Future Concepts and Modern Advances in Technology; Good or Bad?

Many Humanists and Scientists argue that our technology and civilization is out pacing evolution by a huge margin. They point to our tribalistic, band and small group human history that we survived with for hundreds of thousands of years is no longer anything similar to our modern societies. Indeed to argue against this fact would be futile as it is so. However we seem to for the most part done very well as out human populations swells around the planet.

Humanists will ask and one recently did; “Doesn’t it make more sense to be who we are and develop our true, and in my view powerful abilities (i.e. to communicate with each other through the energy fields that connect us without technology, to create with our minds a reality that is truly self sustaining, to connect with each other and rid the entire human species of the negative beliefs that are undermining us all etc…)?”

Well indeed he sure has brought up a huge question worthy of discussion. However let me take a crack at this question as I answer in the negative to his assumptions;

“NO. Because why should you choose one or the other, why not both. Have the capability and develop lost skills, while simultaneously using our brains to invent better technologies to improve on the human design. We do not have time for evolution to take its sweet time. You know you are talking about talking the species back to the stoneage, yet who would that really serve. We need sewer treatment plants, fresh water and energy for things. Not that they are totally necessary, but they have certainly improved life from other civilization of the last let’s say 5000 years anyway. Perhaps ancient cultures die previously have great advances and may have been extremely well adapted civilizations without all this fluff. Yet who is to say that was better and why should we make that decision for all humanity, as humanity has spoken and voted with their consumer dollar and well, they want all this stuff.”

As far as the observations of human civilizations in the present period and the dummying down of the population base; well now that they cannot function without all these modern technologies, they very much need it and cannot feel fulfilled without out it. Myself, well I could go without many of the modern amenities.

Humans need a challenge and advancement and forward progression of the species does provide that challenge. After all; why does someone climb a mountain? It is there and it is a challenge. Many including myself like challenges, creating stuff and inventing things, so why not? Using technology to help mankind along in his journey to create better, strong and better civilizations is wise. And as mankind reaches a place of heaven on Earth, with more leisure time and the Utopia we desire, who is anyone to say that technology is an evil to the human race? Think on that.

Future Concepts for Storing Massive Amounts of Data – An IARPA Strategy?

We need a new long-term information storage strategy, and if we do not find one we will not be able to enjoy the future promises before us. If we are to store everyone’s DNA, every world transaction, and all the data from all the objects connected to the Internet of things, and all the NASA data, particle physics experiments, and all the information that’s created by 7 billion plus people on the planet each and every day we are going to need a better way. Okay so, let’s talk shall we?

What if we could store data using a quantum physics strategy, encoding magnetic tape, but tape unlike the old mainframe IBM tape, a new type of nearly invincible tape that could last a 1,000 years at room temperature? Yes, I am serious.

What if we borrowed an idea by that Russian Scientist using tape to capture carbon atoms one-atom thick to get graphene? Then encode the grapheme and store it on your tape, or something like this. If we coated it with sulfur atoms on the other side of a very thin porous tap, we’d store the data even if the tape dissolved in the future, because it could hold the imperfections of the graphene, or inadvertent folds of the grapheme in place.

What about if we could store information in DNA strands?

DNA might be a better option still, as we can work with four components, Letters. How about small slivers of DNA encoded and then encapsulated in carbon nanotubes. You can store a boat load of information in DNA, even dual codes on the same, as biotech scientists have recently discovered, codes within codes.

How about adding dimensions?

How about storing and computing with information through time? How about taking a Rydberg Atom and playing with the spins of electrons and chase information through the vortex of the spin. Reading through time, on another trajectory on the walls of the vortex or inside the walls for multidimensional computing? All you have to do is be able to manipulate it precisely, and read it, as you go.

Back to the DNA concept, consider this:

You could take the DNA from a Dinosaur egg which grows 50-times faster than a chicken egg, and use a benign virus which would replicate incredibly fast and calculate on its RNA, once the calculations are complete freeze it. We can read the DNA from Dinosaur eggs now, what 450 million years of storage? See that point. I just think we need to think outside the box.

It is not that I am not against IBM tape storage – many corporation have data on tape sitting in Salt Mines, Iron Mountain facilities. But we can store better now, and once in a salt mine, you don’t have to worry about EMP for instance. Dig down, bury it, then it is only a matter of how much data you can store on the smallest known device.

If we wanted to store all the data of life on Earth, we could even send that data on light waves and someday duplicate life on Earth by sending the instructions elsewhere – like a seed, zip-file, or program (algorithmic style). Find a host planet with the proper needs for life, send the plan, a little at a time as it evolves. Terraforming + life + species level DNA + information about everything. A slower process than Star Trek transporter but within our current technology plus or minus 10-15 years of research from right now today? Think about it.