Lost histories & technologies: My shallow dive into archeological research + conspiracy theories [4-15-20]

A good place to start is with experts so I began with this episode of the Joe Rogan podcast with British writer and journalist, Graham Hancock:

Hancock is incredibly well-spoken and composed. He has written several books on ancient & lost civilizations. Most interesting for me about this podcast was the idea that ancient yet technologically advanced civilizations existed in the Amazon rainforest and the mention of LiDAR.

It’s not really my place to talk about histories of ancient civilizations, so if you’re curious on background info, check out some national geographic resources online (specifically this was helpful: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/amazon-jungle-ancient-population-satellite-computer-model/). The biggest surprise for me was Graham’s mention that the Amazon forest was a man-made forest. Given how expansive it is, I couldn’t imagine that much area being planted intentionally, especially with such little signs of civilizations being there and with such poor soil for farming. The (proposed) reality of the situation is that it was never meant to be a forest. The theory goes: Europeans brought over smallpox, decimated the decently large civilizations in the Amazon regions, and their gardens grew without control to the point where the greenery has covered most evidence of settlements. It turns out, the Amazon rainforest land is also tricky to plant crops/food in, but the ancient Amazon people found a way around that. Their solution is still undecipherable for us, as we cannot replicate this process of turning bad soil into good soil (at least, not with the ease and lack of technology that the ancient civilizations did). So, this ancient “tech” seems to be beyond us, even now some ~500/600 years later (mind-blowing).

The next part is equally as fascinating. That part is LiDAR. Here’s a few sources to check out: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/maya-laser-lidar-guatemala-pacunam/

https://lidarmag.com/2019/04/01/airborne-lidar-for-archaeology-in-central-and-south-america/

Referencing back to my post on the topic of “taking inspiration from nature”, LiDAR is a technology that mimics echolocation used by bats. It essentially uses laser light and physics to create a 3D image of something that you scan with. So you’d fly a helicopter, beaming down this non-invasive laser pulse to the ground, and use data from these pulses to map out the ground.

Why is this on my sci-fi website? Well, I found myself down a YouTube rabbit hole and LiDAR is very cool. But this also connects to the idea that it is important that varied voices and stories are heard. If we did not discover the ruins and remains of these Amazon civilizations, we may have never discovered the ingenious solution (biochar + some mysterious process that historians, archaeologists, and other scientists are trying to decipher) that these people had for farming and maintaining a population on nutrient-poor soil. This has huge implications, as the combination of LiDAR and more information about these civilizations could mean that we too may soon be able to convert bad soil into good soil and we can stop tearing up the Amazon rainforest, included on some lists for the 7 natural wonders of the world! We could feed more people on less genetically modified food. And we can take inspiration and make really incredible technology along the way.

*For another pseudoscientific theory/rabbit hole, check out these sources, which talk about the possibility of having found the Lost City of Atlantis in the Sahara:

https://www.holdmyark.com/blog-1/2018/9/28/lost-city-of-atlantis-revealed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDoM4BmoDQM

Check out the source material to hear one side of the argument and (generally) the comments to hear loads of people arguing for the other side

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why we don’t have clones yet (a biology perspective) [4-10-20]

Cloning as a concept has been around popular culture for a while. From the ten-clone conglomerate in Ursula Le Guin’s “Nine Lives”

to the apparent clones in Childish Gambino’s “Sweatpants” music video

to the concept of shadow clones in the Naruto series,

it seems that cloning has been around forever. Why has it taken so long to figure out how to clone things? And why aren’t we doing it more often?

At this point, a lot of people have heard about Dolly the sheep, the first successfully cloned mammal (more about Dolly here: https://dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/index.html).

What people don’t get to hear as often is how Dolly was actually only partially successful. Despite the fact that Dolly was fertile and had her own offspring, the experiment was deemed not completely successful because Dolly only lived to be 6 years old. For reference, sheep of her species usually live 10-12 years on average. So what went wrong?

It turns out that Dolly was a genetic success. The researchers used the nucleus of a mammary gland cell from a 6 year-old sheep, fertilized it artificially, and were able to create a zygote–>fetus–>live sheep. However, because the development process was inherently different, Dolly underwent abnormal development that ended up predisposing her to be more susceptible to a flurry of diseases, including arthritis and cancer.

The key difference in her development was that the nucleus that made up the fetus at the single-cell stage did not undergo proper reprogramming. Essentially, as you live and experience life, you interact with your environment and are shaped by your environment. To be able to adapt, the genes you express change as you go through development and get your own unique experiences. Since you typically don’t want to change your genetic code (DNA), you regulate gene expression by making chemical changes to your DNA, like the addition of a chemical group directly to DNA or indirectly to proteins that help organize your DNA. These changes in gene expression without changing the DNA sequence is part of a field called epigenetics.

When you start off development with a nucleus from an individual that has already lived some life, and therefore has accumulated some of these epigenetic changes (chemical changes), then the individual has an unusual development because there is a lot of chaos. You are disrupting a natural process. This explains part of why cloning is so dangerous and not commonly used right now. We don’t understand enough about how to reprogram a cell, so we have not come close enough to mimic the natural process of development. This implies that all of the clones will be genetically identical but at a huge disadvantage as they grow older.

If we figure things out epigenetically, is there a chance we can have clones, maybe in our near future? Statistically, there’s a chance. However, genetic engineering can have long-term (multi-generational) consequences, which is why international review boards are restricting CRISPR and other genetic editing experiments so that human subjects can’t be used. Bioethics will be a huge hurdle that needs to be discussed and resolved before cloning can occur. The most obvious and probably the closest use for cloning will be in science labs, where the cloning of a model organism (mice, worms, fruit flies) can facilitate the use of genetically identical populations, which gets rid of confounding variables and basically makes for a stronger test of your predictions scientifically. But if you are creating clones that are conscious, even if they aren’t human, have we crossed the line and made ourselves God? Would we be making and taking life without the consideration that we use for experiments today?

Also, this brings up questions of what it means to be a clone. If a clone is genetically identical, then identical twins, even the ones that have diverged over time to look different, could be classified as clones. If we consider two people who look and act the same, and have the same genetic and epigenetic expression, to be clones, then clones will be nearly impossible to attain. Because the moment your experiences diverge from your clone’s, you will respond to the experience and be influenced by the experience in a way that cannot be matched. It truly is true that every individual is unique because we each experience different things and react to those experiences in different ways. Another piece of information that might clarify things is that epigenetics is the basis for memory. Your neurons, which do not regenerate but instead stay with you from the moment they mature to death, are epigenetically altered and scientists believe that these alterations, which are the effects of your environment and experiences, are the basis for memory.

But don’t worry. None of this logic has stopped us from trying. In 2018, new papers were published regarding the advances being made to understand the epigenetics of cloning, specifically in mice. So, perhaps we’re still on the path to cloning, and we may be closer to a successful discovery than things appear.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

From a Science Perspective: Why it is beneficial to replace anthropocentrism with humility when dealing with aliens [02-26-20]

We as humans think we are pretty great and we kind of are. We made incredible inventions that allow us to travel at incredible speeds (planes, trains, and automobiles, for example), we have managed to colonize almost all of the land on earth (even parts that seemed at first uninhabitable for life), and we have explored outer space, with missions to the moon and ongoing attempts to explore Mars. But we should also consider all the ways that we are not perfect. Evolutionary thinking helps us in this. To start, we managed to create the first man-made mass extinction event (there have been a little over a handful of extinction events in history, most caused by a drastic and sudden change in climate like an ice age or a meteorite hitting part of Earth and knocking out entire species at a time. Well, think to the same extent except the one we are currently in is predominantly caused by humans). Second, it behooves us to think of the importance and impact of small differences, particularly the huge impact of small differences at the DNA level. Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks to this very well in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYorVnA44U

Briefly, Tyson describes how the closest animal relative to humans are chimps and they share ~98-99% of the same DNA sequences as we do. In other words, this means only a 1% difference in DNA separates a chimpanzee from a human. If we imagine an alien species that is 1% different from us, 1% superior in complexity and intellectual ability, then suddenly we become the simple chimp. Our complex societies and the culmination of human knowledge up to this point, our entire lives might seem to aliens as simple and mindless as the life of a worm seems to us.

This is the case only for a 1% difference. If we imagine a 10% difference or, even more extreme, an alien species that uses a different genetic code (not only A, C, T, and G like we do but maybe X, Y, Z, and ε), the differences in complexity become more extreme. At this level, alien species would have no reason to communicate with us except for altruism or out of pity. Any relationship with these alien species would figure a severely unbalanced pairing (Tyson’s example is to imagine when is the last time you tried to have a conversation with a worm. Then imagine what their response was).

It is important to imagine other worlds through the stories in science fiction and it is equally useful to keep calling out to the abyss of outer space in the hopes that one day, someone might call back. But it would greatly benefit us to do so with an understanding of our limitations as humans and with a sense of humility for other life that exists in ways that are different from our own and in ways that we may never understand.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Uncanny Valley in Storytelling: A Meta-Analysis of representation in literature [02-26-20]

Let’s bring back the idea of the Uncanny Valley (pictured below for reference, refer to other post or Google for more background info).

But now, instead of thinking about robots, corpses, or prosthetics, we can bring the idea of the Uncanny Valley when considering issues of representation in Science Fiction. Especially in the context of queer and feminist works of sf, there can often be tensions when pieces of work are written by someone who has not directly undergone or felt the experiences of which they are trying to represent in their work.

An example might help. If a piece of queer SF like “Aye and Gomorrah” by Samuel Delany or a piece of feminist sf like “When It Changed” by Joanna Russ were to be written by, let’s say, a heterosexual white male, then the story suddenly has a different context. Any criticism or commentary that is underlying the story is not any less valid but it is simply different. As a reader, you are now viewing the experiences of a queer or female protagonist through the lens of an outsider or someone who hasn’t directly lived these experiences. These depictions and criticisms are therefore no less speculative than other elements in the story.

This was an idea that was explored by my class in Professor Angel Matos’s “Queer Young Adult Literature” English seminar. We found that there is a delicate balance between wanting writers to speak about these topics because it is important to get exposure and to get people to talk about these experiences while also wanting writers who have lived these experiences to write them. You want representation but who is serving as the representative is important, especially in cases like the example above where a white author’s story may receive more popularity and praise than that of a lesser known queer or female author. Borrowing from psychology terminology, it becomes important to consider whether the author of these works comes from an in-group versus an out-group (see image below for a representation of how group dynamics can lead to mixed responses, especially when the boundaries of the groups is not universally agreed upon).

So, relating all of this back to the Uncanny Valley more directly, it is important as readers to recognize the need for representation by all groups, whether straight or queer, male or female, Russian or Colombian. In many ways, this train of thought describes why I am taking this course– I wanted to see how science fiction has been represented by different cultures and by different types of people across time. Understanding the global history of sf will allow me to better understand factors continue to shape the field today and will give me insight into the creative process that goes into making one of these stories.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Future visions of architecture and design:  Inspirations from social media and nature [02-17-20]

Instagram: atelier_olschinsky; webpage: https://www.olschinsky.at/

The architecture and design of cities and landscapes of the future holds unlimited potential. There are many forms that inspiration has manifested and many ways that it has taken in recent years. [One prominent example is the influence of the 2009 film Avatar. Among the many things that came in the wake of the movie was a recently released prototype Mercedez Benz car, named the AVTR after its biggest inspiration (images here: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21054257/mercedes-benz-avatar-avtr-concept-ces-2020).]

I recently came upon two other sources of inspiration. 1) One is Atelier Olschinsky, a design studio based in Vienna, Austria. This studio features work mostly from Peter Olschinsky and Verena Weiss and the studio’s client list is very diverse and long, including the likes of Adobe, Bloomberg magazine, and CSC Pharmaceuticals. A design that was particularly interesting for me is included above. It depicts a future landscape where architecture has expanded to make use of more space, building on all axes instead of simply making use of horizontal and vertical space. Most exciting for me are the designs for future space vehicles (seen on the right side middle).

2) The second source of inspiration and design is one that we have recently started to tap into in an industry known as biomimicry. A great video that introduced me to this field and gives the basics for how biomimicry works is below. Biomimicry uses as its basis the fact that animals, over many many years of evolution, have been made to be well-adapted to their ecological niche (selection and variation served as the raw tools for specialization). Because of this, animals have refined their “tools” (ex. a bird’s beak, a fish’s slender body, etc.) to function highly efficiently in day-to-day tasks. So, we can draw inspiration from this huge library of well-adapted tools when we begin to think of improved models and newer designs for up-and-coming technology. There are experts who say that we should be looking more to nature, rather than to other man-made products, to be drawing our inspiration and a good start would be to include a biologist at the table when brainstorming ideas for new designs. The main ways you can mimic nature are by mimicking form/shape, by mimicking design, or by mimicking a whole ecosystem.

(link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMtXqTmfta0)

A video providing an actual way that biomimicry is being (and will continue to be) used in building architecture is included below. The video talks about how wooden buildings with plants are making a comeback and how designing living garden skyscrapers to copy nature can help with many environmental issues, including reducing CO2 emissions and reducing insolation in cities.

(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OPGQ9EhDZM)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Planetary Defense: H.G. Wells’ The Star in modern times [02-12-20]

https://science.howstuffworks.com/stop-an-asteroid.htm

According to this article and according to NASA publications, we now possess the technology to protect ourselves from possible collisions by outer space objects. Most of these plans, ranging from shooting nuclear bombs to firing high powered lasers, are focused on deflection of incoming material, not on destruction (destruction of an asteroid is inefficient because it would likely reform in little time due to gravity). The earlier we can detect a threat, the less deflection we would need (If the asteroid is thousands of miles away, a couple of degrees of deflection would be enough. If the asteroid was a couple hundred miles away, a larger deflection would be needed).

So it seems that we would be more well-prepared for the situation posed by Wells’ The Star, at least in the literal interpretation. If we take the threat to be symbolic and its present day meaning to be global climate change, maybe we are just as helpless as we were back in 1897 (not ideologically, of course. We possess the means to delay or completely resolve climate change. But applying it and getting people to sign on is a different matter completely…)

Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) is one of the planetary defense mechanisms that is currently in place and to be tested in 2022. Essentially, if a large asteroid (that is heading towards Earth) has a smaller object orbiting it, we can target the smaller orbiting object and change the speed at which the larger object is in orbit. The effect is a very small change in speed. However, if done from a sufficient distance, the larger asteroid will miss Earth completely.

Youtube video explaining the DART test [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSYuY6N1Rs]