Microcopter with its own Geodesic Hamster Ball

From here, which is a fairly good example of the way technology is evolving too big/fast/diverse to keep track of any more.

Mind you – at the beginning of this, the dude says “the goal is to reproduce the amazing capabilities of insects”…

… so let’s take a wasp for example, it can:

– self-fuel using energy from its environment
– see (smell touch balance taste? hear?)
– self-replicate using ingredients from its environment
– organise into swarms
– fight (teeth, poison)
– fly, with amazing stability, for long periods
– 3D print nests using ingredients from its environment
– run about the place being a pest


and about a hundred equally miraculous things*. I’d say we’ve got a way to go yet – in fact as I keep saying, it’s probably going to be easier just to reprogram the wasps than to try to make one ourselves.

I was going to put “evolve” into that list, but that’s so fundamental to any replicating / competing architecture, that it’s a bit redundant. Evolution isn’t a skill, it’s a side-effect.

Oh yea… “Search and Rescue“. Bless. We still don’t really know what these things are for

* but their cultural achievements are dismal

3 Comments » for Microcopter with its own Geodesic Hamster Ball
  1. Shelley Noble says:

    “Evolution isn’t a skill, it’s a side-effect.”

    Patently brilliant.

  2. roid says:

    Evolution at this speed though is definitely something new, our technological progress is well-surpassing the capabilities of biological evolution.
    Our RC vehicles have only been around ~100 years. Ants/Wasps: 60 million to 252.2 million years.
    And once machines start iterating the designs themselves… well i hardly need to preach about the singularity geek-gasm here.

    Where our tech will be in 60 million years, utterly incomprehensible, the question itself will be near meaningless. Beyond magic, we’re talking altered states of reality.

  3. Nick Taylor says:

    Well yea – if there’s a theme to this site, it’s something to do with the way that tech evolution is a different type of evolution, to the blind-watch-maker understanding of how biological natural selection works.

    Which might not be 100% right of course – but it is mathematically reliable.

    60 million years is a long way out. Our event-horizons for tech prediction seem to be around 5 and 10 (5 years = we can already do it, but no one’s selling it; 10=we don’t know how to do it, but it won’t be long before we do)

    Nuke fusion has been 10 years out for decades. Same with various aspects of biotech… though a lot of that is now in the 5 year category. 600 million years? I think we probably are talking altered states of reality.