applying cultural, rather than material criteria, which does not lend itself to empirical measurement. Turing had already grasped the importance of personal bias in dealing with complex systems and devised the ‘Imitation Game’ to address the conundrum of intelligence, which evaded an easy empirical solution. This is now more popularly know as the ‘Turing Test’ and is now being used more widely to fathom complex systems and to identify ‘life’ [8].
Suppose then, that scientist observes distant aliens that are so highly advanced that their technology works in concert with the generative natural forces of their planet. Using our current empirical methods of observation, scientists will note the alien landscapes, but they will not be able to discriminate the meaning that is flowing within its organizing networks. Yet the flow and structure of information within the planetary terrain is of vital importance in establishing just exactly what is technology, what is garbage and what is ‘life’. The issue here is how can we ‘prove’ meaning? Currently we do not have the right tools, materials and methods that enable us to ask the ‘why’ questions that Aristotle was so fond of, and which could be most revealing in this context [9].
The development of living technologies and the cultural questions that Next Nature asks are important steps to be taken along the journey towards a more ecological kind of human development. Until complex technologies can be built and deduced from their meaning: Any sufficiently advanced civilization will be indistinguishable from its nature – and also from its garbage.
Image via Zeutch.
[1]Clarke, A.C. (1973) Clarke’s Third Law, quoted from the essay Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination in Profiles of the Future, Harper and Row, p. 21.
[2] Bedau, M., (2009). Living Technology Today and Tomorrow, Special Issue: Living Buildings: Plectic Systems Architecture, Technoetic Arts A Journal of Speculative Research, Volume 7, Number 2, Intellect Books, pp.199-206.
[3] Jones, Gwyneth (2010). The Universe of Things. Seattle: Aqueduct Press.
[4] Fern Wickson, “What is nature, if it’s more than just a place without people?”, Nature 456, 29 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456029b. 2. Editorial, “Handle with care,” Nature 455, 263-264 (18 September 2008) | doi:10.1038/455263b.
[5] Rosen, R. 1996. “On the limits of Scientific knowledge” in /Boundaries and barriers:on the limits to scientific knowledge./ (J. L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, eds.). Reading: Addison-Wesley. pp199-214.
[6] Turing, A.M. (1952). The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis, /Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, /Vol. 237, No. 641. (Aug. 14, 1952), pp. 37-72.
[7] Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela. 1980. /Autopoieses and cognition: The realization of the living. /Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
[8] L. Cronin, N. Krasnogor, B.G. Davis, C. Alexander, N. Robertson, J.H.G. Steinke, S.L.M. Schroeder, A.N. Khlobystov, G. Cooper, P.M. Gardner, P. Siepmann, B.J. Whitaker, D. Marsh,. (2006) “The imitation game—a computational chemical approach to recognizing life” Nature Biotech., 2006, 24, 1203-1205.
[9]Rosen, R. 1996. “On the limits of Scientific knowledge” in /Boundaries and barriers:on the limits to scientific knowledge./ (J. L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, eds.). Reading: Addison-Wesley. pp199-214.
February 11 2012
Tuur van Balen – Hacking Yoghurt
Click here to view the embedded video.
While most people think biotechnology is complex, expensive and exclusively practiced in fancy lab settings, designer Tuur van Balen argues it is actually quite accessible. He demonstrates his vision on DIY biotechnology by creating an ‘anti-depressant yoghurt’ on stage.
February 09 2012
Evolution is Blind
…thus it walks into a lot of dead alleys. Peculiar image of the week.
February 01 2012
Bonobos (And Maybe Baboons) Domesticated Themselves
While evidence indicates that humans domesticated themselves, we’re not the only primates capable of self-domestication. Bonobos and baboons have shown they are just as capable of turning a kinder, gentler, and more cuddly culture into hardwired changes in their genomes.
Bonobos, aka the “sexy ape”, look a lot like chimpanzees and share the same forest habitat. It stands to reason that they should be similar in most other regards, but the two species are wildly different. On a physical level, bonobos have smaller skulls and canine teeth, but their greatest differences lie in the social realm. Bonobos are the laid-back lovers compared to the chimpanzee’s neurotic warmongers.
Bonobos spend more time playing and grooming than chimps. They have sex for just about any reason: so say hello, to solve conflicts, to celebrate finding food. A “bonobo handshake” is not how humans would want to start a business meeting. In the bonobo’s reduced physical stature and playful spirit, researchers have recently recognized the same changes that occurred when wolves became dogs, or when aurochs became cattle. But while dogs needed humans for domestication, bonobos have done it all on their own.
What distinguishes bonobos from their chimp cousins is food availability. Duke University anthropologist Brian Hare argues that bonobos have gorillas, or their absence, to thank for their peaceful lives. One million to two million years ago, the newly formed Congo River split the proto-bonobo-chimps into two populations. The northern population had to compete with gorillas for scarce food. This created an aggressive, scheming culture that eventually lead to Machiavellian lifestyle of the modern chimpanzee. The lucky southern population got to keep all the leaves and fruits to themselves. This abundance of resources lead to a culture of happy-go-lucky apes that, over the course of a million years, evolved into today’s bonobos.
If this process of speciation by culture seems far-fetched, a similar process has been underway for the last three decades in Kenya’s savannah. In 1983, an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis lead to a permanent change in the social structure of a troop of olive baboons. The dominant males in the so-called Forest Troop were the only baboons aggressive enough to venture to the trash heap of a tourist lodge and fight over scraps of meat tainted with tuberculosis. Every last one of the troop’s most aggressive members kneeled over dead from bad beef.
The survivors found themselves in something of a baboon utopia. Subordinate males and females were no longer subject to the violent moods and giant canines of the alphas. The Forest Troop spent more time grooming each other, and sat closer together when they were relaxing. The benefits extended all the way down to the most subordinate baboons, who showed significantly lowered levels of stress hormones.
This fascinating cultural shift has persisted for thirty years, even though aggressive, outsider males have continually moved into the troop. Though no active teaching takes place, the outsider males appear to learn the joys of non-violence all on their own, probably because females prefer to spend more time with companions that don’t bite.
As of now, there’s no evidence that the Forest Troop has changed genetically, or that it will persist given the pressure from other baboons. However, if the Forest Troop became geographically isolated, or if their culture could be transmitted to other troops, a million years or so might be sufficient to create a cuter, kinder monkey: the baboon version of the bonobo.
The case of the stress-free baboons may indicate that in the lack of savage competition for resources, highly social primates naturally gravitate towards what feels good. Maybe even early humans realized they’d rather spend their time talking, singing, and having recreational sex than ripping each other apart.
Photo by Lens Envy, LaggedOnUser, and Wikipedia.
January 08 2012
Fake Leaf is Twice as Efficient as the Real Thing
Improving on photosynthesis has long been a dream for scientists. The so-called artificial leaf – which wouldn’t necessarily look like one – would run on only solar energy and CO2, just like a normal leaf. But unlike a real leaf, an artificial leaf could be made far more efficient at collecting solar energy, and would turn that energy into electricity.
With their new ‘bionanodevice’, researchers at the University of Michigan have moved one step closer to that goal. Splicing together proteins from cynobacteria, Synechococcus, and Clostridium with nano-scale wire, they have created a frankenstein device that is more efficient at photosynthesis than any of the bacteria on their own. Their research joins recent efforts at MIT, where scientists have developed a ‘leaf’ that produces hydrogen from water and sunlight.
Fake leaves producing real energy are still a way off, since producing nanodevices cheap and tough enough for mass production will prove difficult. Even though these devices are double the efficiency of natural leaves, they still only convert 4 to 5% of solar energy into useable electricity. Artificial photosynthesis may have to triple the efficiency of actual plants in order to compete with more conventional means of producing electricity.
Image of MIT artificial leaf via Geek.com
January 07 2012
What is Next Nature?
Click here to view the embedded video.
At the Next Nature Power Show 2011, our master of ceremony Koert Van Mensvoort, gave a mini lecture on our changing notion of Nature. Where technology and nature are traditionally seen as opposed, they now appear to merge or even trade places. Time to explore how we can design, build and live in a nature caused by people. More powershow video’s ahead!
January 04 2012
Protocell Shoe Mends Itself
The self-repairing sole is a dynamic solution to an everyday problem.
The ‘proto-sole’ is suitable for all footwear ranging from mainstream consumer trainers to haute couture footwear. It consists of a fluid reservoir, like a bubble, which is situated in the heel of the shoe, where the ingredients to make the active agents ‘protocells’ are pumped by the foot and mixed on demand as they leave the storage vessel. The newly formed protocells move through the spongy sole of the shoe where they are delivered to and activated at sites of wear and tear.
Protocells are a form of organic hardware that is not technically ‘alive’ since they do not possess any DNA. Yet they are capable of life-like behaviour that draws from the self-organizing potential of their ingredients. In keeping with Stuart Kauffman’s notion of ‘order for free,’ the protocells are equipped with remarkable, emergent properties such as, movement, sensitivity and the production of microstructures.
Protocells can be chemically programmed, using the hardware as a storage vessel to distribute other chemistries over time, space and according to their context. The added chemicals can be thought of as protocell ‘software’. In the case of the proto-sole, substances are added that enable protocells to lay down repair substances that are activated by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which dissolves into the moist sole fabric. Abrasion of the shoe diverts the flow of protocells to the most active areas of the sole where a chemical reaction is activated to produce a solid layer.
Since protocells cannot (yet) self-replicate, a quick top-up of the chamber in the heel is possible by inserting a nozzle through a one-way valve in the heel and squeezing in replenishing fluid, which can be purchased from any supermarket. Refills are often found beside the salad dressing in the ‘food hall,’ rather than ‘household’ items, as their ingredients are classed and taxed as foodstuffs being made up of oil, water, and salt. They come in a number of varieties that offer a choice of sole substances that can be mixed and matched to consumer tastes: non-slip, extra-durable, heat-producing, gas-releasing for added comfort, scented, brightly coloured, or even glow-in-the-dark for those who wish to leave a trail of luminescent footprints behind them.
Proto-soles are at their earliest stages of product development but as protocell research progresses, protocell shoes will be capable of forms of material computing such as, being able to adapt to different terrains to provide new levels of shoe comfort with added functionality. Perhaps the ‘killer’ heel will no longer be the destroyer of knee joints but become an ungulate extension of them – one that we simply wouldn’t leave home without.
These shoes can be considered an example of ‘protocell shoe’ aesthetics. Designed and made by Michael Wihart.
December 22 2011
One Chicken Feeds 100 People
Our peculiar image of the week is not what it seems. Rather than a man with a gigantic chicken on a leash, you are looking at a normal chicken with an incredibly shrunken man standing next to it.
Really? No, its all fantasy. Part of the incredible shrinking man project by Arne Hendriks, who investigates the possibilities of downsizing the human species to better fit the earth. Today, Arne will be cooking an 45 kilogram Ostrich at Stroom in the Hague, which should give the 100 diner guest an experience on what it would be to be only 50cm tall and share one chicken.
November 19 2011
Human Nature Forecast
Click here to view the embedded video.
The video team of TEDxAmsterdam caught me mid-production and forced me to sit on a chair to respond to their upcoming conference theme: Human Nature. We discussed how people are technological by nature, yet how we also need humane technology to remain human, or become even more human than we are today.
TEDxAmsterdam is held on the 25th of November in the city theater of Amsterdam.
November 04 2011
Razorius Gillettus in NRC Next
Dutch newspaper NRC Next features a shortened version (in dutch) of the Razorius Gillettus essay, written by Koert van Mensvoort. Download the scan. A longer version of the essay (in english) can be read here.
November 01 2011
Technology: The 7th Kingdom of Life
Click here to view the embedded video.
Prior to the forthcoming Next Nature Power Show in Amsterdam, we share some videos of presentations at earlier next nature events.
At our 2008 Powershow in Los Angeles founding editor of Wired Magazine, Kevin Kelly, talked about the nature of technology. Kevin proposes to define technology as the 7th Kingdom of Life. According to Kelly, “Our entire system of technology is now so complex that it forms a tangled ecology of ideas and devices which support each other. Human mind, so essential for its birth, play a decreasing role.”
October 30 2011
Ancient man impacted environment already
The human environmental impact on our planet is hardly underestimated nowadays. Scientist agree humans are to blame for Global Warming – some are already dreaming up scenario’s of geo-engineering to undo the damage. Untouched old nature is almost nowhere to be found anymore besides perhaps some small areas on the South pole, in the deep sea or if one looks up at the stars – although the brighter ones may well be satellites. “We were here”, is written all over. So when did the writing begin? Much earlier than thought.
According to the common perception the human impact on the environment is fairly recent and thought to have started in concert with the 19th centuries industrial revolution. Presumably, in earlier times humans lived in harmony with their environment. That popular romantic view however, is increasingly being challenged.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEGAN MUCH EARLIER THAN THOUGHT
Various evidence exist that humans already in the Stone Age, wiped out many animal species in places as varied as the mountains of New Zealand and the plains of North America. Around 2,000 years ago, when the aboriginal Polynesians arrived in Hawaii, over half of the native species of birds became extinct. Some even argued humans are to blame for the extinction of Neanderthaler man.
And the crime scene continues: According to a recent book on the Human Impact on Ancient Marine Ecosystems, edited by Torben C. Rick and Jon M. Erlandson, early human influence wasn’t limited to the extinction of other species: people already influenced whole eco-systems tens of thousands of years ago. People who lived on California’s Channel Islands as much as 13,000 years ago left behind piles of shells and bones, called middens, that offer clues to how they altered their landscape. The Anthropologists found shell middens full of sea urchins, implying that the sea urchins became abundant when hunting depleted the sea otters that prey on them. In turn, the sea urchins would have severely damaged the underwater forests of kelp on which they fed. “Human influence is pretty pervasive,” one of the authors, Torben C. Rick, said in an interview with the New York Times.
Luckily not all the effects of early inhabitants were negative. “When people in the Channel Islands hunted otters, they presumably ended up increasing the abundance of shellfish. The researchers also cite systems of walls and terraces that people in the Pacific Northwest built to trap sediment and create habitat for clams, which they harvested and ate.”
CATALYSTS OF EVOLUTION
These discoveries of early influence of humans on the environment might shed another light our position in nature. Unlike other animals, mankind has never been placed in an environment to which he is specifically equipped. While other animals have specific organs, skills and reflexes that enable them to survive in their proper environment, people are cultural beings by nature.
So, instead of feeling fundamentally guilty about our influence on our environment and finding ways to limit and undo our footprint we might as well take pride and responsibility in who we are: catalysts of evolution. That may sound bombastic, yet this does not mean we are controlling the universe – quite the contrary. In our attempts to cultivate old nature, we cause the rising of a next nature, which is wild and unpredictable as ever: Nature changes along with us. For better or worse, we can be sure of one thing: we will get the nature we deserve.
Image: Banksy. NYTimes article: Ancient man hurt coasts, paper says. Time article: Did Humans Kill Neanderthalers? Related: Exploring Next Nature, Join the Neolitic Revolution, Doggerland – mapping a lost world, If the implications of Global Warming were fair, Humans to blame for global warming.
October 28 2011
Earth 2.0 with Rachel Armstrong
Click here to view the embedded video.
Forthcoming Next Nature Power Show speaker, Rachel Armstrong describes some of the differences between so-called Earth 1.0 and Earth 2.0 technologies. The video is especially recommended for connoisseurs of fortissimo synthesizer music. If this is not you, you can also read Rachel’s Self-Repairing Architecture essay.
October 03 2011
E.Coli produced Spider Silk
In a previous post we have reported on spider silk, it’s applications and the way it is produced. Adding the gene responsible for the production of the spider silk protein to other animals has given us silkworms and spidergoats that produce spider silk. We can now ad a harmless version of E.Coli to the spider silk production list.
Via Physorg. Image via University of California.
September 26 2011
Next Nature lecture: Gardening Complexity
No, the peculiar image above was not created by an in vitro fertilized child from the combined DNA of Escher, Mondrian and Pollock, but rather by 21th century designer Remco van Bladel. The dazzling image is part of the visual identity of the ongoing Patterns and Pleasure Festival organized by Steim in Amsterdam.
Recommended for both musicians as well as economists – if you happen to be in the neighborhood – do visit the Next Nature lecture at the Gardening Complexity symposium. Contrary to the modernistic approach of simplifying through modeling, we must now embrace complexity and guide its growth. Word up.
September 25 2011
Phone camouflage
In twenty years, the mobile phone has become man’s closest utensil. Can you imagine living without this umbilical box? Too bad it’s often still a box that we hold to our ears…
Not if it’s up to the CollabCuped-shop: Its jolly Phone camouflage wraps the technology into a second skin. Hold it like if you are scribbling your cheek.
September 19 2011
Deus Ex: The EyeBorg Documentary
Back in 2009 Rob Spence, a cyborg film maker, worked together with a team of ocularists, inventors, engineering specialists on a prosthetic eye which can capture and stream video. He then started the project: EyeBorg.
Commissioned by the makers of ‘Deus Ex: Human Revolution‘, a game which tells the story of the year 2027 where cyborgs are the norm, he needed to figure out how far we currently are from that future. In his 12 minute documentary he meets leading scientists in biotechnology and fellow cyborgs. It shows we are not far from a future where cyborgs are the norm.
Rob says: “People are going to have the option of having superior arms, superior eyes at some point. People say no one would ever cut off their own arm and replace it, but if the technology gets there – and it looks like it will – people will think about it. They might be early adopters.”
September 12 2011
Bulletproof Skin
Recent work of artist Jalila Essaïdi exemplifies of how science and art can meet and create meaningful inventions for society. Jalila Essaïdi used the spider silk produced by Randy Lewis’ goats to develop a partially bulletproof supernatural human skin.
The goal of the project is to “Improve the sense of security”. The project raises questions as: How far do we want to go, as individuals and society in general, to feel secure? With this project Jalila Essaïdi is one of the three winners of the Designer and Artists 4 Genomics (DA4G) Award 2010, an initiative by the Centre for Society and Genomics and Waag Society’s Wetlab to stimulate young artists and designers to work with living organisms, living tissues and biotechnology (bio-arts). The money attached to this award gave Jalila Essaïdi the opportunity to make prototypes of the skin and test these at a firing range. The Bulletproof Skin and the other winning projects are exhibited until January 8th 2012 in the museum of the Dutch centre of biodiversity Naturalis.
The human/spidersilk skin was developed in cooperation with the academic medical centre in Leiden (LUMC). The regular production process of the lab-grown skin was a little changed to be able to grow a skin with spidersilk. During a regular production process of lab-grown skin, a raster is made out of bio degradable material. Next, this raster is seeded with human skin cells. For the human/spidersilk skin, the material used for the raster was replaced by spidersilk produced by Lewis’ goats. In theory, the human/spidersilk skin can be transplanted to a human body.
2.6g 329 m/s is the name of the project and refers to the standard maximum weight and speed of a bullet that a bulletproof vest class I should be able to resist. To test the strength of the “bulletproof skin”, it was attached to a block of gelatin which was in structure similar to the human muscles. First, a gunshot was fired with a lower speed and with the use of the half amount of powder. The skin survived this gunshot and the bullet was stuck in the epidermis of the skin. Secondly, the 2.6g 329 m/s bullet was fired, which unfortunately went through the skin and the gelatin block. This prototype of the human/spidersilk skin does not stop a 2.6g 329 m/s yet, but it might will when the skin is thicker or the density of the raster structure is higher.
Via Wetenschap 24 Image Jalila Essaïdi
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
