All posts by Mike Zonta

The poetry of everyday language

288,270 views | Julián Delgado Lopera • TEDxSoMa

In a captivating, poetic ode to the beauty and strength of mixed languages, writer Julián Delgado Lopera paints a picture of immigrant and queer communities united not by their refinement of language but by the creative inventions that spring from their mouths. They invite everyone to reconsider what “proper” English sounds like – and imagine a blended future where those on the margins are able to speak freely.

About the speaker

Julián Delgado Lopera

Writer, educatorSee speaker profile

Julián Delgado Lopera is an award-winning Colombian writer and historian.

Julián Delgado Lopera’s resource list

About TEDx

TEDx was created in the spirit of TED’s mission, “ideas worth spreading.” It supports independent organizers who want to create a TED-like event in their own community.

Guy Who Sucks At Being A Person Sees Huge Potential In AI

PublishedYesterday (TheOnion.com)

Image for article titled Guy Who Sucks At Being A Person Sees Huge Potential In AI

SAN MATEO, CA—After spending the past three decades of his life being totally unable and unwilling to engage in any meaningful way with the world around him, James Parker, a local guy who sucks at being a person, told reporters Thursday that he saw huge potential in AI. “While it’s still in its early phase, artificial intelligence will one day accomplish things that humans could have never even dreamed of doing,” said Parker, who, by all accounts, has never stretched himself to do something he found difficult; has never created anything truly original; and, deep down, has absolutely zero understanding of what makes things good, enjoyable, or rewarding. “Just yesterday, I asked an AI program to write an entire sci-fi novel for me, and [as someone who will die an empty shell of a man who wasted his life doing nothing for the world and, perhaps, should never have been born] I was super impressed. Soon, humans won’t need to do anything at all! Awesome.” At press time, Parker added that as someone whose contributions to society would almost certainly be measured cumulatively as a net loss, he also saw great potential in the future of the metaverse.

Tarot Card for June 2: The Ace of Wands

The Ace of Wands

The Ace of Wands begins the explosion of energy which runs throughout the Suit of Wands. Here we see massive out-rushing power, high levels of force, the beginning of whatever the Will desires.

When this card appears in a reading it often signifies the beginning of new life – whether as in pregnancy, or to represent the beginning of a whole new phase in life. In order to confirm pregnancy, you need to look for other ‘baby’ cards like the Princess/Page of Cups, or the Ace or Three of Cups.

When the card comes up to indicate a new phase in life, there will often be other cards surrounding it which indicate the area that will be most affected by the new force.

This is a good card for healing energies, indicating high levels of vitality and vigour. This effect is much strengthened if the Sun also appears in the reading. It also indicates a period in life where we can forge forward toward our goals, having sufficient stamina and enthusiasm to follow through effectively.

It’s worth bearing in mind, though, that this is a very raw energy – potent and powerful, but somewhat reckless and headstrong. Make sure that you don’t get carried away with new projects, rushing heedlessly into something you have not considered thoroughly enough.

The Ace of Wands

(via angelpaths.com and Alan Blackman)

“There is no disorder at the infinite level”

New Thinking All May 31, 2023 Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, FRSSAf, is a neuropsychiatrist and head of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute in Seattle. Together with Dr Edward Close, he pioneered the new discipline of what they call “Dimensional Biopsychophysics”. He is author, with physicist and mathematician, Edward Close PhD, PE, of Reality Begins with Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift that Works. He is also author of Déjà Vu Revisited, Déjà Vu: A Second Look, Déjà Vu: Glossary and Library, Cry the Beloved Mind: A Voyage of Hope, and Innovative Psychopharmacotherapy. His professional publications number over 700. Dr Neppe has amplified many of his concepts in three of the websites linked with his work. On www.Brainvoyage.com, his books are amplified. www.VernonNeppe.org is his gateway and includes more information on the Neppe-Close model of the Triadic Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) and some of the key publications are on www.pni.org. In this 2018 interview, Vernon Neppe explains that, though we only experience our physical lives of 3 dimensions of space in a moment in time (3S-1t), we nevertheless still exist in a discrete nine-dimensional finite universe plus a separate “countable infinity—the discrete transfinite. These are made up of innumerable ‘quanta’ —Planck lengths in quantum physics. These quantized dimensions (finite and transfinite) are all intimately, necessarily and inseparably “embedded” (directly contained)—like a hand to an arm, more than just a connection—in a non-quantized, unbroken infinite continuity that is forever extended in unbounded space, eternal time and an all-pervasive consciousness repository. This infinite continuity may be responsible for the order in our existence—“ordropy”— and this also implies survival after physical death. The controversial notion of levels of the infinite—the “infinity of infinities”— was regarded as if mathematicians were challenging god. However, this infinity of infinities better allows us to understand how each component of our finite reality may be mirrored in the infinite. Edited subtitles for this video are available in Russian, Portuguese, Italian, German, French, and Spanish. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. (Recorded on April 29, 2018)

Weekly Invitational Translation Group

Translation is a 5-step process of “straight thinking in the abstract.” The first step is an ontological statement of being beginning with the syllogism: “Truth is that which is so. That which is not truth is not so. Therefore Truth is all there is.” The second step is the sense testimony (what the senses tell us about anything). The third step is the argument between the absolute abstract nature of truth from the first step and the relative specific truth of experience from the second step. The fourth step is filtering out the conclusions you have arrived at in the third step. The fifth step is your overall conclusion.

The claims in a Translation may seem outrageous, but they are always (or should always) be based on self-evident syllogistic reasoning. Here is one Translation from this week.

1)    Truth is that which is so.  That which is not truth is not so.  Therefore Truth is all that is.  Since Truth is all, therefore Truth is total, therefore whole, therefore one, therefore otherless.  I think therefore I am.  Since I am and since Truth is all that is, therefore I am Truth  Since I, being, am Truth, therefore I, being, am total, whole, one, otherless.  Since I, being, am Truth and since I, being, am Mind/Consciousness, therefore Truth is Mind/Consciousness.

2)    Most rules are not in favor of democracy.

Word-tracking:
ruler:  rule, govern, dominate, regular, regular, common
govern:  to steer, guide, follow, advise, to see
favor:  approve, prefer, to want one thing more than another
democracy:  rule of the people
people:  common people, people living in a district, hoi polloi (the many)
common:  exchange, reciprocal, a quantity (or quality) when multiplied by some other quantity or quality equals one.

3)    Truth being one, there is no hoi polloi (the many), therefore the personification of Truth is singular.  Since the personification of Truth is singular, the rule of the people is singular.  Since the personification of Truth is singular, there is only one Self. Therefore Self-government is singular, therefore Truth is the only rule, the only ruler, the only ruled.  Truth being one, there can be no favoring of one over another, therefore Truth “favors” Itself.  Truth being the sole Rule, therefore Truth is regulator, regulation, regular OR Truth is regular, common, commonplace.  Truth being Mind/Consciousness, therefore Truth sees, Truth advises, Truth steers, Truth governs.  And who does it see, advise, steer, govern?  Itself.  Therefore Truth sees, advises, steers, governs Itself.

4)    The personification of Truth is singular. 
The rule of the people is singular.
 There is only one Self.
 Self-government is singular
Truth is the only rule, the only ruler, the only ruled. 
Truth “favors” Itself.
Truth is regulator, regulation, regular OR Truth is regular, common, commonplace.
Truth sees, advises, steers, governs Itself.

5)   The personification of Truth is the singular, regular, commonplace knowing and guiding of Itself, by Itself, for Itself.

The Weekly Invitational Translation Group invites your participation as well.  If you would like to submit a Translation on any subject, feel free to send your weekly Translation to zonta1111@aol.com and we will anonymously post it on the Bathtub Bulletin on Friday.

For information about Translation or other Prosperos classes go to: https://www.theprosperos.org/teaching

Your Memories Are Not as True as You Think

It turns out memories have a very shaky foundation.

PUBLISH DATE: 5/24/23

Did your memories ever really happen? Turns out, every time you recall a memory, it gets a little more false. Scientists explain why your memories change over time—and why they’re less real than you think.

TRANSCRIPT

Your Memories Are Not as True as You Think

Published: May 25, 2023

Heather Berlin: Memory. Each of us has a life rich with experiences to draw from. Where we were born, went to school, who we fell in love with. Memories are the cornerstone of our identities, but as it turns out, they have a very shaky foundation.

Daniela Schiller: The stories we tell ourselves, or what we consider our “memory” is a construction. We create these representations. And they’re very dynamic, they constantly change. You’re kind of living a revision of the story of your life, constantly.

Anil Seth: The more often we recall things, the less objectively accurate our memories become.

Heather Berlin: It turns out that every time you a recall a memory, your first kiss, graduating from college, the death of a loved one, the very act of recollection makes it vulnerable to change.

Daniela Schiller: So, when you experience a new event, it has to be stored in the brain. And then, we used to think that whenever you think about that event, you retrieve the same original memory. But what we got to realize in the last few decades is that whenever you retrieve a memory, it goes back to an unstable state.

Heather Berlin: In 2000, memory scientist Eric Kandel won the Nobel Prize for showing that each new memory creates new synapses, connections that store the memory. But what happens when you recall it?

Steve Macknik: Every time you remember it, you bring it up into your working memory and you perceive it, and you destroy the long term memory, and you actually have to recast it into long term memory when you re-remember it. So, every single time you remember something, you actually add more noise to it. So that it’s more and more and more false, throughout time.

Heather Berlin: This mechanism, called reconsolidation, was first discovered in rodents, where neuroscientists witnessed what happens when a memory gets recollected. For the memory to return to long-term storage, the connections between neurons actually have to get rebuilt.

Recent experiments have suggested this is likely a mechanism in human brains, as well, because certain drugs, known to disrupt reconsolidation, have been shown to alter human memories.

André Fenton: We’re stuck with the problem of, “How do we know what is true? How do we know what’s real?” And maybe part of the recognition is some of those things don’t matter as much as we think they do.

Daniela Schiller: If we think about the fact that maybe our memories are not as they originally happened, it could be a scary thought, because then, who are we? But I think you need to think about it as something more liberating, because if you’re stuck with original representations, you’re kind of stuck in the past.

Heather Berlin: Just like our perceptions, our sense of self is dynamic, built to serve us in the present.

Anil Seth: So, our experience of self as a construction, at all sorts of different levels, what the brain is doing, is interested in, is weaving together a kind of story.

André Fenton: The brain is a storytelling machine, right? It’s a machine that’s designed to make predictions.

Bobby Kasthuri: The narratives that we tell ourselves are the biggest illusions that we ever participate in.

Susana Martinez-Conde: Your sense of who you are is an illusion, as everything else. You’re no exception.

Heather Berlin: But if even our sense of self is an illusion, where does that leave us?

Susana Martinez-Conde: Trust the illusion. That’s the only thing that we can be sure of, that what we perceive is not what’s there.

By fighting the ozone hole, we accidentally saved ourselves

With the Montreal Protocol, life on Earth dodged a bullet we didn’t even know was headed our way.

by J. BESL MAY 29, 2023 (yaleclimateconnections.org)

An image of Antarctica from a plane.
A NASA plane flew over the Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica on Oct. 14, 2017. The flight was part of the Atmospheric Tomography mission to survey over 200 gases as well as airborne particles. CC BY 2.0

In 1985, the British Antarctic Survey alerted the world that in the atmosphere high above the South Pole a giant hole was forming in the Earth’s protective ozone layer. World leaders swiftly assembled to work out a solution. Two years later, the United Nations agreed to ban the chemicals responsible for eroding the layer of the stratosphere that shields Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Known as the Montreal Protocol agreement, it is still one of the UN’s most widely ratified treaties.

The Montreal Protocol was a win for diplomacy and the stratosphere. But unbeknown to its signatories at the time, the agreement was also an unexpected ward against climate catastrophe. As new research shows, the aptly named ozone-depleting substances that created the hole over Antarctica are also responsible for causing 30 percent of the temperature increase we saw globally from 1955 to 2005.

The climate is changing, and our journalists are here to help you make sense of it. Sign up for our weekly email newsletter and never miss a story.

Michael Sigmond, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada is the lead author of a new study calculating the greenhouse-trapping potency of ozone-depleting substances. The substances’ contribution to global warming are, he says, “larger than most people have realized.”

Read: The best climate news you may not have heard about

Read: Checklist: How to take advantage of brand-new clean energy tax credits

The Montreal Protocol regulates nearly 100 ozone-eating chemicals. Many fall under the umbrella of chlorofluorocarbons, commonly called CFCs, chemicals popularized in the 1930s for use in spray cans, plastic foams, and refrigeration. Compared with the array of toxic, flammable alternatives they replaced, CFCs were seen as wonder chemicals, and by the early 1970s, the world was producing nearly one million tonnes of them each year.

The world has phased out nearly 99 percent of ozone-depleting substances since the signing of the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The graphic shows in red the pockets of low ozone in 2019. Though the situation is much improved since the worst levels in the 1990s and 2000s, the United Nations says the ozone hole over Antarctica won’t heal until 2066. Image by NASA Earth Observatory

CFCs are inert, so they don’t react with other gases. Instead, they tend to accumulate in the atmosphere and drift wherever the wind takes them, hanging around in the air for 85 years or more. Once they reach the stratosphere, the second layer of Earth’s multilayered atmosphere, CFCs begin to break down. They’re “destroyed by being blasted apart by photons,” explains Dennis Hartmann, a climate scientist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the research. That reactive ruckus is what causes the hole in the ozone layer.

In the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, which fewer photons reach — ozone-depleting substances act as long-lasting greenhouse gases. Back in 1987, scientists knew ozone-depleting substances trapped some solar radiation, but they didn’t know how much. Only recently have scientists been putting together the evidence that ozone-depleting substances are actually one of the most damaging warming agents of the past half century.

The effects of this warming are amplified at the poles. Sigmond and his colleagues’ work shows that if ozone-depleting substances had never been mass produced — if the concentration in the atmosphere had stayed at 1955 levels — the Arctic today would be at least 55 percent cooler, and there’d be 45 percent more sea ice each September.

Ozone-depleting substances production leveled off in the 1990s. But because they’re so long-lived, these gases are still kicking around, and the warming they cause is still increasing. Yet it could have been much worse. By banning ozone-depleting substances, the Montreal Protocol unintentionally prevented 1°C of warming by 2050.

With the Montreal Protocol, world leaders rallied around an urgent cause. In the process, we inadvertently phased out the second-largest forcer of global warming. The unanticipated benefits for the global climate, says Susann Tegtmeier, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Saskatchewan who was not involved in the study, “can be considered a very welcome and very positive side effect.”

While it’s taken a lot more negotiation and innovation to begin dislodging the main driver of climate change — carbon dioxide — the Montreal Protocol proves the power of collective action and shows how tackling environmental woes can help us in ways we didn’t expect.

This story was originally published in Hakai Magazine and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

The Plant-Inspired Robots That Could Colonize Mars

Barbara Mazzolai’s roboplants could analyze and enrich soil, search for water and other chemicals, or even be used to grow infrastructure from scratch.

The tendril-like soft robot curling around a plant stalk. Source images: IIT-Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia and NASA

By: Dario Floreano and Nicola Nosengo

( thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)

In the early 2010s, a new trend in robotics began to emerge. Engineers started creating robotic versions of salamanders, dragonflies, octopuses, geckos, and clams — an ecosystem of biomimicry so diverse the Economist portrayed it as “Zoobotics.” And yet Italian biologist-turned-engineer Barbara Mazzolai raised eyebrows when she proposed looking beyond animals and building a robot inspired by a totally different biological kingdom: plants. As fluid as the definition of the word robot can be, most people would agree that a robot is a machine that moves. But movement is not what plants are famous for, and so a robotic plant might at first sound, well, boring.

This article is excerpted from Dario Floreano and Nicola Nosengo’s book “Tales From a Robotic World.”

But plants, it turns out, are not static and boring at all; you just have to look for action in the right place and at the right timescale. When looking at the lush vegetation of a tropical forest or marveling at the colors of an English garden, it’s easy to forget that you are actually looking at only half of the plants in front of you. The best-looking parts, maybe, but not necessarily the smartest ones. What we normally see are the reproductive and digestive systems of a plant: the flowers and fruits that spread pollen and seeds and the leaves that extract energy from sunlight. But the nervous system, so to speak, that explores the environment and makes decisions is in fact underground, in the roots.

Roots may be ugly and condemned to live in darkness, but they firmly anchor the plant and constantly collect information from the soil to decide in which direction to grow to find nutrients, avoid salty soil, and prevent interference with the roots of other plants. They may not be the fastest diggers, but they’re the most efficient ones, and they can pierce the ground using only a fraction of the energy that worms, moles, or manufactured drills require. Plant roots are, in other words, a fantastic system for underground exploration — which is what inspired Mazzolai to create a robotic version of them.

“It forced us to rethink everything, from materials to sensing and control of robots.”

Mazzolai’s intellectual path is a case study in interdisciplinarity. Born and raised in Tuscany, in the Pisa area that is one of Italy’s robotic hot spots, she was fascinated early on by the study of all things living, graduating in biology from the University of Pisa and focusing on marine biology. She then became interested in monitoring the health of ecosystems, an interest that led her to get her doctorate in microengineering and eventually to be offered by Paolo Dario, a biorobotics pioneer at Pisa’s Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, the possibility of opening a new research line on robotic technologies for environmental sensing.

It was there, in Paolo Dario’s group, that the first seeds of her plant-inspired robots were planted. Mazzolai got in touch with a group at the European Space Agency (ESA) in charge of exploring innovative technologies that looked interesting but were still far away from applications, she recalls. While brainstorming with them, she realized space engineers were struggling with a problem that plants brilliantly solved several hundred million years ago.

“In real plants, roots have two functions,” says Mazzolai. “They explore the soil in search of water and nutrients, but even more important, they anchor the plant, which would otherwise collapse and die.” Anchoring happens to be an unsolved problem when designing systems that have to sample and study distant planets or asteroids. In most cases, from the moon to Mars and distant comets and asteroids, the force of gravity is weak. Unlike on Earth, the weight of the spacecraft or rover is not always enough to keep it firmly on the ground, and the only available option is to endow the spacecraft with harpoons, extruding nails, and drills. But these systems become unreliable over time if the soil creeps, provided they work in the first place. They didn’t work for Philae, for example, the robotic lander that arrived at the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet in 2014 after a 10-year trip only to fail to anchor at the end of its descent, bouncing away from the ground and collecting just a portion of the planned measurements.

In a brief feasibility study carried out between 2007 and 2008 for ESA, Mazzolai and her team let their imagination run free and described an anchoring system for spacecrafts inspired by plant roots. The research group also included Stefano Mancuso, a Florence-based botanist who would later gain fame for his idea that plants display “intelligent” behavior, although of a completely different sort from that of animals. Mazzolai and her team described an ideal system that would reproduce, and transfer to other planets, the ability of Earth plants to dig through the soil and anchor to it.

In the ESA study, Mazzolai imagined a spacecraft descending on a planet with a really hard landing: The impact would dig a small hole in the planetary surface, inserting a “seed” just deep enough in the soil, not too different from what happens to real seeds. From there, a robotic root would start to grow by pumping water into a series of modular small chambers that would expand and apply pressure on the soil. Even in the best-case scenario, such a system could only dig through loose and fine dust or soil. The root would have to be able to sense the underground environment and turn away from hard bedrock. Mazzolai suggested Mars as the most suitable place in the solar system to experiment with such a system — better than the moon or asteroids because of the Red Planet’s low gravity and atmospheric pressure at surface level (respectively, 1/3 and 1/10 of those found on Earth). Together with a mostly sandy soil, these conditions would make digging easier because the forces that keep soil particles together and compact them are weaker than on Earth.

At the time, ESA did not push forward with the idea of a plant-like planetary explorer. “It was too futuristic,” Mazzolai admits. “It required technology that was not yet there, and in fact still isn’t.” But she thought that others beyond the space sector would find the idea intriguing. After transitioning to the Italian Institute of Technology, in 2012, Mazzolai convinced the European Commission to fund a three-year study that would result in a plant-inspired robot, code-named Plantoid. “It was uncharted territory,” says Mazzolai. “It meant creating a robot without a predefined shape that could grow and move through soil — a robot made of independent units that would self-organize and make decisions collectively. It forced us to rethink everything, from materials to sensing and control of robots.”

The project had two big challenges: on the hardware side, how to create a growing robot, and on the software side, how to enable roots to collect and share information and use it to make collective decisions. Mazzolai and her team tackled hardware first and designed the robot’s roots as flexible, articulated, cylindrical structures with an actuation mechanism that can move their tip in different directions. Instead of the elongation mechanism devised for that initial ESA study, Mazzolai ended up designing an actual growth mechanism, essentially a miniature 3D printer that can continuously add material behind the root’s tip, thus pushing it into the soil.

It works like this. A plastic wire is wrapped around a reel stored in the robot’s central stem and is pulled toward the tip by an electric motor. Inside the tip, another motor forces the wire into a hole heated by a resistor, then pushes it out, heated and sticky, behind the tip, “the only part of the root that always remains itself,” Mazzolai explains. The tip, mounted on a ball bearing, rotates and tilts independent of the rest of the structure, and the filament is forced by metallic plates to coil around it, like the winding of a guitar string. At any given time, the new plastic layer pushes the older layer away from the tip and sticks to it. As it cools down, the plastic becomes solid and creates a rigid tubular structure that stays in place even when further depositions push it above the metallic plates. Imagine winding a rope around a stick and the rope becomes rigid a few seconds after you’ve wound it. You could then push the stick a bit further, wind more rope around it, and build a longer and longer tube with the same short stick as a temporary support. The tip is the only moving part of the robot; the rest of the root only extends downward, gently but relentlessly pushing the tip against the soil.

The upper trunk and branches of the plantoid robot are populated by soft, folding leaves that gently move toward light and humidity. Plantoid leaves cannot yet transform light into energy, but Michael Graetzel, a chemistry professor at EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, and one of the world’s most cited scientists, has developed transparent and foldable films filled with synthetic chlorophyll capable of converting and storing electricity from light that one day could be formed into artificial leaves powering plantoid robots. “The fact that the root only applies pressure to the soil from the tip is what makes it fundamentally different from traditional drills, which are very destructive. Roots, on the contrary, look for existing soil fractures to grow into, and only if they find none, they apply just enough pressure to create a fracture themselves,” Mazzolai explains.

This new project may one day result in robot explorators that can work in dark environments with a lot of empty space, such as caves or wells.

The plantoid project has attracted a lot of attention in the robotics community because of the intriguing challenges that it combines — growth, shape shifting, collective intelligence — and because of possible new applications. Environmental monitoring is the most obvious one: The robotic roots could measure changing concentrations of chemicals in the soil, especially toxic ones, or they could prospect for water in arid soils, as well as for oil and gas — even though, by the time this technology is mature, we’d better have lost our dependence on them as energy sources on planet Earth. They could also inspire new medical devices, such as safer endoscopes that move in the body without damaging tissue. But space applications remain on Mazzolai’s radar.

Meanwhile, Mazzolai has started another plant-inspired project, called Growbot. This time the focus is on what happens over the ground, and the inspiration comes from climbing trees. “The invasiveness of climbing plants shows how successful they are from an evolutionary point of view,” she notes. “Instead of building a solid trunk, they use the extra energy for growing and moving faster than other plants. They are very efficient at using clues from the environment to find a place to anchor. They use light, chemical signals, tactile perception. They can sense if their anchoring in the soil is strong enough to support the part of the plant that is above the ground.” Here the idea is to build another growing robot, similar to the plantoid roots, that can overcome void spaces and attach to existing structures. “Whereas plantoids must face friction, grow-bots work against gravity,” she notes. This new project may one day result in robot explorators that can work in dark environments with a lot of empty space, such as caves or wells.

But for all her robots, Mazzolai is still keeping an eye on the visionary idea that started it all: planting and letting them grow on other planets. “It was too early when we first proposed it; we barely knew how to study the problem. Now I hope to start working with space agencies again.” Plant-inspired robots, she says, could not only sample the soil but also release chemicals to make it more fertile — whether on Earth or a terraformed Mars. And in addition to anchoring, she envisions a future where roboplants could be used to grow entire infrastructure from scratch. “As they grow, the roots of plantoids and the branches of a growbot would build a hollow structure that can be filled with cables or liquids,” she explains. This ability to autonomously grow the infrastructure for a functioning site would make a difference when colonizing hostile environments such as Mars, where a forest of plant-inspired robots could analyze the soil and search for water and other chemicals, creating a stable structure complete with water pipes, electrical wiring, and communication cables: the kind of structure astronauts would like to find after a year-long trip to Mars.


Dario Floreano is Director of the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL). He is the co-author, with Nicola Nosengo, of “Tales From a Robotic World: How Intelligent Machines Will Shape Our Future,” from which this article is excerpted.

Nicola Nosengo is a science writer and science communicator formerly based at EPFL. His work has appeared in Nature, the Economist, Wired, and other publications. He is the Chief Editor of Nature Italy.