Week 13

1. "...the human species is living as if it had more than one planet to occupy..."

a. This quote is interesting in a few ways. For this discussion, I am assuming that the limitations of our planet are based on ideas of threshold quantities of pollution and consumption of resources. First of all, it needs mentioning that this quote does not, in fact, apply to all members of the human species - although many of us do live without regard to the planet's capacity, there are also many who make much less of an impact in terms of waste and consumption. It is also worth considering how much volition many people have to maintain a lifestyle that fits within the parameters of our planet. For example, in this country, at least, the ability to transport oneself by bicycle or public transportation (lower consumption and pollution transportation options) is very much a privilege, relying on proper infrastructure, the ability to find work and basic necessities such as a grocery store close to home, access to childcare, good health and healthcare, etc etc. It seems easy to imagine that a number of people, ironically, cannot afford to live within the planet's means while participating in financial systems as they exist today. Nevertheless, the opinion persists that, as long as we continue to live our lives as we have been for the past century, our planet will not be able to support human life for an indefinite amount of time. So... shouldn't we all be doing something about it? Together?

b. I was particularly fascinated by the article relating to "improvements" being made on plants, '"Nanobiotics" aims to give plants superpowers'. Even the first line, "[p]lants are an engineering marvel of nature" leaves much to be discussed. According to Google (which should know, as it is in fact a product of engineers), engineering is "the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures". By the first page, it seems, two concepts, that of nature (which I would consider to be something that occurs without human input) and engineering, have been confused in this article, not just by the author but by the scientists involved in this project. The article does not mention whether or not any research is being done to consider the effects of introducing nonnative aspects to plants within the global ecosystem, nor how these materials could effect our own food and water supply, but rather briefly asserts that such concerns "[do] not seem to be a problem here". Though we have introduced many things into our own environment that have later proven toxic, such as cigarette smoke, radioactive materials, or asbestos, it seems we are still willing to trust science to give us an accurate assessment of dangers posed by new technologies. Also, very little reason is given as to the motivation behind this project. One idea is to "turn plants into communications antennae", another to use features inherent to plant life to build devices with similar functions, and, of course, by "rational design", to improve upon the "inefficient" plant. None of these reasons are particularly inspiring to me. We already have plenty of communication antennas, mimicking a plants' function would surely be better if the plant were functioning normally, and plants don't seem very upset about "inefficiently" converting sunlight into ATP. Perhaps the reason is to simply prove we can, to exert some power on our surroundings and pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But, if that is the case, or even part of the inspiration for this project, I must ask, aren't there more pressing things to do with these brains and money?!