Last year I pointed to a Wired article that discussed a firm, OrganiTech, that was investing in mobile hydroponic stations which are built inside freight containers.
Last month I also mentioned the idea of building a self-sufficient, highly complex artificial city in the middle of the ocean. Its inhabitants would cultivate various types of algae as a food source and use ocean thermal energy conversion for electricity (and hydrogen distillation).
The SciFi Channel pointed to an interesting idea that combines both of these themes: sea water greenhouses. Its inventors engineered a method by which seawater humidifies a green house which then grows different types of plants like a typical green house does. In addition, it is entirely self-sufficient as it utilizes solar power to energize the rest of its functions.
As cool as that sounds, I’m not sure if it is neater than this uber rocket jumping mix…
Seth Godin had an interesting post regarding religion longevity, specifically Zoroastrianism, and viral marketing.
It turns out that Zoroastrians are all but extinct, as they have completely integrated with the general populace and no longer have a compelling message (subjectively speaking).
Despite its ancient roots, its message has been superseded by other memes that have successfully integrated several key features (e.g. evangelism, (very) long-term benefits for believers, sharp distinction between insiders and outsiders). Be sure to read the post as well as the original NY Times piece he quotes from.
So how does this notion of idea extinction mix with artificial monopolies on intellectual thought?
Is there an apodictic, a priori axiom of idea longevity or must empiricism be used? Will ideas in the “public domain” last longer than highly regulated concepts? Can written and oral language be an example of this?
Is the continued dominance of English in everyday business affairs due to its relatively liberal ability to integrate new words and concepts that other pure/purified languages (e.g. French, Latin) cannot?
Will this era of mash-ups, open source, robust APIs and other relatively free platform extensions transcend closed and proprietary solutions?
Or, do the artificially high barriers of obtaining and reproducing knowledge of its philosophy prohibit movements like Objectivism (whose adherents are firm proponents of strict IP enforcement) from spreading exponentially?
In short: does the openness of a movements corpus effect the spreading of its core ideas, and does this in turn contribute to its survival?
[Note: Objectivism in its official, State-protected form is essentially closed-source (kind of like Scientology); the only way to view the code is to buy its officially sanctioned books and pay a bunch of sacrosanct interpreters who are "officially licensed." Other non-licensed works are considered "unholy" and heretical.]
Last month I mentioned Project Blue Brain in passing. One of the aims of the research project is to simulate the neocortical column of a rat, which contains around 10,000 neurons.
This ties into the research surrounding the California spiny lobster, which was the first creature to have part of its brain (14 neurons comprising its gastric tract) successfully simulated on a computer.
And a couple days ago I discussed one of the leading academics in this neuro-robotics field, Hans Moravec. If you are looking for something original and fresh, then you may find some of his essays just what the doctor ordered (”Pigs in Cyberspace” ties in with some of the other themes - Matrioshka brains - that I have mentioned recently).
