Member 4
51 entries
293296 views

 RSS
(F, 28)
Los Angeles, US
Immortal since Jan 18, 2007
Uplinks: 0, Generation 1

Proofs Of Concept
Vimeo Videos
Idea Dump
Videos Collide
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • meganmay’s favorites
    From Claire L. Evans
    MOON ARTS, PART TWO:...
    From chris arkenberg
    The Cybernetic Self
    From spookfish
    « We/I » instead of «...
    From gavink
    entanglement p/m : y axis...
    From notthisbody
    From Citizen Kane to...
    Recently commented on
    From meganmay
    Growing up at the...
    From meganmay
    Our Primordial Future
    From michaelerule
    Sun
    From notthisbody
    Infosynaesthetic Tech
    From meganmay
    Leaving the Garden of...
    meganmay’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    Epiphanies
    A series of rambles by SpaceCollective members sharing sudden insights and moments of clarity. Rambling is a time-proven way of thinking out loud,...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Emergence and Navigating...
    Develop a generative, emergent process to fill space (2D or 3D) using only black lines. Modify a known process or invent your own. Implement your...

    The Voyager update project
    Description has not yet been created.

    What happened to nature?
    How to stay in touch with our biological origins in a world devoid of nature? The majestic nature that once inspired poets, painters and...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    Originally published on Omni Reboot

    The human brain has spawned a parallel universe of imagined lifeforms, landforms, and civilizations. Though usually conceived of as fiction, this parallel universe often leaks into various Earth systems. Robot explorers, genetically engineered animals, artificial intelligence, international space stations–these are, before anything else, the products of our imagination. They are what happens when an organism is capable of asking itself: What does the future look like?



    The Biosphere 2 in Tucson, Arizona is a totemic example of how such fantasies can carry over into reality. I drove towards this aging temple of eco-optimism several months ago with low expectations, having been disappointed by utopian architecture before. But as I walked up to this behemoth of steel, glass, and plant life, my pragmatism dissolved into childlike enthusiasm.





    Every structure on the compound is beautifully and precisely engineered, despite having come into existence in a mere three years. Inside, many of the plant species that were originally brought in from all over the world to recreate diverse Earth ecosystems grow unabated alongside intruders from the Arizona desert. There are five biomes in Biosphere 2: a fog desert, an ocean (complete with coral reef), a rainforest, mangrove wetlands, and a savannah grassland. This setup was inspired by the microbiologist Clair Folsome, whose work showed that life can sustain itself in a sealed environment, provided that the environment is populated with compatible organisms. “A materially closed, energetically open system already exists; it’s the Earth,” Folsome told the 1984 Biospheres Conference, “and it’s only a matter of technical detail to recreate such a system as a biosphere.” Folsome’s confidence in self-regulating ecological systems inspired the Biosphere 2 team to invite two wild cards into their design: an intensive agricultural biome and a human population, who would survive as part of a closed loop with the various biomes.




    According to John P. Allen, the initiator of the Biosphere 2 project, if humans could learn to live in materially closed self-sustainable habitats for substantial periods of time, we might have a solution to the distances and finite resources that hold us back from long-term outer space habitation. We could be stewards and children of Earth wherever we wanted.

    In September 1991, a crew of eight researchers entered the Biosphere 2 for its first mission in contained survival. Needless to say, the experiment didn’t go entirely as planned. The Biospherians suffered from mysterious, and severe, oxygen depletion, forcing the project managers to break the seal and inject additional oxygen into the environment. Years later, researchers discovered that the concrete structure was largely to blame–it hadn’t entirely cured before closure. The question of whether “science or seal” was more important, in combination with a lack of preparation for confined environment psychology, led to a rift between team members, while intense media attention and outrage over these “failures” led to paranoia amongst the project managers. And as if that weren’t enough, pests destroyed the Biosphere’s meager harvests, leading to malnourishment that forced the team to dip into emergency food supplies.




    Still, in my opinion it’s too easy to call the Biosphere 2 a failure–mostly because the conditions of success were so narrowly defined. Utopian projects are often called failures either because finances or waning enthusiasm prevented their completion, or because they are irreparably tainted by megalomaniacal leaders. This is precisely the point. Utopias are testaments to the imperfect translation between the imagined future and a future that has been filtered through social psychology and the limitations of the material world. In other words, they are rare opportunities to observe the centuries-long human project on a compressed timescale.

    Ironically, over the years, the floundering microcosm of Biosphere 2 has only become more relevant to the macrocosm of Biosphere 1–that is to say, the Earth. In 2013, our thriving energy infrastructure is still based largely on burning fossil fuels, while emissions building up in the atmosphere are changing the environmental composition we humans depend on.

    In retrospect, it seems like the inhabitants of the Biosphere 2 were on to something that is still widely misunderstood today–the environment is a “materially closed, energetically open” feedback loop. If that were popular wisdom, it would be obvious that fossil fuels are a fixed material resource (fossilized plant matter) we are transforming energetically (burning), and natural carbon sinks (absorption by oceans and forests) can only handle a fraction of the emissions before the onset of less favorable cycles (the greenhouse effect and ocean acidification).

    It’s worth remembering that the planet became hospitable to us oxygen-breathing organisms as a direct result of a geological period known as “The Great Dying.” During this time, an ambitious blue-green bacteria learned how to break H20 bonds and harvest the hydrogen, incidentally “polluting” Earth’s atmosphere with the oxygen byproduct. This innovation, in combination with several other unprecedented environmental changes, killed so much life on Earth that it took an estimated 10 million years to recover former levels of biodiversity.

    This is where our unique ability to imagine the future may prove to be our biggest asset. Given the widespread atmospheric changes we’re cooking up at the moment, now may be a good time to revisit our unique utopian imaginations. Perhaps the best way to bridge our wildest fantasies and most destructive tendencies is to regularly ask ourselves: what will humankind look like 100 years from now? Or 10 million?



    For me, the photographs accompanying this essay are a step towards the answer. They are research for a sci-fi story that asks: will the future be an environmental disaster for humans, or will mutual collaboration between people and compatible organisms reach a new level of bioengineered harmony? The answer to this question hinges, to a certain extent, on whether we agree about what it means to be part of a biosphere.

    Now, for those of you still skeptical of re-framing Biosphere 2 as a success story, it’s worth mentioning that the University of Arizona has reinvented the utopian project as B2, an institute for studying how earth systems respond to environmental change. Each biome is now available for controlled environmental studies and B2 has established a Soil Biogeochemistry Lab, an Earthsystems Modeling Lab, and a Trace Gas Isotope Lab. This former vision of the future is now helping to ground our current environmental questions, in hard, pragmatic science.



    With all that being said, there’s nothing left to do but imagine the unknown and build the future.
    Sat, Jan 11, 2014  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (2)
     
    Coming of age with a familial strain of futurism, I have been carrying on the tradition quite naturally. Cobbling together bits and pieces of breakthroughs and speculation I've formed my own personalized worldview, and I've undoubtedly taken some bits and pieces of Singularity theory with me. In spite of the close proximity between Space Collective and many of the ideas being discussed at the Singularity Institute, no one from the "staff" has ever ventured out to a formal conference. So I paid a visit to the Singularity Summit in early October to see what I'd been missing all these years.

    Given that the future is a multifaceted frontier, and that my background is in "the future of everything," I was expecting to meet a very diverse crowd, and I did. But as I continued asking questions, I realized that in this community two subjects really floated to the top - greater than human intelligence and immortality. Some people wore cryonics tags tucked in shirts, and occasionally exposed them to make a point, others allowed them to glisten in the sun. There was an amazing talk by a 17 year old Thiel fellow that made me feel more convinced than ever before that immortality would become a matter of choice.

    But I followed the scent of superhuman intelligence for the most part, perhaps because it opened up discussion to the most existential predicaments. There are two generally accepted ways of discussing the emergence of greater than human intelligence. "Soft takeoff" describes a gradual development that may allow us to adapt as we incorporate more and more intelligence into our world. "Hard takeoff" would imply the rapid creation of a runaway artificial intelligence that at its most volatile could lead to our extinction. For better or worse, the authorities on the subject seemed to expect "hard takeoff."

    One of these authorities is Eliezer Yudkowsky, founder of the extremely popular "Less Wrong" community and a current research fellow at the Singularity Institute. According to the website, Less Wrong is a forum where

    "users aim to develop accurate predictive models of the world, and change their mind when they find evidence disconfirming those models, instead of being able to explain anything."

    In other words, the Less Wrong community strives to help you realize that you are biased about a lot of things, including the common misconception that AI will not pose a serious threat to humanity.

    Luke Muehlhauser, the executive director of the Singularity Institute explains that this misconception is due largely to "the availability heuristic" which explains how we usually assume probabilities based on what is most available to our memory. In "Not Built to Think about AI" he writes:

    "The availability heuristic also explains why people think flying is more dangerous than driving when the opposite is true: a plane crash is more vivid and is reported widely when it happens, so it’s more available to one’s memory, and the brain tricks itself into thinking the event’s availability indicates its probability."

    And during his talk at the Summit, Muehlhauser explained that we have optimized the world to serve our very narrow field of interests, and that the chances of AI serving a purpose outside of these narrow interests is far greater than vice versa. As a result, "Almost all the mind designs would steer AI where we don't want to go."

    He called upon the most intelligent mathematical minds in the crowd to join him in solving the difficult math problems required to build a "friendly AI." But with all the attention concentrated on artificial super intelligence, it was only logical that someone in the crowd would ask how biology might fit into this paradigm. The answer was:

    "biological cognitive enhancement is a growing trend and an important one, but I think in the end anything that's tied to the biological system of the brain is going to fall behind the purely artificial mind architectures because somewhere in the loop there is still all this slow neuronal firing spaghetti code nonsense that evolution created, that sort of works but is totally non-optimal. So I think that biological cognitive enhancement won't be able to keep up at a some point with purely artificial systems."

    Further still, if you ask his colleague Eliezer how biological systems fit into this equation he might answer:

    ”the AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, but you are made of atoms it can use for something else"

    I'm willing to consider all possible futures, just because it's more fun than limiting your imagination, but like any human, I can't help and throw a little wrench in this scenario. In any discussion of "greater than human" entities there is an inherently subjective impasse, this is why anthropology doesn't work without incorporating the anthropologist's bias. No matter how much we attempt to overcome our bias, the final evaluation of whether we've created "greater than human intelligence" will be up to us, simply because human intelligence is myriad and arranging it on a hierarchy is a subjective task.

    As a catch-22, in my subjective opinion, nothing can have "greater than human intelligence" if it doesn't also have a greater than human tolerance for the lifeforms that gave rise to it. Disrespect for our biological ancestors and degradation of our life-supporting habitat has not necessarily served human beings well, and a greater than human intelligence should be able to overcome that error in judgement.

    Unfortunately, my forgiving parameter was thwarted somewhat by Robin Hanson's claim that future lifeforms, whole brain emulations specifically, just wouldn't care about nature once they migrated entirely to non-biological substrates. "We care about nature not just because we like it but because we're afraid we will die without it." To whole brain emulations, the biological world would be obsolete, full stop. He acknowledged though that his thought experiment inevitably excluded some variables and remarked that "a future world is a vast place with lots of things going on and if you really want to evaluate it on the whole you have to look at a lot of different elements of it."

    Overall, The Singularity Summit brought together a fine selection of minds dedicated to thinking through the good, the bad, the ugly and the less wrong futures. On the last day of the summit I was lucky enough to find someone capable of summing up the sentiments that I'm sure at least a few human beings in the audience were feeling. I will leave him with the final word.

    Mon, Nov 19, 2012  Permanent link
    Categories: singula
      RSS for this post
      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (5)
    Create synapse
     
    How do we come to understand actions that are beyond our experience? What happens when we watch an agent, human or otherwise, performs seemingly impossible tasks?

    This isn't the uncanny valley, it's the unwalked path, the unfamiliar and ideally we can expect to see more and more of it in the future.

    The neurological correlates of understanding difference and novelty is, broadly speaking, the subject of my friend Lei Liew's research at the USC Center for Brain and Creativity. In one study, Lei used fMRI to observe the brain activity of participants watching an actor performing familier and unfamilier gestures, respectively a thumbs up and the sign language for "the Netherlands." Among her findings, she discovered that the novel gesture activated more motor regions in the brain, suggesting that unfamiliar actions are first and foremost represented physically, and when people tried to explain the gesture afterwards, they tended to re-perform the action.

    "Just like birds, humans have to amplify their locomotion to get control and get familiar with their new body expansion—the Wings. In my conception this is something which is independent of any hardware or software problem."

    - Genius Dutch Filmmaker Florian Kayak


    Next she asked, what happens when you see an action that you can't perform at all. In this study, she had participants watch as someone performed actions with their hands, cutting with scissors, grabbing goldfish (the crackers), et cetera. Then participants were asked to watch these same actions performed by someone with congenital amputations.

    After only two minutes of watching the amuptee, Lei observed increased activity in the mirroror system in the the four limbed participants. The visual stimulation highly effective in helping create a motor map to correspond with the amputees.

    This work on how we acclimate to difference seems particularly relevant now, if as Joel Garreau suggests in his book Radical Evolution, humans begin speciating into differently modified creatures through the continuous integration of biotechnology, prosthetic implants, and stem cell technologies into the primordial soup.

    Assuming, for interest's sake, that such technological modifications do become increasingly commonplace and desirable, how we will manage to keep track of what a human is amongst the resulting behaviors, mannerisms, and visual landscape?

    Perhaps, it's the duty of visual artists to take the initiative to help acclimate the public to what our future companions, or maybe even our selves could look like. ET was a hallmark example of building this kind of tolerance.

    Maybe the next study in this line of research should test whether people who watch sci-fi frequently learn to identify with radically different physical traits than those who don't.
    Mon, Oct 15, 2012  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (6)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    In the span of 12 hours I met a young French man playing gypsy music on a saxophone in the park, filmed a rehearsal for an anti-play by 1960s Austrian playwright Peter Handke, being restaged for children by my friend Emily Mast, and attended an event about the current trends in science, specifically related to transhumanism, for an audience of Hollywood screenwriters. Needless to say, you can live in as many different centuries in a day as you can access multiple dimensions (which according to current estimates is up to 12, or infinitely many according to Gleb*). In the strangest way this clash of generations within generations seems be a defining characteristic of this day and age. (And it seems like an age when more effort is being put towards characterizing the passing days than ever before.)

    Transhumanism itself is a hodge-podge of scenarios and strategies for enhancing humanity through technology; at least, this is how the hosts of the “Science of Cyborgs” framed the movement at the Directors Guild on Sunset Blvd. I listened as they reminisced about the days when “the heart of cyborgian transhumanism” was the forearm, (more often than not a male forearm), and presented the fairly well accepted refrain The Future Is Now, on the basis of Oscar Pistorius’ Artificial legs.


    Wearable Terminator Salvation Toys, basically sums up this entire post.

    Next, they introduced one screenwriter and three scientists, whose research was meant to inspire the next round of Hollywood blockbusters. Jonathan Mostow was the first to present, and set the tone by explaining that perhaps one of the reasons the prevailing depiction of evil machines in motion pictures results largely from a deep-seated anxiety about humans losing contact with one another. An interesting theory.

    Then up walked a PHD! an accreditation that, given the context, inspired a certain amount of reverence. It may have been just me, but in this context, it seemed like the scientists were 21st century prophets come to deliver an eager audience of culture-makers news from the future.


    Epic question from MacIver's PPT

    The first presenter Malcolm MacIver, was developing robotic systems based on the movement and sensory systems of a weakly electric fish called the “black ghost weakly electric fish.” This same presenter was a consultant on the sci-fi series Caprika, and concluded with the a clip from his favorite show, Battlestar Galactica, where one character says to another “You said that humanity never asked itself why it deserved to survive...maybe you don’t.” Again, the human audience was asked to question its relevance, but more because of its arrogance than its anxieties. The next presenter, Michel Maharbiz worked on inserting microcontrollers into larvae in order to wii-mote control beetles (seriously), while the fourth and final PhD, Mark Humayun, discussed his work on recovering sight for the blind. Humayun proved to be the only one of three working directly with human systems, and it was his singularity that proved to be one of the most striking aspects of the evening.

    While the discussion began by defining cyborgs as machine modified humans, it concluded with how photosynthesis could be inhibited in isolated spinach coroplasts. And it was the final statement from Maharbiz during the Q&A that really defined the evening for me:
    “If there’s one thing you should all do when you get home tonight, it’s wikipedia opto-genetics… What you think now is technology is organic.”

    This statement seamed to debunk the classical notion of our future as cyborgs altogether in favor of the increasingly seamless integration between artificial and organic systems on a whole. The kind of invisibility predicted by Kevin Kelly in his first book, and a seamlessness that ultimately poses the greatest challenge to Hollywood screenwriters: when biology becomes technological, how will the difference between “us and them” be visualized?

    In any case, it’s this integrative perspective of the entire organic system that I find most exciting when considering our future forms. It’s the re-contextualization of our sapience in a larger pool of sentient life that explodes far beyond the singular human frame and, perhaps, marks a closure of the conventionally imagined cyborg era.

    Here are a few resounding notes compliments of Glebden.
    Wed, Mar 2, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     

    M.C. Escher Peeled Faces

    "We are flesh—-self-aware, questing, problem-solving flesh."

    — Octavia Butler


    I had a really exciting conversation with Adam Stieg scientific Director of the Nano and Pico Characterization Lab at the California Nanosystems Institute this evening about his current projects. There was always something about his research that really rung a bell with me, and as he continued to describe his work with artificial brains and stem cells, I had an epiphany. Whether he's attempting to create a "physical brain" using top secret chemical etching techniques, or experimenting with mechanically induced stem cell differentiation, Adam consistently relies on basic physical processes to "artificially" modify (or create) living systems.

    Rather than a building an artificial intelligence system out of software or reverse engineering the brain one neuron at a time, he attempts to catalyze a "physical brain" using special etching techniques, basic chemistry and chaotic processes that may or may not yield functional brain-like structures (more info shall be revealed after publication). Similarly, rather than injecting DNA from another animal to induce stem cell differentiation, why not expose the pluripotent gems to the physical environments that they're destined to serve in through machine-driven stimulation? I suppose these very elegant solutions could only come from a forward-thinking chemist, who compared biology to art in its nebulousness. (It should be noted he is also the Scientific Director of the Art|Sci summer program at UCLA).

    I suppose it's only natural then that I was immediately compelled to extrapolate this bottom up cell differentiation theory to the highly complex process of human development, recalling a wise Japanese inventor named Dr. Nakamatz who recently introduced me to the idea that our environment and actions allow us to access genetic potential, IE nature and nurture are not opposed, but complimentary. The more experience you subject your human apparatus to, the more access you have to potentialities as yet unknown to you.* And from Adam's perspective, this makes sense because a person is a system subject to the same natural laws as say, the pluripotent stem cell. Then he held up a book on Cybernetics — " the study of systems and processes that interact with themselves and produce themselves from themselves." (Wiki).

    Which leads us back to, THE BODY.


    Yang Zhichao, Planting Grass, 2002 via The Operating System

    In spite of being a severed head wishing on occasion to disregard the body completely, I can't help but be seduced by the thrilling re-cognition that the material world is as manipulatable as it is concrete. Under the right conditions it can be elastic, re-programmed, and re-imagined. The work Adam is doing is definitely on par with some of the best conceptual art in how concisely it opens up the possibility that life, even Artificial Intelligence life, may actually be catalyzed by interactions in the physical world.

    Clearly the integration of the internet/computational intelligence (a most harmonious coupling, from which the most user-friendly form AI will most likely be birthed — see Google* and NELL — ) to the total system is crucial. However, when it comes to the future form of everything, technology not only offers add-ons and implants, but also a means of further unraveling and transforming intelligence from the most primordial levels.

    Now performing another leap in scale, I would compare this re-conception of the physical world to the discovery of 10 thousand galaxies inside a tiny black patch of sky. Seems to me like the 90% of the JUNK in our genome is another black patch that will hopefully reveal some equally massive new insights. We are continuously looping back on ourselves with fresh information gleaned, "producing ourselves from ourselves." Will runaway AI be catalyzed physically? Will it look more like us or will we look more like it?

    The present seems like a breeding ground for the primordial and the high-tech to meet, mesh, and manipulate each other in mutually mind/body/environment altering ways.

    As such, it may be apt to conclude by saying that the newest high tech airport security may, in fact, have fur.
    Wed, Feb 16, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (1)
     
    Tue, Aug 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: severed heads
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    As the aging populations of Europe and Japan come to represent the local majority, it would seem the elderly are posed to reclaim some of the cultural territory they lost to the decades long bias towards youth. And as the search for immortality continues, the extremely old, reverently referred to as supercentenarians, are in the position to become icons as celebrated and admired as the most flawless of pop stars. Edna Parker (pictured below) is one out of 100 people in the Supercentenarian database, whose DNA is being used to study genetic links to long lives.

    So, while the ambition of most longevity enthusiasts is to reverse or eliminate the aging process, what if instead, as lifespans increase, there is a renaissance of beauty at age 200+?



    Ann Pouder 110 YO England

    Maria Capovilla 116 Eucador

    Edna Parker 115 YO US

    Yone Minagawa 115 Japan

    Jauna Bautista 125 YO Cuba

    Interestingly, longevity is increasing in Cuba (home to Juana Bautista, the oldest woman in the world) in part due to the winning combination of social programs, cigars, and a healthy sex life.
    Sat, May 29, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Last night I asked google, "is the internet over?" This was the response (be warned if you have little tolerance for internet gore do not click). The result was both ironic and nostalgic, like a last stand for the unkempt wilderness the internet has been.

    As I mentioned on Olena's post, it occurred to me the other night that lawlessness can be extremely beneficial to intelligence and the rapid growth of culture, particularly when it comes to the vast databases of music and movies we've stolen for our edification and enjoyment. It also struck me that those who've directly benefited from this lawlessness are simultaneously the most marketed to generation in history and a generation that's probably stolen more merchandise on a whole than any other group of people living in a semi-functional society.

    But I've had a distinct sense for the past few months that the internet is no longer the frontier, that it's well on the way to becoming as practical and depoliticized as the telephone. While cyberwarfare may be making appearances in the newspaper for months or even years to come, it'll more likely be evidence of governmental meddling than radical uprising.

    While I don't get off on illuminati flavored conspiracy theories, the use of Facebook friend photos to generate advertisements, in combination with the Supreme court decision, and Google deleting music blogs without warning has made me extremely aware how easily we can sleep through what promises to be (or already is) a corporate chokehold.

    While this all seems a little bleak, it's actually rather refreshing to realize. I've been feeling a little coddled by the neverending stream of utopian rhetoric surrounding the internet, which I myself am guilty of propagating, and with good reason! But it seems about time we set our sites on a new frontier.

    So...what comes after the Internet?



    [ note, this post was written and published as private for a while so the news is old now...but still relevant ]

    Sun, Mar 7, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (8)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     


    I just found an excellent (5 year old) article to follow up an older post about Utopian thinking. This collection of excerpts would make a great companion to the State of the Union :)

    Utopias tended to be written at times when the imagination overstretched the available means. They were about people feeling their way ahead, before there were yet any route markers.

    Thomas More came at the dawning of modernity, when the Middle Ages was receding and a new society stretching its limbs. Charles Fourier and the utopian socialists came at the dawn of the working-class movement, when some realised that bourgeois promises of freedom were inadequate but hadn't yet worked out what to propose in their place....

    ...Set-ups that people take as natural - 'the way things are' - are shown to be foolish, temporary arrangements that will soon be overturned. This educates the imagination, the sense of what could be....

    ....It's telling that the authors of utopias often lived unromantic and frustrated lives. Their heads were reaching into the future, but their feet remained stuck in times that they were powerless to change....

    ...Sometimes the dreams of one generation became the practical reality for the next....

    ...Over time, utopias tended to become less hazy daydreams and more something that people would fight to be realised. For a start, there was a shift from utopias being set on a remote island to being set in the future. Then the visions became grander....

    ...And while More and Bacon imagined their utopian societies created by God or a benevolent legislator, later utopias imagined that they were created by people themselves. The vision of the future was a practical problem to solve....

    ...Today the old political landmarks are gone, and people have little idea about how to go forward. Past utopians' brave leaps into the future could act as inspiration. However, there are limitations with today's approach towards utopias. There are broadly speaking two different types of modern utopian project: escapist utopias, and mystical utopias. Both seek a dreamy happy ending, while sidestepping the problems of political life today....

    ...The question isn't whether the utopian impulse exists, for it will so long as human beings are alive: the question is whether this impulse takes us forward or just tightens our chains...

    ...Jacoby's conclusion: 'To connect a utopian passion with practical politics is an art and a necessity.'...


    The whole article is worth a read.
    Mon, Feb 22, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)
     


    FROM NEW SCIENTIST:

    Red squirrels are rapidly evolving in response to global warming - they are the first mammals in which such genetic changes have been seen. The discovery could bode well for other species struggling to adapt to new conditions, say researchers.

    Andrew McAdam, at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues monitored four generations of squirrels in the Yukon, Canada, over 10 years. They found that female squirrels now give birth on average 18 days earlier in the year than their great-grandmothers.

    The driving force behind the evolutionary changes is that the warmer climate means that females with a genetic propensity to give birth earlier are more likely to have offspring that prosper.

    These early-borns have a head start on their younger peers. They are bigger and more independent when autumn comes and it is time to store food, says Stan Boutin, another member of the team.

    The work joins a growing body of evidence that many living things are changing their abundance, distribution and behaviour in response to increasing global temperatures. Genetic changes have been shown in American mosquitoes but this is the first study that demonstrates a genetic shift in a mammal.


    I was talking to one of the guy who helped us move this year about global warming...he thought human babies were gonna be born with heat resistent skin soon enough....i don't know about that, but we might invent some



    Mon, Feb 22, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
          Cancel