First zoids
Second zoids
Both extinct... |
The poor zoid
The proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations.
Stephen Jay Gould
The Robotarium X is inhabited by two different kinds of robots. The ones connected to electrical power and those driven by solar energy.
Araneax (two "spiders" hanging from the ceiling), Cursovigilio (with nine instances fixed to the pavement and distributed all around the great glass box) and Superinflatus (a sort of plant also linked to the floor and that only opens its petals of resin when it detects substantial movement outside the structure), constitute a family supplied by "traditional" electric energy. They are fixed to the floor or connected to cables limiting their movements, but allowing them to be always attentive and active day and night, with or without solar light.
Thirty other robots move freely at the ground level using photovoltaic panels. From these, twenty have sensors. With these sensors, when they detect obstacles (walls or other robots), they retreat, turn around and follow their way. The remaining 10 robots are very primitive and don't have sensors. Due to their locomotion mode I called those the Zoid species, in an obvious reference to the spermatozoon. Zoids are very small, with a single solar panel associated to a miniature motor that spins a tail. Through this agitation, the Zoid moves in a totally random way and without any objective. Altogether the creature measures 2.5 cm of width per 4 cm of length for the body with the same length for the tail.
It happens that the Zoids do not have enough mass to be detected by the sensors of bigger robots. Therefore, without "seeing" the tiny zoids, they simply run over them and occasionally cut their tails, provoking the impossibility of further movement. A few days were enough for them to be all extinct. With the inert tails spread over the floor, they look like flies, from which the wings were removed whirling the motor in an inconsequential way.
Many people saw in this story the reproduction of the natural selection mechanism. I myself talked about "artificial selection" as a form of reinforcing the argument on the new species that robotics represents. Most of the observations were amusing and non-substantiated. Actually they just reaffirmed the usual simplistic vision of Darwinism by which the strongest always win over the weakest. It deserves some thought.
In our highly hierarchized and elitist society, the stronger, the richer, the more beautiful have effectively an enormous advantage over the weak, the poor and the ugly. Nevertheless, it is shown that in natural life things do not work like this. The stronger does not always defeats the weaker, since concepts of strong and weak cannot be measured in terms of size, accumulated and expended energy and much less through subjective notions of power, aggressiveness or obstinacy.
Being small can be a force. Ants have a global population calculated in an impressive one quadrillion of individuals, equivalent to 15% to 25% of the total animal biomass of the planet. Being small means lower energy expenditure and anonimousness. It also means to resist better to environmental stress. In catastrophes, very often the small survive better than the big. Dinosaurs, whose extinction allowed the emergence of the insignificant mammals and consequently our own appearance, were too big. All their extraordinary strength and aggressiveness didn't help.
Competition between strong and weak, predator and prey, produce less consequences on species survival than believed. The environmental conditions are much more significant in determining the survival or extinction of the species. Sometimes, in extreme cases, a predator can effectively cause a more fragile species to disappear. The introduction of unfamiliar animals up to that time in the Mauritius islands in the Indian Ocean was the decisive cause for the extermination of the Dodo bird. Weakened by the slaughter carried out by sailors and the destruction of its habitat, it did not resist the assault of strangers. Cats, mice and pigs attacked obstinately the vulnerable Dodos nests, until there was no one left.
The human is however the most harmful terminator. It is calculated that around 130 species disappear from the face of the Earth everyday, most as the result of human action.
Anyway these events of extermination of a species at the hands of another species must be integrated in a context of environmental stress and not as the effect of any linear cause stemming from the relation between predator and prey. In the current situation, the already above-mentioned disappearance of many species is a product of the radical changes that mankind has been provoking in the environment. This human-made intervention is so vast that nature and natural evolution, such as they were described by Darwin, are lacking increasingly the space needed to carry out its processes.
There aren't anymore many spots in the planet that have not been manipulated by humans. The artificial is occupying the vanishing natural territory. The so-called Wildlife is nowadays a field crammed with electronic collars, assisted reproduction, protectionism, selectivity and genetic manipulation. Many species only remain alive due to humanitarian commitment, money from foundations and influence of pressure groups in public opinion. Tigers, gorillas, elephants, birds and so many other life forms survive in a limb between natural and artificial worlds with an implacable inclination for the last one. Today "wildlife" is reproduced in the confinement of zoos and "natural" reserves all around the world.
Natural selection and evolution are subject to a tremendous environmental shock promoted by mankind. Humanity is taking control of the destiny of the still called natural world. The artificial is becoming the dominant nature in our planet.
That doesn't mean that everything is as simple as it looks. Errors and disasters probability is also increasing. To generate a postnature is dependent on many random and emergent factors. One never knows exactly what can happen. Global warming is the proof of this assertion in a wide scale. The same occurs with the small great catastrophes. The introduction of certain species to contain the uncontrolled growth of other species has often given rise to enormous failures. And there is also the resilient issue. In the same way species are exterminated by environmental change, others profit from it and become more robust. The more we do to try to eradicate some harmful bacteria (for humans), the stronger they invariably become. In this issue, it is useful to read Stephen Jay Gould, who defends for the discouragement and anger of many people that bacteria are the dominant life form in our planet and not humans . Gould shows that evolution is not as linear as it looks, and it can by no means be viewed as a continuous curve of progress, from bacteria, primitive and simple, to man, advanced and complex. Particularly the idea that complexity can only produce more complexity is thoroughly dismissed. On the contrary, "regression", in the sense of less complexity, is quite common in evolution.
Robotics history is itself a demonstration of that, since it shows how in a period of a few decades "regressive" tendencies prevail, shifting from the exclusive claim of creating very complex and humanoid configuration robots, to the small, primitive and very simple insect robots. One of the reasons for such a deviation stems from the need to adapt artificial bodies to the environment. It is not possible to achieve true autonomy without an independent body able to situate itself and react to exterior stimuli. We cannot send to Mars the already mentioned Deep Blue, since in addition to the lack of ways of locomotion, which is a minor issue, it hasn't any sensors or any notion of its situation, which is a decisive issue. Deep Blue is a very sophisticated intelligent form but totally disconnected from the world. A kind of brain locked up inside a concrete block. On the contrary, small insect robots can be released anywhere and "go to its life". With a system based on the triangle sensor-controller-actuator, these robots gather the information by their own means and act accordingly. Although this is an essentially reactive process, or of positive feedback, it generates a complex behavior, by introducing different "cognitive" levels in which each level subsumes the previous one, or by multiplying collective emergent agents through swarm interaction.
In conclusion, zoids extinction was caused by bad design, a body inadequately conceived for its environment, which lacks any mechanism of feedback, positive or negative. It was not definitely the result of a robot war. Attempting to correct this mistake, I have been elaborating several evolution possibilities for the zoids. Without success so far.
The creation of a postnature being the unavoidable destiny of mankind is neither an easy task nor exempt of setbacks and risks.
|