# Corollary? Root Premise? to Clarke's third Law of Technology



## ManTimeForgot (Dec 21, 2008)

"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


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 21, 2008)

And any sufficiently developed nature is indistinguishable from magic. Except that, as we start to understand natural processes, we can improve on them. 

Photosynthesis is not a very efficient way of harnessing solar energy; even less so than solar electric cells, actually (and I suspect there is a reason for this; chlorophyl is a coulour to reflect back the most abundant solar frequency, and other organisms have managed to work with red dyes, so perhaps maximum efficiency has negative side effects.You'd sort of expect black vegetation in polar regions.) 

While lifeforms can be a good base for nanotechnology, being readily available von Neumann machines, most of their energy has to be involved with their basic task; staying alive. Metabolising, reproducing, auto-repairing all require large quantities of power. Which doesn't mean they can't be used for various functions; conentrating raw materials out of seawater or low grade ores for example, or specific chemical synthesis; a direct development of what we're doing now. But there are definite reasons why animal-powered transport has essentially disappeared, along with a reduction in wood burning as a heat source.

I don't see where your LCD screens, LEDs or Plasma are in any way more 'natural' than their cathode ray ancestors; indeed, your average glass-blown  CRT was a pleasant, flowing shape, reminiscient of a fungus or deep-sea creature. While curves for aerodynamics are only sensible, and copying natural successes is a logical way of optimising performance (or arriving at the same results by wind-tunnel experiments and continuous experiment and Oh look! it's just like a dolphin.) but actually basing an economy around life-based sciences (as in the "Sparrowhawk" series by Thomas Easton) would involve reducing mobility drastically; not, perhaps a bad thing, particularly if you can compensate electronically. 

There are several books that study the situation where biotech prcedes mechanics, rather than replacing it later; I cite Harry Harrison's "West of Eden" trilogy and "The crucible of time" by John Brunner. Still, neither of these tries to support a population density equivalent to present day humanity; and if I'm allowed to kill off ninety-six percentof the world's population I could do much better with present mixtures of phyxics, mechanics, chemistry and biology.


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 22, 2008)

Interesting twist on Clarke's law. But how do space shuttles be more natural than the Apollo capsule? 

I notice you're new. If so, could you please tell us about yourself in the Introductions section - we'd love to know more about you.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Dec 22, 2008)

I would say reminiscent of nature, not copying or directly utilizing it.  Our best designs tend to utilize principles already found in nature (upgraded in some way).  The appearance of glass is is not going to vary much, so no the form of a new LCD monitor versus an old CRT is not going to betray natural resemblance, but consider that we wish to incorporate monitors into our buildings or miniaturize them down to the point that they go anywhere.  So the best way to go is not simply organic (taking what is out there), but rather semi-organic or synthetic organics (tailored organisms designed to fulfill a function; like nano-bots that are capable of gathering energy for themselves from simple hydro-carbons).


And the space shuttle isn't going to tend to establish this trend because it is still a product of what is primarily mechanical design and mechanical tools on board.  If you were to look at the life support systems on board the space shuttle then you might start to get an inkling of this.  But to really see where this was going, ask how would you improve the space shuttle's overall design?  Would a hull that regrows or rebuilds itself be better?  Would a semi-symbiotic life support system be better?  For the purposes of space battle is not something smaller and capable of color change superior?



Side Note: Interesting inverse relationship Chris.  Would hyper-evolved organisms tend toward incorporation of a large variety functions?  In this vein though: modern science has concluded that the human brain is evolutionary very close to being as good as it can get; altering even a small number of genes via mutation and brain systems can fail.  It seems that the brain is designed for the use of extra-genetic information, and I believe that this is where the future of any intelligent race lay.  Forced evolution along scientifically determined lines.  But this would leave a lingering doubt about whether or not nature could produce something comparable given enough time (I tend to think that nature would evolve ultra-effective energy gatherers, but in the absence of a billion year longitudinal study I don't think this issue can be settled satisfactorily).

MTF


----------



## skeptic_heptic (Dec 22, 2008)

How about organic LEDS?  These could be considered to be more natural.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Jan 10, 2009)

I would suggest that organic LEDs are just the beginning.


Imagine being able to grow plants (or pseudo-living things) that were keyed to respond to your distinctive olfactory, auditory, DNA, or even thought signatures.  Lights, music, color, arrangement, texture, temperature... all keyed to respond to your desire as they exist with you symbiotically and have since their inception (birth, date of growth, whatever).

MTF


----------



## Moonbat (Feb 5, 2009)

> they exist with you symbiotically and have since their inception


 
Sounds like we would become even more depandant on our technology (biotech) almost to the point where a fungal virus that infects my phone when I'm out could be brought home and infect my house, and my street and the whole city, until everyone is trapped in their homes by agressive biotechnology.

Also it sounds like we have moved on from enslaving animals to produce our labour to enslaving plants and all living species, imagine growing an Tortoise table, it can be shaped to your specifications, it has a thick easy-clean shell, it's legs have been solidified so it can't move (unless you want it to, imagine being followed round the house by the coffee table) and it has to sit there throughout its life while we utilise it, sounds worse than chopping down a tree to build a table.

At least with Mechanical technology there is very little ethics involved (until AI reaches sentience) 

Trees keep growing, so would your house keep growing? You go on holiday and come back to a new room, or would it stop growing eventually and die and slowly decompose the house?

MB


----------



## Leo (Feb 7, 2009)

Tortoise Table's a nightmare for the animal indeed  I'd rather have a totally artificial nanotech "organism" with no mind, only a limited recognition of a few orders such as "move there" or "a bit lower", and feed it its supply of chemical components by hand.

What interests me most is when biology becomes a subset of nanotechs, and we start designing our own bodies for life in space or other planets. As chrispenycate pointed out, we have no clear idea about whether efficiency is "efficient" in the long run - we may be missing some fundamental factors - and I expect some big mistakes along the road. But ultimately I imagine new kinds of even more complex biospheres will emerge on the planets. It's just so far out that imagination can hardly comprehend it :/


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 23, 2009)

Moonbat: 

The consequences of greater technology and scientific understanding is mistakes become more damaging and the recuperation time from mistakes decreases.  The scope of injury is something that future societies will have to keep an eye on.  But with enough understanding I believe it would be virtually impossible to get one agent of destruction to jump from bio-tech to bio-tech.  If one were to completely eliminate any common factors, then a virus or fungus shouldn't be able to work that way.  That's assuming that immune systems in bio-tech are not so aggressive as to simply shoot holes in anything that tries to attack it (we are currently pursuing anti-biotics based on a rare south-american toad that do exactly that; punch holes in foreign cells).

Why enslave anything?  I think you have the relationship almost backward.  Biotech would grow whatever it needed (allowing nature to run its course virtually untouched, if not completely untouched).  In fact it would be very easy for bio-engineered beings to live right along side natural ones and be completely ignored (just program them to release a scent or sound or something which registers as "non-living") or build them to be symbiotically beneficial depending on what you are aiming for (hundreds of years additional knowledge of ecology will tell you how you can influence an ecology in such a way as to counteract a change you made).  And as for the cells of natural beings: are you prepared to argue that mastery of the cells of something else constitutes slavery?  How is growing something related to an oak tree into a house any worse than killing an oak tree to turn into your house?

Do you keep growing when left unchecked?  Last I checked we don't suddenly become 50 feet tall if we don't get our haircut.  Semi-organic and bio-synthetic technology will have limitations placed on them coded into their make-up.  For biosynth it will be in their DNA and semi-organics will be hard-coded like a computer only different from mechanical technology in that their structure will be similar to what is found in nature.


Leo:

Honestly.  By the time we have the technology to create a "tortoise table" we won't need or want to use tortoises.  Nor would we waste our time doing so when having specially engineered entirely synthetic organisms (without brains; coded to respond to commands at an entirely parasympathetic nervous level) that will have much superior characteristics than a tortoise.


But as far as your last statement is concerned I agree.  500 years from now is going to be wild beyond my imagination (that's why I dislike SF that takes place more than 200 years in the future; beyond that point we really don't have any idea what sort of capabilities we will have).  And I anticipate a great deal of mistakes, but we will almost certainly be living, at least in part if not mostly, off planet before 500 years is out.  Perhaps some of us will get to even see it (full cyberization/semi-organic conversion; in 80 years that may be possible).  I'd certainly think it worth it.  And with the vastness of space to go out and live in we won't have to push each other for "territory" either.


MTF


----------



## Nik (Mar 23, 2009)

"...anti-biotics based on a rare south-american toad that do exactly that; punch holes in foreign cells"
IIRC, penicillin, derived from mold, did that, too: Sadly, too many bugs have developed resistance via a mutated enzyme...

IMHO, it is a convergence of form & function. When you can manipulate materials at that level, there's no limits except your imagination and societal restraints aka 'ethics'. The persistent worry is a malicious or accidental software glitch turning our versatile nano-machines into all-consuming 'grey goo'...

Have you read 'Diamond Age' ??
The Diamond Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 24, 2009)

Intriguing link, I will have to read that book.  Thank you.


And as far as antibiotics go: "β-lactam antibiotics work by inhibiting the formation of peptidoglycan cross-links in the bacterial cell wall. The β-lactam moiety (functional group) of penicillin binds to the enzyme (DD-transpeptidase) that links the peptidoglycan molecules in bacteria, which weakens the cell wall of the bacterium (in other words, the antibiotic causes cytolysis or death due to osmotic pressure)"   That's how penicillin works.  There are some experimental antibiotics in the works right now that actually punch holes (like bullets) in foreign cells.  In order to develop resistance to these latest antibiotics a cell would have to develop something akin to a bullet proof vest for a cell wall.  Pretty much not happening (except for designer bugs; really gets my goad when people design stuff and it gets released and all the bugs in the world pick up that trait because of that).

MTF


----------

