How realistic is “The future of” on Netflix?

Submitted by alakeya t3_zqnu8b in Futurology

I was watching The future of and I really liked it, although I couldn’t help but be a little surprised by the ideas there. One of the concepts that interested me the most and that I haven’t heard of before was how genetically modified plants could be used to store data, generate light or even create buildings. If anyone has watched the documentary, how realistic do you think are the concepts? And which time frame do you think it’ll take us to get there?

144

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0yvxqk wrote

Well, glowing gmo plants have already been engineered a couple years back. Not sure they are commercially available yet tho.

On the other hand, using plants to store data sounds like a strange idea. Pretty unwieldy and fragile for a memory stick, I'd say.

106

stealthdawg t1_j0z1uwn wrote

iirc the idea was storing the data in DNA, not in the plant structure, so-long as the plant has any viable cells the data would be intact, theoretically. DNA is supposedly extremely data-dense.

24

Paradox68 t1_j0zde63 wrote

How is this better for protecting your data than a solid metal stick?

8

NotShey t1_j0zj5e4 wrote

Hm. Just spit balling, but if you wanted to store data for a really REALLY long time (thousands of years or longer) embedding it in the DNA of a really resilient plant or fungal species is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Has some fairly obvious advantages over a diamond disk or something along those lines, particularly in terms of redundancy.

15

Illuminaso t1_j10h56g wrote

DNA is a pretty lossy system though. I mean hell, that's how evolution happens. If you wanted to preserve some data in DNA for thousands of years, when you came back to it it may have evolved into something completely different.

​

If you were to store it on a USB stick or a hard drive it would last forever provided it was stored properly.

6

NotShey t1_j11hmtx wrote

>DNA is a pretty lossy system though

Depends on the species, and on a time scale of thousands of years, DNA can be very stable compared to most other storage mediums. On a timescale of millions of years everything is pretty lossy.

5

Suekru t1_j10m09c wrote

I figured they write it on a plant that could live thousands of years, like a tree. That way they could access the same DNA.

USB sticks, if not plugged in once in a while will eventually lose their data. The time for this is about 10 years or a bit more.

Hard drives might be a better option than a USB stick for long term storage, but they use magnets to store data and eventually they will deteriorate. With that said I have like a 20 year old hard drive that the data on it is still readable, so they can last a while. But I doubt data would be readable after a 100 years. Not impossible, depends on the quality of the drive.

But multiple generation data storage like 1000 years, you’d need to switch the data to a new drive every so often and keep plenty of backups. So the DNA method would be an interesting work around to this problem.

1

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0z28vv wrote

Ah. that makes a bit more sense. Bit still unpractical for most purposes, imo

4

tvfanatic1337 t1_j0zjczb wrote

It’s practical for a lot of reasons. DNA takes 1000s of years to degrade vs digital devices which constantly have to be replaced every few decades.

It is multithreaded, DNA can be read at any entry point in parallel along the strand.

It’s cheap: every living thing on earth can store DNA, it’s dirt cheap.

It’s compact and dense.

It can be expanded past base 4 to any arbitrary base with synthetic nucleotides.

https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/hello-data-dna-storage/

14

alakeya OP t1_j0ywdg6 wrote

Do you have any article/research I can read about the glowing plants? That sounds amazing!

21

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0z0bdg wrote

Well, this is the original publication, I guess: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0500-9.epdf

But you can literally google "glowing gmo plants" for less in-depth text and more pics.

I think I've seen some ads for commercial plants like that, but I can't find it now. Maybe it was a crowdsourcing project that failed later.

15

alakeya OP t1_j0z28h8 wrote

Thank you so much!

4

meanogre t1_j116ed2 wrote

Glo-fish are a genetically modified fish species that glow neon colors under black light (UV heavy light). They’ve been on the market around a decade or so now. These fish have been modified with jellyfish DNA to produce fluorescing molecules in their skin. Here’s a link:

https://shop.glofish.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=FY22

4

mjconver t1_j0z006j wrote

Just because they glow doesn't mean they're good for power. It's the same process as fireflies, and it's cold.

6

alakeya OP t1_j0z27m9 wrote

Yeah I figured but it’s still so cool!

3

U-N-C-L-E t1_j0z7uwx wrote

You're not allowed to be excited about things on this subreddit.

10

alakeya OP t1_j0zdjkw wrote

I keep getting downvoted and I don’t understand what I said wrong TT I genuinely think that glowing plants are cool

14

warthog0869 t1_j0zh44z wrote

here, take my upvote

because glowing plants are cool

some say even cold

5

alakeya OP t1_j1017m4 wrote

Thank you, kind stranger. I’ll cherish it!

4

tjoe4321510 t1_j0zz0q1 wrote

If you think that's cool then you should check out glow in the dark rabbits.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists

5

alakeya OP t1_j101cf9 wrote

OMG THIS IS AMAZING!! That looks so cool TT It gives me Liv in the future vibes

3

Filip-Kovac t1_j10kul2 wrote

Sorry but your answer gives me the feeling that you didn't even read the article.

After you guys talked about glowing plants, then you seem to be amazed by glowing rabbits, who are used for scientific experiments.

Prove me wrong please. How exactly do you think that is so cool?

−3

Psychomadeye t1_j10xcd6 wrote

Bioluminescent rabbits used to demonstrate a potential technique of intervention in deadly diseases need to justify being cool?

5

Filip-Kovac t1_j113hd9 wrote

I think you dont understand what I meant by my message. I think that it's important for people to understand that the cool part is the as you said: "intervention in deadly diseases". All I meant by my answer is I am getting a feeling from the response by u/alakeya that he/she thinks the cool part is the glowing rabbits and not understanding the real point of curing the diseases

−2

alakeya OP t1_j115hwa wrote

No, I think that you’re misunderstanding something here. Me saying that something is cool does not exclude the scientific and medical research that has been put through and its purpose. Every single medical treatment has a side effect, and honestly, the fact that unlike some other potential treatments that can be a possible cause of death, this one causes bioluminescence, is pretty damn rad. I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply here, you’re bothered that I got excited by two interesting researchers?

5

Filip-Kovac t1_j119ogk wrote

All I did was ask you to explain why you're excited. I thank you for that. Nothing more, nothing less ;)

Have a good day

edit: that is why I said I'm getting a feeling, please explain. Didn't mean no offense by it what so ever.

1

alakeya OP t1_j11d6it wrote

It’s all good, man. Sorry I snapped, seemed like you were trying to portray my thought process as something different. Have a nice day too!

1

Psychomadeye t1_j11bibd wrote

Bioluminescent animals are cool to me by default. Showing someone fireflies for the first time because they're from an area in which they aren't indigenous is like the first time someone sees snow in their 20's. Bioluminescent bunnies are pretty cool little guys to me by default. The fact that we can make them is also kinda cool. As far as if we should be making them, we're not really discussing that. It's intentionally not within the scope of this discussion. To me it feels like this is what bothers you.

2

MPHunlimited t1_j0z4muh wrote

It is kind of sad to he honest. It's a complex chemical process that got solved halfway by a scientist, a startup company then tried to sell that they could figure out the last half and make it a consumer product. They made some progress but locked up a bunch of the work behind a patent, and then failed to make a glowing plant. Leaving the whole process locked legally and not easily picked up by the next person.

Capitalism can only give us avatar on the big screen. R.I.P.

(And the plants were small herbaceous annuals, arabidopsis. Theory was to figure it out there then market and make enough to move on to larger and more useful plants, house plants, etc.)

4

alakeya OP t1_j0zdsno wrote

Oh Gosh, not this. In my opinion, scientific discovery/research shouldn’t be patented. Does this mean that the experiment is now stuck? Or are other companies/universities working on a different method?

1

Kazumadesu76 t1_j13avuj wrote

You could also watch this great documentary about a whole planet of glowy plants/storage devices. The documentary is called Avatar.

3

frantruck t1_j0ziqdc wrote

We already use plants for data storage, it's called paper /s

14

crazypandaex t1_j0z4f5m wrote

Sounds like avatar where they store all those memories in that tree.

3

karma_aversion t1_j110rlm wrote

Sounds like the Game of Thrones where the Children of the Forest store their memories in the weir woods. Dang, avatar ripped off everything.

1

Legojoker t1_j12t3tj wrote

Wasn’t that mechanic technically introduced in the 2011 book? That would mean GoT ripped off Avatar (obviously it didn’t, hiveminds are just a common fantasy motif).

1

lucid1014 t1_j12zjnz wrote

You might argue then that Avatar ripped it off the Speaker for The Dead book series.

1

SCP-Agent-Arad t1_j0z7521 wrote

I mean, glowing GMO animals have been commercially available for 2 decades, so plants can’t be that much harder.

3

W_AS-SA_W t1_j0zdynn wrote

I always imagined that the kittens that glowed would breathe fire when they got big.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j0zu3jx wrote

Storing data in plants might make some sense when I think about it. To "read" the data encoded in DNA would require you to consume some of the DNA, which means you only have a limited number of reads of that data before you run out. Putting that DNA into the genome of a plant would allow you to cheaply generate a bunch of copies of that data, and this data could then be stored indefinitely as seeds that could be planted again if more copies are needed.

I'm not sure how the show depicted it, but I think the idea of having a plant flash drive or something sounds unrealistic. However, I could see it being used as a form of cold storage in the future, but it's probably not even close to being a practical solution. There's also the issue of how much data could be crammed into a plant's genome before it starts effecting the plant's ability to be a plant.

2

Lidjungle t1_j103nlk wrote

SO... We could potentially encode data in plant DNA for future generations. They would just have to A) Figure out it's there, B) decode it, and C) speak the language it's encoded in.

Might as well put a message in a bottle and fling it around Jupiter.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j1077bc wrote

Cold storage is for cheaply and compactly storing large quantities of information that doesn't need to be accessed often. Yes, in order for DNA data storage to work, we have to have a means of decoding it. I'm not sure how this is a criticism of this specific technology as this would apply to literally anything that we use to store information.

1

Lidjungle t1_j10a8ih wrote

We can store data on anything. Even plant DNA. And every few years someone goes "OMG, what if we stored data in Ocean Waves!!! It's incredibly impractical and almost totally useless, but it's theoretically possible!" And then some BBC talking head runs a special on "Are Ocean Waves the future of data??" And says that within ten years you'll be loading GTA from the nearest beach and talking about data access for poorer landlocked countries.

Since we can store data on anything, the next question to ask is "Is it practical? Is it useful? Should I encode it on a giant gold disk with a huge sign, or embed it in the DNA of plants like a puzzle from a 90's adventure game?" So, what data would we encode this way, and what would we need it for? I'm just pointing out that while it's theoretically possible, it's not really useful.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j11de3t wrote

The difference here being that DNA, unlike ocean waves, is a naturally occuring molecule that evolved to store information that is encoded and decoded. How then is it a stretch that this molecule could be harnessed to store digital information? Furthermore, you ask what applications it might be useful for, and I already said in my original comment that cold data storage seems like a possible application. I also stated that there could be issues with the technology that either make it impractical now, and may even make it an inviable technology.

​

You said that encoding information in plant DNA is "like a puzzled from a 90's adventure game" which seems to be a continuation on your idea from your original comment. I'm not sure why this needs to be said again, but yes, for an information storage medium to be useful, you need to know how to decode it. Once again, this is true for any storage medium, be it a vinyl record, a magnetic tape, a CD, or a solid state drive.

​

I'm honestly not sure what you're attempting to criticize about anything I've said. It feels like you read the first sentence of my comment and decided that it needed to be attacked because it showed the slightest hint of optimism about an emerging technology. Would it have been more interesting if I had just said "it wont work?"

2

SpielbrecherXS t1_j100toc wrote

As cold storage, maybe. But I can't imagine it being viable for any immediate use, aside from exchanging secret spy messages.

1

GorillaP1mp t1_j1178c4 wrote

Kind of makes you wonder if that isn’t what all the “useless” sequences in our dna are because this has all happened before

1

lt_dan_zsu t1_j11f33t wrote

It's now thought to be mostly remnants of ancient parasites like viruses and transposons.

1

GorillaP1mp t1_j11gm3x wrote

Oh I’m sure it’s something like that. I just like saying “this has happened before” for dramatic effort.

1

z0mb1es t1_j0zc02q wrote

But then your data can ripen and grow into more nutrient dense data

1

thenikolaka t1_j10gdin wrote

Except that it could potentially pass the data onto future generations.

1

gustavocabras t1_j11osfy wrote

I'm just spitballing here. You can grow a tree and give it a pulse of electric current to somehow alter the ever slowly growing rings in the middle of the tree (the rings you count on a cut down tree to tell its age) that will give it nano changes that can be sequenced into 1s and 0s (microscopic) then to get the data out; you could blast the tree with a sonar device to pick up the microscopic 1s and 0s to pull out the data. All machines in this example only exist in my imagination.

1

BlazedAndConfused t1_j12qctm wrote

It’s not the practicality. It’s the application. Storing data in 200lb 3 feet wide HDDs in the early 70s was a bit impractical. Ideas are magic. Some applications aren’t practical, but the ones that are with the right input can change the world

1

PollyTing t1_j0yv6n1 wrote

I haven't seen a Netflix doc' that wasn't dumbed down and over simplified to the extent it isn't just wrong but also condescending and insulting to any viewer with more than 3 braincells.

39

alakeya OP t1_j0yvar7 wrote

Understandable, but in my defense I’m unfortunately really really stupid while having a hobby that requires some intelligence TT So I’m probably their target audience

19

PollyTing t1_j0yvxn4 wrote

Oh don't get me wrong I still sometimes watch them :D

9

BostonRich t1_j0yx0rq wrote

Well that's all well and good but did you know that every archeologist in the world is wrong and there were advanced civilizations long before we thought they existed???

6

kinsarc t1_j0yzzkm wrote

I mean, there’s some pretty compelling evidence and Hancock isn’t alone in his theories, nor does he ever say they’re 100 percent true.

3

cafffaro t1_j0z99yq wrote

What parts were compelling? I’d be happy to discuss. I’m an archaeologist.

5

kinsarc t1_j0zby2j wrote

I’m not. Haha. I’d love to hear more so what I shouldn’t believe when they have dating technologies and things like that that place these structures before the conventional timeline.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zcrut wrote

You mean C14 dating? That can only be used to date organic materials. So if used to date a structure, you’ve got to have a pretty compelling reason why, e.g., here is a trench dug to build a wall, and inside the infill of the trench there were some carbonized seeds.

But even this only gives you a “terminus post quem.” This means the earliest POSSIBLE date. In archaeology, confusing terminus post quem with an absolute dating is a very amateurish mistake.

5

kinsarc t1_j0zdblh wrote

Fair enough. What about the seismology readings determining structures are indeed underneath that have never been acknowledged.

3

cafffaro t1_j0ze3pf wrote

That’s one of the worst ones, because this stuff is SO mundane and Graham tries to pass it off like some huge mystery or conspiracy. Look up “remote sensing.” It’s a major part of what modern archaeologists do and has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

6

kinsarc t1_j0zlvqf wrote

Also fair enough! Thanks!

3

cafffaro t1_j0zm1yo wrote

Definitely! Feel free to hit me up with any random archaeology related questions if you ever want. Happy to do my best to answer.

3

kinsarc t1_j0zv89u wrote

Appreciate that. Happy holidays!

2

MuchoManSandyRavage t1_j0z3apu wrote

Compelling =//= interesting. They’re interesting thought experiments. Nothing more. And I’ve done some extensive study on many of Graham’s theories. He’s a crack pot, but it’s fun to imagine his theories.

2

zendonium t1_j0z71hr wrote

ELI5 why Graham is a crackpot? Which of his ideas is disproven?

1

cafffaro t1_j0z9cei wrote

That’s not how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

2

zendonium t1_j0z9osu wrote

I think one should explain why they refer to someone as a crackpot first.

4

cafffaro t1_j0zcby5 wrote

Because he has no credentials, makes no evidence based claims, invents wild theories, and is universally acknowledged as a pseudoscientist?

3

zendonium t1_j0zex9u wrote

We universally acknowledged there was only 1 planet less than 100 years ago.. it means nothing that something is 'universally acknowledged'.

His theories don't seem that wild to me. We know that modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years. Why wouldn't some of them behave like us and have civilisations?

Many of his claims are backed by evidence, such as new, more refined carbon dating estimates and newly discovered ancient sites.

Just because someone doesn't have an official degree in something doesn't make them any less credible. I run multiple businesses but never studied business in any formal setting. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have a degree in biology? Does his drawing on the human form have no value because he didn't have the proper credentials?

2

cafffaro t1_j0zhnq3 wrote

Also, rereading your comment, I’m not sure where you got this thing about people thinking there was only one planet less than 100 years ago. Humans have been aware of planets for thousands of years. The word itself comes from Ancient Greek.

6

zendonium t1_j0ziu18 wrote

Yes, sorry, I meant no other planets outside our system.

1

NotShey t1_j0zi47v wrote

>We universally acknowledged there was only 1 planet less than 100 years ago.. it means nothing that something is 'universally acknowledged'.

This is just flat out wrong and shows a deeply flawed understanding of the history of astronomy. Mars has been well understood to be a rocky planet since at least the 1600s.

3

zendonium t1_j0ziqyo wrote

Sorry, I meant no other planets outside our system.

1

NotShey t1_j0zla79 wrote

Not having the technology to detect exoplanets doesn't mean people thought they didn't exist. They were postulated since at least the 1500s, and people were actively looking for them over a hundred years ago (even if the tech to find them wasn't quite there yet).

We've had a pretty good feel for the structure of the macro world for a lot longer than I think you are giving people credit for.

1

zendonium t1_j0zp9hf wrote

Postulated by a few yes, but universal consensus was unsure if they even existed.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zrkqk wrote

I think it’s important to acknowledge that universal consensus also means something different today. We have the peer review process, which is objectively a sounder way of determining the validity of claims (compared to “the Pope agrees” or whatever). There’s a reason people like Hancock avoid submitting their claims to peer review.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zg73v wrote

It definitely means something when something is universally acknowledged. Yes, science has been wrong in the past, but it is highly unlikely that one dude vs the entire scientific community is going to have a legitimate point. And Graham’s points are not compelling. The thing is, we do have an idea of what people have been up to for the last 150k years. Lots of fascinating stuff, and archaeologists are constantly trying to expand our knowledge of early man. So, leaving aside the natural reaction of feeling somewhat personally insulted that someone would think all of us archaeologists are so stupid, I pose to you the question: if there truly were compelling evidence for lost cities, why wouldn’t archaeologists be the ones trying to publicize this? After all, countless sites have been discovered and publicized by archaeologists in the past decades…some which are pretty impressive.

What are the “more refined” C14 dates you’re referring to? Carbon dating usually gives you a window of 100-300 years.

Also, the idea that Da Vinci was some untrained amateur is really untrue.

0

zendonium t1_j0zikk5 wrote

I'm not saying all archaeologists are stupid and have missed some clear writing on the wall, but I do think people can be close-minded in many areas of science. If you don't agree with what someone is saying then tell us why their ideas are stupid. Instantly labelling someone a crackpot (appreciate it wasn't you but you picked up the thread) immediately silences the debate and for a layman like me (not an archaeologist) I still don't understand why his ideas are wrong.

I'm probably mistaken about the carbon dating. I read something about the dating of something being changed. Again, not an archaeologist.

If someone said the earth was flat, I would laugh. But then if someone said explain to me why the earth isn't flat, I'd be able to absolutely prove the flat earther wrong with hoards of evidence.

So how is it that pyramids appear all over the world, supposedly made by hunter gatherers?

1

cafffaro t1_j0zkh27 wrote

Definitely, I understand where you are coming from. And I'll also say that a lot of the onus is on archaeologists here, since we haven't always done a great job of making what we do accessible to the public. A lot of that has to do with the shit funding we receive from public institutions, but that's another conversation altogether. Personally, I'm happy to discuss these things.

> So how is it that pyramids appear all over the world, supposedly made by hunter gatherers?

So, two things here. I am assuming by "hunter gatherer" you mean societies that did not primarily engage in agriculture. Depending on your definition of "pyramid," most of the very famous examples (the pyramids at Giza, for example) were most DEFINITELY built by agricultural societies. Earthen structures, meanwhile, like the pyramids or "mounds" at Cahokia, were built both by agricultural and "mixed" societies who relied on a combination of settlement + nomadic approaches to gathering resources. And yes, Cahokia (near modern St. Louis, MO) was a veritable CITY, something that has been pretty much completely ignored by modern Americans (but not the archaeologists who have studied it). If you want to find a real "lost city," look no further.

Basically, and this is a bit of an oversimplification but generally true, there is a linear relationship between the amount of surplus resources a community gathers and the likelihood they are going to build monumental features in stone. But pre-agricultural societies also like building fancy stuff when they can. I guess I fail to see why that's a mystery.

As for the pyramid itself, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that many civilizations in different parts of the world would all build large monuments as temples or funerary markers. Between them, lots of differences characterize the different "pyramid" structures built by various civilizations.

1

zendonium t1_j0zox9y wrote

Thanks for your explanation. As a layman, I find this stuff absolutely fascinating. I personally believe the Egyptian pyramids were cast like concrete. It seems the simplest explanation. It is strange to me that so many pyramid shapes popped up in different continents. Is it that the shape in particular is just attractive to humans, or was it part of a shared culture going further back as Hancock posits?

Also, is it true, as the documentary implies, that many stone circles are basically ancient calenders? That was most intriguing to me. I know when we look at star configurations over time that it can lead into '9-11 = -2 so 2022 is the 2nd coming of christ' territory, but i did find it fascinating.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zqu93 wrote

Why do you think the pyramids at Giza were cast? Concrete hadn’t been invented yet, and we know that they were made of limestone and granite blocks.

I think the inclination to build upwards is pretty easily explained. Early religion was based on the natural world, and the most obvious way the natural world is observed is via the change of the seasons and cycle of day and night. So people, much like today, fixated on the sky. What’s out there?

Something like this would explain why early societies liked to build “upward” monuments. But again, beyond this pretty simple fact, the specific characteristics of pyramids vary pretty widely across the world. Plus, a lot of early structures (eg the temples at Malta) don’t really seem to be going for elevation.

I think the extent to which Neolithic buildings reflect astronomical patterns is a matter of debate. In some cases it seems pretty cut and dry, but some of the other stuff I’ve seen seems like a stretch. Overall, I am inclined to believe that, yes, the desire to map out time and the movement of celestial bodies went hand in hand with spirituality and played a big role in motivating early building projects.

1

zendonium t1_j0zsx09 wrote

I think the pyramids were cast using a mixture of limestone and granite. They might have built wooden frames (dyes) to cast the mixture, then once set, burnt the wood. There have been wooden structures found inside the great pyramid. This way, the building of the pyramid is easily explained. Lots of people lugging buckets up and down the structure to pour mixture into a dye. I can't conceive of any other way it could've been done.

They might have used heat or a chemical reaction (like concrete) to liquefy and solidify the mixture.

1

kinsarc t1_j0zc6ql wrote

Everyone says it but not many have much to back it up. I’m with you.

1

PollyTing t1_j0yzjtl wrote

Yes and they travelled the stars using an ancient gateway that can only be accessed by psychedelic drugs.

1

W_AS-SA_W t1_j0zejtd wrote

Mankind is about 140,000 years old, give or take. The oldest continuous culture is an aboriginal tribe at about 40,000 years. That leaves about 100,000 years unaccounted for. Oh yes, there were civilizations before the current one.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zex9g wrote

Ok, so why haven’t we found evidence for it?

2

W_AS-SA_W t1_j0zfq1n wrote

They have found some interesting stuff really deep underground. But most of it is probably underwater now. The surface of the planet is constantly changing. And there is a vast area under the oceans that no one has ever explored. I think we just haven’t looked in the right places yet.

−1

cafffaro t1_j0zgh7u wrote

It’s hard to evaluate your claim when you don’t provide any specific information.

3

DecentChanceOfLousy t1_j10guid wrote

The surface of the planet hasn't changed that drastically in 140000 years. Sea levels varied, but the oceans and continents have been in almost exactly the same places.

There are no secret hidden cities at the bottom of the ocean that were above water 140000 years ago. Small settlements just offshore, yes. But in open ocean, no.

2

W_AS-SA_W t1_j1m4yle wrote

Over 80% of the ocean floor has never been explored by man.

1

divepilot t1_j0zempt wrote

Glowing plants were a bit of a dud so far, but new work is in progress.

One of the many issues is that even if it works, should it be released into the wild, ever? If not, once it exists, can we avoid it? (because it's "soo cool", it just takes a few seeds)
What is the impact of lights on nocturnal life? (Althought that ship has kind of sailed with the light bulb).

The nice thing is that it takes extra energy to glow at night, whichever way it is done. So the glowing plant may be unlikely to become invasive.

The pictures needed long-term exposure to get enough light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glowing_Plant_project
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-glowing-plant-startup-that-just-gave-up-its-quest/

MIT uses another approach:
https://news.mit.edu/2021/glowing-plants-nanoparticles-0917

17

alakeya OP t1_j0zfdza wrote

That’s a really reasonable concern! Sad to hear that the startup failed but it’s not an easy project so they still contributed to the research

3

krautastic t1_j0zo17y wrote

I've seen the show, and I think those concepts are novel and far fetched. The closer and better reality is looking at how humans can get back to nature more and use nature in a more symbiotic way. Things like algae power generation, mushrooms for breaking down oil spills and plastic, more trees in urban corridors to bring down heat islands. Humans are out of balance with nature but it has so many problems solved if we just bring more of it into our lives. We don't need them to glow, we just need to recognize the strengths they already bring.

9

MacyCakess t1_j0z5eqr wrote

Sounds good! I'm gonna check it out. Has anyone seen Year Million? I think it's on Disney+

8

alakeya OP t1_j0zfg70 wrote

I haven’t. What is it about?

3

MacyCakess t1_j0zfyy6 wrote

I haven’t watched it in forever but it’s a similar concept documentary tv show. What the future will look like in figurative year million. I remember a couple of interesting things they mentioned but Idk if I should spoil it. I wanted to rewatch it but I had to end my account recently. Last I saw there was only one season

7

alakeya OP t1_j0zg67o wrote

That sounds really interesting, thank you for the recommendation!

6

norbertus t1_j0zlx0c wrote

> genetically modified plants could be used to store data

A lot of this comes down to applications of CRISPR, which is a bacterial immune system component that scientists have been using for the past 10+ years as way to "copy and paste" genes.

The "CRISPR array" is a portion of the genome that can be used to store arbitrary genetic sequences. Bacteria use the "CRISPR array" to store fragments of viral DNA for the immune system.

CRISPR has been modified, however, allowing us to store arbitrary data like videos inside a living cell's DNA

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/12/crispr-bacteria-video-harvard-wyss/

and CRISPR has been used to implement digital-stye logic gates inside living cells:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1516

These devices have been used in conjunction to coerce cells into recording -- into CRISPR -- information about their own internal activities, such as how many times a cell has undergone mitosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492567/

7

w0mbatina t1_j0z3a63 wrote

> genetically modified plants could be used to store data

Why would you want a storage medium that literally rots?

>generate light

Sure, but you will get very very little light from them. Basicly useless outside using them for decorations.

> even create buildings.

Sure, but we already do that. Its called wood.

What im trying to say is, its not realistic at all.

5

NY_Audioholic t1_j0yxdcz wrote

About as realistic as the scenes from Back to the Future Part II. Now where's my hoverboard?

4

Skylarkess t1_j0zymfl wrote

Y'all are sleeping on genetically modified algae as a way to provide light. Store in the day, emit at night. No power needed.

Big brain time.

4

sleeknub t1_j0zz89g wrote

I have a secret to tell you: plants have been used to create buildings for thousands of years.

3

Trakeen t1_j0yx73s wrote

Anyone remember Beyond 2000? I can’t recall any of that stuff coming true

2

Hari___Seldon t1_j0yzohu wrote

> I can't recall any of that stuff coming through

Then you'll be pleasantly surprised when you browse the topics they covered. Of course, everything isn't spot on but, to my surprise, there are quite a few that we've achieved or surpassed and a good chunk that are imminent. I was particularly surprised by how many space objectives are now current science instead of sci-fi aspirations.

5

Trakeen t1_j0z3dkv wrote

Thanks for the link! Yea a lot of those did come true. I recall one about room temperature super conductors and several about flying cars. I think there were a few about fusion but that topic seems to really be making some progress lately

1

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j0z5gst wrote

I'm not particularly attached to my body or my genes. I'm ready to become a plant-human hybrid like Poison Ivy.

2

alakeya OP t1_j0ze33l wrote

Make sure to not overdo it and turn into Groot instead!

1

username59046 t1_j124pl0 wrote

Definitely attempt Groot status ~ I doubt Poison Ivy can regenerate.

2

raishak t1_j0zuq7k wrote

We are a long way away from these things if they ever happen, but there is an interesting convergence in technology that might happen in the long future. Basically, nano tech already exists, but we did not make it. Cellular life checks all the boxes nanotech aims to achieve. It is highly likely that if nanotech ever enters mainstream usage (consumer products, building materials, etc.) it will take the form of bio-engineered cellular life, not tiny robots. Why make your own when you can just hijack the existing proven platform? It's not likely this would take the form of large-scale plants, rather in microscopic things like fabrics, adhesives, maybe even data processors (so called wetware computers). Though it might happen that we use cybernetic engineered "animals" with remote control tech embedded into them for certain labor/exploratory tasks as self-maintaining drones.

IMO it's far more likely we achieve near perfect mastery of biology before we ever have serious civilization on other planets, even within our own solar system. Once we have that much control, it's just another form of machinery/tech.

2

changerofbits t1_j10jwfo wrote

Like most of the popular posts in this sub, it really boils down to your definition of “realistic”. Like, there’s a huge difference between theoretically realistic or scientifically realistic vs economically realistic or politically realistic. The concepts you list seem realistic from a scientific standpoint. Will they be viable in a real world scenario? Possibly, but that question is so much harder to answer.

2

MasticateMyDungarees t1_j12ljkx wrote

The plant bit you mentioned reminded me of a project by MIT bioartist Joe Davis in which he inserted the entire English Wikipedia into an apple tree in order to create a literal, living tree of knowledge

2

alakeya OP t1_j14sfbf wrote

Didn’t know about this artist, his works sound extremely interesting

2

MasticateMyDungarees t1_j14tx8f wrote

His Wikipedia is definitely worth a read, he was one of the pioneers of transgenic organisms and has had some fun impact in my field of study.

1

kenojona t1_j13j43p wrote

We need to push ideas even if they seem unrealistics

2

UniversalMomentum t1_j11i6nb wrote

I think plants are chemical like self assembling factories so they have potential to be used like factories today, but it's probably not worth the risk of unpredictable interactions in the biosphere which seem far more likely if you engineering biological factories vs mechanical ones.

It's good imagination fuel and while plants are best at making other biological products their is some overlap .. like plants can make fuel even though we don't view it in the same category as food and medicine which they also make, but if we tried to make flat screen TVs with plants I think their rate of production vs land use would not be worth it.

I think self assembling robots will generally be better than involving biology unnecessarily, we have a lot more control and less chance of side effects in out giant soup of a biosphere.

1

Swollwonder t1_j1236k8 wrote

To add in to the data portion in plants this is entirely possible but the reasons to do it for most things aren’t there. All code at the end of the day boils down to a 1 or a 0 and DNA boils down to 2 letters (technically 4 but they are supposed to always match with their partner letters so functionally 2) and these 2 letters can be assigned to the 1 or 0 value. With CRISPR there isn’t a reason we CAN’T put a specific sequence or data into a plant as long as it either doesn’t use that nonsense DNA to make anything or if we don’t actually care about it living.

Now just because we can doesn’t mean we will or that it’s useful. It would be much harder to read this DNA compared regular memory on your computer and much more costly too. At best it might serve as a kind of biological trade mark for genetically engineered specimens? I’m struggling to see the application of it but I can’t claim to be an expert but as far as it being possible it definitely has been for probably longer than you think now

1

TheCulture1707 t1_j15msxg wrote

They genetically modified a yeast to produce morphine but the yields were too low for it to be commercially viable. I hope some noble scientist can work on the process and leak us a strain :-)

1

[deleted] t1_j110lbz wrote

[deleted]

0

amdamanofficial t1_j11kn0q wrote

Lmao I know nobody on reddit bothers to read the articles but you didn't even bother to read his 6 line text post!

2