ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature."
I posit (as a hypothesis to be borne out over time) that as technology becomes more advanced it more greatly resembles nature in its form and function. To whit: our most advanced filtration systems use algae (or something similar); our newest found source of crude oil comes in the form of a tailored microbe, and our best alloys rely on an understanding of crystal formation. Now as far as form goes: Consider that as we are able to make personal tools more advanced we choose to do two things: make them smaller/easier to handle & construct them with more rounded edges and natural colors. Look at computers and phones: the first cell-phones and computers were just boxes, but now they have liquid-crystal screens and rounded edges. I would invoke evolutionary psychology as reason for this trend I perceive. Notions of beauty, love, attraction, etc are formulated based on one's existence in nature and the survival of one's species. We can therefore conclude that things which emulate nature in form (shape, color, texture, sound, etc) will be more pleasing to a human (a creature native to and born into existence on earth).
On the assumption that the above is true, then I believe it poignant to illustrate how one may derive Clarke's third law of future technology. If something is indistinguishable from nature given one's current understanding of how the universe (or reality in general) functions, then you are unable to see how and why nature is not currently obeying its nominatively "normal" functions, and thus with no apparent reason for nature behaving differently "magic" must therefore be what is occurring.
As far as future technology speculation goes: It would seem to me that utilizing natural technology would be more energy efficient and less time consuming than purely mechanical construction. Why use a lamp in the future when you can grow a moss that glows when it senses your presence (or less advanced: just luminesce in the dark)? Why use robotic construction when a semi-organic nano-bot programmed to assemble itself and the item of interest & repair itself can be used completely autonomously? Why deconstruct a tree into base timber and then use it to construct a home, if you could alter a tree's growth into a house? An organic or semi-organic structure is able to collect energy on its own and can utilize the energy native to the ecosystem. It can reproduce of its own accord, and this would tend to give longer life to the span information structures can be maintained and greater accuracy with which it can be repeated.
I, for reasons that should be now abundantly clear, favor the technological depictions of the Knox and the race of beings Klatu hails from in the "new" Day the Earth Stood Still.
Food for thought or candy-coated non-sense?
MTF
I posit (as a hypothesis to be borne out over time) that as technology becomes more advanced it more greatly resembles nature in its form and function. To whit: our most advanced filtration systems use algae (or something similar); our newest found source of crude oil comes in the form of a tailored microbe, and our best alloys rely on an understanding of crystal formation. Now as far as form goes: Consider that as we are able to make personal tools more advanced we choose to do two things: make them smaller/easier to handle & construct them with more rounded edges and natural colors. Look at computers and phones: the first cell-phones and computers were just boxes, but now they have liquid-crystal screens and rounded edges. I would invoke evolutionary psychology as reason for this trend I perceive. Notions of beauty, love, attraction, etc are formulated based on one's existence in nature and the survival of one's species. We can therefore conclude that things which emulate nature in form (shape, color, texture, sound, etc) will be more pleasing to a human (a creature native to and born into existence on earth).
On the assumption that the above is true, then I believe it poignant to illustrate how one may derive Clarke's third law of future technology. If something is indistinguishable from nature given one's current understanding of how the universe (or reality in general) functions, then you are unable to see how and why nature is not currently obeying its nominatively "normal" functions, and thus with no apparent reason for nature behaving differently "magic" must therefore be what is occurring.
As far as future technology speculation goes: It would seem to me that utilizing natural technology would be more energy efficient and less time consuming than purely mechanical construction. Why use a lamp in the future when you can grow a moss that glows when it senses your presence (or less advanced: just luminesce in the dark)? Why use robotic construction when a semi-organic nano-bot programmed to assemble itself and the item of interest & repair itself can be used completely autonomously? Why deconstruct a tree into base timber and then use it to construct a home, if you could alter a tree's growth into a house? An organic or semi-organic structure is able to collect energy on its own and can utilize the energy native to the ecosystem. It can reproduce of its own accord, and this would tend to give longer life to the span information structures can be maintained and greater accuracy with which it can be repeated.
I, for reasons that should be now abundantly clear, favor the technological depictions of the Knox and the race of beings Klatu hails from in the "new" Day the Earth Stood Still.
Food for thought or candy-coated non-sense?
MTF