In reference to this, I think that it is a wonderful idea to be able to use computers to aid us in the design of novel solutions to existing problems, with more cost effectiveness and overall efficiency being almost guaranteed. However, like how I always am cautious with technology, I believe that this is also a cause of concern. Human society is never known to be running things in the "global optimum" scale; for the most part, we just try to get things done to the point where we get a good enough return for the amount of energy and money invested. Usually, this means that we are not quite at the 100% efficiency, because beyond a certain level of efficiency, the cost required to further bump up the capability is often exponential. That said, with the advent of cheaper means of doing the trial-and-error process (often the most time consuming of all), it will not be a surprise if we start having designed devices and processes outstripping those that we originally designed.
Which brings us to the question: do we really need/want the extreme optimal of everything? And more importantly, are all these going to architect our own downfall eventually, when our technology has evolved past the point where they literally start having a life on their own. Already, we have passed the threshold where a single human can literally understand all of the known human knowledge; how much more before we reach the point where even a group of humans cannot understand all of the known human knowledge?
In other news, my faith in turning to nature for inspiration is further enhanced by this article on mother-of-pearl and this article on the appendix. I always have a saying, despite all the great advances that we humans have, nature has been at it for almost 15 billion years, so I think that sometimes we need to eat the humble pie and look at nature for inspiration.
15 billion years of trial-and-error is indeed a force to reckon with. heheheheh...
No comments:
Post a Comment