*Nature does not inherently prevent technological developments;* rather, it
sets the conditions and limitations that both constrain and drive human
innovation. While nature's immutable "hard limits," such as the laws of
physics, can pose barriers, natural resource scarcity and environmental
problems can spur innovation in new, more efficient, and sustainable
technologies.
How nature can limit or constrain technology
Natural laws and hard limits: Technology cannot overcome fundamental laws
of the universe. For example, no technology can enable travel faster than
the speed of light. These are permanent constraints unless our
understanding of the universe changes dramatically.
Resource depletion: The planet's finite resources, such as fossil fuels,
can pose a challenge to economic growth fueled by traditional methods.
Without technological innovation to find alternatives or use existing
resources more efficiently, progress could be constrained.
Ecological consequences: The environmental damage caused by technology can
create a "negative feedback loop" that ultimately hinders progress. The
degradation of ecosystems signals that demand for resources and waste
absorption capacity has exceeded sustainable levels, forcing a reevaluation
of technology's impact.
Dutch disease: In some countries, an abundance of natural resources can
hurt the development of high-tech industries. A reliance on resource
exports can reduce the incentive for research and development (R&D),
hindering innovation in other sectors.
How nature can drive or inspire technology
Resource scarcity: Historically, resource scarcity has been a powerful
engine for innovation. For example, free-market economies have repeatedly
developed technologies to overcome the scarcity of nonrenewable resources,
leading to a long-term decline in real prices for many commodities.
Biomimicry: Engineers and scientists can find solutions to complex problems
by imitating nature's elegant and time-tested designs. This field, known as
biomimicry, has produced innovations such as:
Airplanes: The Wright brothers studied the wing structure and flight
patterns of birds.
Velcro: This was invented by a Swiss engineer who studied how burrs cling
to fabric.
Modern solar panels: These mimic the highly efficient energy conversion
process of leaves during photosynthesis.
The bullet train: The nose of Japan's high-speed train was inspired by the
beak of the kingfisher bird to reduce noise and energy consumption.
Environmental challenges: Addressing crises like climate change and
pollution pushes technology in new, sustainable directions. Green
technology innovation, such as renewable energy sources, can help mitigate
our ecological footprint while fostering economic growth.
Biodiversity: The biodiversity found in natural ecosystems is a knowledge
bank for innovation in many fields, from medicine to energy and
infrastructure. Many pharmaceuticals, for example, are derived from
biological resources.
Technology and the environment have always been interlinked.
Technological development is driven by humanity’s need and desire to
harness resources in the environment or disrupt normal environmental
processes for their benefit. Technology has allowed us to no longer be
governed by natural environmental processes and barriers – we can light our
homes any time of day using the energy unlocked from fossilised carbon, we
can dam rivers and direct their flow, and we can traverse the globe from
the comfort of our armchairs, to name just a few.
Rapid technological development since the Industrial Revolution gave some
the false impression that we no longer depend on the environment for our
wellbeing and that the environment was vast and resilient enough to
withstand anthropogenic pressures. This illusion was quickly shattered,
however, and as our understanding of ecosystem services grows, we have
started to appreciate the fundamental role of the environment in human
health and wellbeing.
Air and water pollution, soil degradation, biodiversity loss and climate
change are all interlinked environmental crises which have been driven by
technological development to support economic growth and intensive farming
for a growing population. Paradoxically, technological innovation is now
touted as a key solution to addressing environmental crises and unlocking
green growth. New technology is catalyzing the transition to net zero,
providing us with new ways to embed the circular economy and increasing our
ability to understand the world around us.
Engineers are in the business of solving problems. It's their
job to find ways to achieve certain outcomes. The problem might involve
finding a way to build a skyscraper that can withstand hurricane-force
winds. Or it might be to discover a method to deliver a specific dosage of
drugs to a single cell in the human body.
Engineers often look to nature to see if there's already a solution to
the problem they currently face. Not only must they recognize the solution,
but also be able to study, copy and enhance that solution so that we can
take advantage of it. There's a special word for this approach:
biomimetics. Ultimately, the engineer's creation mimics the structure or
function of a biological entity.
The results can be awe-inspiring or something people routinely take
for granted. But even the basic inventions wouldn't have been possible if
engineers hadn't paid close attention to the way things work in nature.
We'll take a look at five ways nature has inspired the technology we rely
upon, listed in no particular order.
Artificial intelligence is a term that has been thrown around
for decades. In the past, computers were just powerful machines that could
crunch enormous numbers -- they couldn't think for themselves. A computer
could only follow explicit instructions.
Today, engineers and computer scientists are trying to make the leap from
computation to thinking. They've met with some progress. In 2008,
scientists used the Blue Gene L supercomputer to simulate a mouse's brain.
That might sound simple, but a brain -- even one belonging to a virtual
mouse -- is incredibly complex. So complex, in fact, that the powerful
computer could only run the simulation in bursts of 10 seconds [source: BBC
News].
In 2009, Cornell researchers created a computer program that was able to
derive the basic laws of motion by analyzing the movements of a pendulum.
The program took a series of measurements and used a genetic algorithm to
extrapolate the basic laws of physics.
In the future, we may see machines capable of solving complex engineering
problems. We may even reach the point where computers design even more
powerful machines. How's that for deep thought?
4: Invading Cancer Cells
Nanotechnology scientists study viruses in the hopes of developing new
treatments for diseases like cancer.
There are teams of engineers, computer scientists and doctors who are
working on methods to cure cancer and other diseases on a cell-by-cell
basis. One solution they're working on involves designing delivery
technologies on the nanoscale. They're building medical nanoparticles --
objects that are smaller than 100 nanometers in diameter. A nanometer is
one-billionth of a meter. In fact, the nanoscale is so small that it's
impossible to view nanoparticles even with the aid of a light microscope.
The idea is elegant: Create a drug-delivery particle that can seek out a
cancer cell, infiltrate it and deliver medication exactly where it needs to
go. By targeting just the cancer cells, doctors hope to eliminate the
disease while minimizing any side effects. Healthy cells would remain
unaffected.
This is trickier than it sounds. But these teams have a natural model they
can study to create nanoparticles: viruses. Viruses can measure only a few
nanometers in length and are able to seek out specific kinds of cells
somehow before replicating. Doctors hope to create nanoparticles that mimic
this ability.
3: Sticking to Walls
Since the dawn of time, man has searched for the ideal way to stick
something to something else. In ancient times, this may have involved
hammering a large spike through the hide of a mammoth to make the cave
dwelling a little less drafty. These days, engineers look to plants with
burrs or creatures like the gecko for inspiration.
Back in 1941, Swiss engineer Georges de Mestral was picking out burrs that
had caught on his clothing and in his dog's fur. He placed a burr under a
microscope and noticed that it had tiny barbs that allowed it to attach to
passing creatures. The engineer came up with a brilliant plan -- create a
material that used these tiny barbs as a fastening device. That material is
what we now call Velcro [source: Stephens].
Then there's Gecko Tape, a material that uses nanoscopic hairs to cling to
sheer surfaces. The hairs mimic the ones you'd find on the feet of geckos.
One day, scientists might be able to create an entire suit using this
material. That suit would allow the wearer to scale walls and perhaps even
walk across ceilings. Before long, we may be able to put in a call to our
friendly neighborhood Spider-man.
2: Navigating Autonomously
In the future, there will be robots. Whether they will cater to our every
need or hunt us down in packs. It remains to be seen. Either way, one
feature robots will need to achieve their true potential is autonomous
navigation.
Most robots either require a pre-programmed route or simply react to
the environment whenever they encounter an obstacle. Very few can find
their way from one point to another on their own. Some engineers are trying
to overcome this problem by studying ants.
The Cataglyphis is an ant found in the Sahara Desert. Unlike other
ants, the Cataglyphis doesn't rely on pheromone trails to navigate through
its environment. Scientists believe that the ants use a combination of
visual piloting, path integration and systematic search [source: Moller et
al.]. Engineers hope that by gaining a deeper understanding of how
creatures like the Cataglyphis navigate, they can build robots with similar
capabilities.
1: Taking Flight
In 2000, Walt Disney Pictures released a new edit of "Fantasia." The
updated film contained several new sequences, one of which featured a pod
of humpback whales that take flight to the strains of "The Pines of Rome"
by Ottorino Respighi. While we're not likely to see humpback whales take to
the skies, the fantastical sequence presaged an actual scientific discovery.
In May 2004, a group of scientists and engineers published a scientific
paper in the Physics of Fluids journal. The team had built models of the
pectoral flippers on a humpback whale. On one model they included tubercles
-- the bumps you'd find on an actual whale's flipper. On another model they
used a smooth surface.
They tested both models in a wind tunnel at the U.S. Naval Academy. Their
tests showed that the flipper with the tubercles saw an 8 percent
improvement in lift. In addition, the flipper was less likely to experience
stall at steep wind angles and created up to 32 percent less drag.
Could we soon see airplanes with bumpy wings? It's entirely possible.
The team's findings suggest that nature has created an efficient device for
moving through fluid environments. It might be foolish not to take
advantage of these discoveries.
Technology applies scientific knowledge to practical problems and
also allows for new ways of doing scientific experiments. Science and
technology mutually drive each other's progress.
What is the main difference between science and technology?
The main difference between science and technology is in their aims.
Science has aims internal to the scientific method: the production of
knowledge and understanding. Technology has aims external to its own
development: technology is made to solve the practical problems of the day.
K Rajaram IRS 191025
On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar**Feeling-Vs-Engineering*
>
> *Once understanding was participation with every organism in the
> Biosphere, based on breathing, smelling, sensing, interacting,
> communicating ...in symbiosis. It was not a separated individual
> phenomenon, with marks and grades attached. In fact the entire Biosphere
> participated in the understanding, and all organisms spoke to each other by
> means of smelling and sensing. Thanks to economics we first excluded
> ourselves from the Biosphere and today reached the stage of self non
> acceptance. We need the approval of others desperately. When one was
> breathing and participating in symbiosis, the problem of absence of self
> confidence and the desperate need for others approval was not there. One
> belonged. Today we have either snobs or cowards or a mixture of both in
> all.*
>
> *From the understanding as a participant in the Biosphere, gradually, we
> entrophied into understanding-- as an individual effort. In this effort to
> understand, one needs a conceptual base to connect, and if there is no
> conceptual base that can be connected, understanding is not possible. But
> the conceptual bases can obtained only in nature and when nature is killed,
> nature cannot help in the understanding process. Now we are abandoning the
> very effort to understand and have surrendered the effort to computers.
> Machines do the understanding while we get dictated. Today we cannot live
> in a thick forest. Because we cannot smell, sense and communicate. Fear is
> the only emotion that engulfs. In the economic life, fear has taken over as
> continuous anxiety, and all escape from the anxiety by creating often
> superfluous work.*
>
> *China is supposed to be a very strong country. Thanks to its economic
> hysteria, it killed its environment totally, and there will be the near
> future when large areas would become uninhabitable. How can a country be
> strong when the people there continuously breathe poisonous fumes? As it is
> most countries are trying to threaten each other by showing more and more
> powerful weapons and machines. A coward, a sickly and wasted half person
> can do war. Computers watch and fight. Computers do not need breathing,
> sensing, conceptualizing etc.They function on the basis of algorithms
> prepared by other computers. The days of the cyborg wives and husbands with
> the pre-fed marriage algorithms and software are not far off.*
>
> *YM Sarma*
>
> *Chat gpt*
>
> That’s a powerful and provocative essay by *Y.M. Sarma*, titled *“Feeling
> vs Engineering.”* It’s a deeply philosophical critique of how humanity’s
> relationship with nature—and with understanding itself—has shifted from
> *participation* to *abstraction*.
>
> Here’s a concise breakdown and interpretation of its core ideas:
> ------------------------------
>
> *1. Understanding as Participation*
>
> - Originally, *understanding* was *experiential and ecological*—a
> living participation in the web of life.
> - Every organism was part of a vast, communicative network based on
> *sensing,
> smelling, and symbiosis*.
> - There was no separation between self and nature; to *be* was to
> *belong.*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. The Rise of the Conceptual and Economic Self*
>
> - With the advent of *economics and individualism*, humans cut
> themselves off from the Biosphere.
> - Understanding became *mental and analytical*, dependent on *conceptual
> bases* rather than sensory participation.
> - This shift bred *alienation, insecurity, and dependence on external
> validation*—the “need for others’ approval.”
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Entropy of Understanding*
>
> - Sarma uses “*entrophied*” to suggest a decay of living understanding
> into mechanical thought.
> - As nature is destroyed, the *source* of all conceptual connection—*nature
> itself*—is lost.
> - Now, we even outsource *understanding* to *machines*, surrendering
> agency and creativity.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. The Age of Fear and Superficial Activity*
>
> - Fear replaces belonging.
> - Economic anxiety pushes people to fill their lives with *“superfluous
> work”*—busyness that hides existential emptiness.
> - The inability to *smell, sense, and communicate* with nature
> reflects a deeper *loss of capacity for empathy and connection.*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. The Paradox of Power and Weakness*
>
> - Sarma criticizes modern nations (like China, in his example) for
> equating *economic and military might* with strength while their
> people and environments decay.
> - Real strength, he implies, lies in *biological and ecological health*,
> not technological domination.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *6. The Mechanization of Life*
>
> - As machines “understand” and “fight” on our behalf, humanity becomes
> *spectators* rather than participants.
> - The closing image—“cyborg wives and husbands with pre-fed marriage
> algorithms”—is a chilling metaphor for *total alienation*, where even
> intimacy is preprogrammed.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Central Thesis*
>
> Sarma’s essay contrasts *feeling (symbiotic, ecological participation)*
> with *engineering (conceptual, mechanical abstraction)*.
> He warns that by privileging the latter, we’ve reduced understanding to
> computation, and life itself to an algorithm—losing the very capacity to
> *feel,
> connect, and belong.*
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like me to turn this interpretation into a *summary essay*
> (e.g., 500 words) or a *discussion response* (like for a class or paper)?
>
> Certainly. Here’s my opinion and commentary on Y.M. Sarma’s *“Feeling vs
> Engineering.”*
> ------------------------------
>
> *Commentary and Opinion*
>
> Y.M. Sarma’s essay is not just an environmental or technological
> critique—it’s a lament for the loss of *being*. It expresses a profound
> grief for humanity’s disconnection from the living world, and for the
> hollow mechanization of what was once the most intimate human activity:
> *understanding.*
>
> Sarma’s core argument—that understanding was once participatory and
> embodied—rings true in both ecological and psychological terms. Modern
> cognitive science even supports this: much of human intelligence is *embodied
> cognition*, arising from the body’s interaction with the environment. Our
> senses are not passive receivers but active interpreters. When Sarma says,
> *“understanding
> was participation with every organism in the biosphere,”* he points to a
> forgotten truth: to know the world, we must first *be in* the world.
>
> The essay also powerfully diagnoses the *psychological consequences of
> separation*. When understanding becomes an abstract, individual
> effort—measured by marks, grades, and economic output—we replace belonging
> with performance. The “need for others’ approval” and the epidemic of low
> self-confidence are symptoms of a society that prizes measurable outcomes
> over lived connection. Sarma’s observation that we have become “snobs or
> cowards or a mixture of both” may sound harsh, but it captures the paradox
> of modernity: arrogance built on insecurity.
>
> His critique of *economics and technology* as the forces that sever us
> from the biosphere is partly moral and partly existential. He does not
> reject technology per se, but the *mindset* behind it—the one that sees
> life as data, and intelligence as computation. When he says, “machines do
> the understanding while we get dictated,” it’s not merely about AI; it’s
> about the abdication of responsibility. We no longer strive to understand
> because it’s easier to let algorithms define truth, beauty, and even
> relationships. The chilling image of “cyborg wives and husbands” is a
> warning that emotional life itself is at risk of being engineered.
>
> However, one might challenge Sarma’s view as overly nostalgic or
> essentialist. Human history has always been a dance between feeling and
> engineering, intuition and structure. The conceptual, symbolic mind—the one
> that builds tools and theories—is not inherently alienating; it’s also a
> form of creativity. The problem may not be that we *engineer*, but that
> we’ve forgotten how to *feel while engineering*. The future need not be a
> binary choice between the forest and the machine; it could be a
> reconciliation—an *ecological intelligence* that unites the precision of
> technology with the empathy of biospheric participation.
>
> Sarma’s despair about the loss of natural communication—our inability to
> “smell, sense, and communicate”—is profound, but perhaps not irreversible.
> The growing movements in *ecological design, biomimicry, and deep ecology*
> echo his call to rediscover belonging through integration, not withdrawal.
> Even digital technologies, when guided by awareness rather than greed, can
> reconnect us to the living systems we once silenced.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> Sarma’s essay is a wake-up call written in poetic anger. It confronts us
> with the question: *What is the cost of intelligence divorced from life?*
> His vision may seem apocalyptic, but beneath it lies a plea for humility
> and reconnection. In a world of algorithms and anxiety, he reminds us that
> true understanding is not computed—it is *felt*.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like me to expand this into a polished essay-style response
> (about 700–800 words) suitable for academic submission or publication?
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BmfAZ7UC6oE91jWqJcUT_DcRJxnfLVLAwfB3VC6u43YA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BmfAZ7UC6oE91jWqJcUT_DcRJxnfLVLAwfB3VC6u43YA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoq7EmQw940OWT-rzWiT4hhwRpUew3FHZOVR4z4pgqYa-g%40mail.gmail.com.
