With an optical trick, this German bottle of water is trying to prove its effectiveness for the body. Though drinking water is a necessity for life, the downside of this product is, that it takes approximately 8 litres of virtual water to produce 1 litre of bottled water. Drinking water may look good on the body… The carbon footprint is BIG AND FAT.

1. Oil Diet: Recipes for Disaster
2. Freshness Label
3. Colalife

If you happen to be in the neighborhood you might want to attend the Next Nature lecture I will be throwing at the Transnatural symposium this Saturday 13-03-2010 at the Trouw Building in Amsterdam. Among the other speakers are Elio Caccavale (UK), Tobie Kerridge (UK) and Rachel Armstrong (UK).

The Transnatural exhibition celebrates some of the more successful love affairs between the made & the born. Until March 19th you have the opportunity to see works like Bitfall, Biojewelery and Mudtub, whom you might know from the blogosphere, but are more than worth experiencing in real life. Thus recommended. Hendrik-Jan wrote a more extensive review in the local language.

1. Mud Tub
2. Wild birds illegally immigrating to City Zoo
3. Your grand-grand-parents new media

These SMS-style messages scribbled into the mountains by Belgian artist Wim Delvoye, make us so humbly aware of the discrepancy between our everyday human experience and some of the larger forces of nature.

1. Cloaca – Art(ificial) shit machine
2. Branded Pigs
3. Release – messages from the deceased

In 1977, NASA launched Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, two unmanned interplanetary space probes that were sent out to explore the outer space. Aboard each was a record which intended to communicate the story of earth to potential extraterrestrials.

In order to portray the ‘diversity of life on earth’ the records contained 115 images and a variety of natural sounds, such as those made by surf, wind, thunder, birds, whales, and other animals. To this they added spoken greetings from earth-people in fifty-five languages, an eclectic 90-minute selection of music, including both Eastern and Western classics and a variety of ‘ethnic music’, as well as messages from President Jimmy Carter and U.N. Secretary General Waldheim.

While we can only hope that any potential extraterrestrials are familiar with the concept of a record player, one might wonder whether the simple-mindedness of this action reflects the egocentrism of ‘human nature’ or ‘Western Culture’. What does it reflect that we turn ‘outer-space’ into ‘local-space’ in terms of perceiving the universality of our technology not only as relevant and transferable beyond our culture, but also beyond our planet? In this day and age, our technical knowledge and abilities have gone way beyond the LP, but has our ability to contextualize and put our own technological developments into perspective?

Source: www.geo.de, voyager.jpl.nasa.gov

1. Economy, as seen from Space
2. First tweet from space
3. In space, nobody can see you litter

They say “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”, but now we wonder what this keeps away, the Grapple, a hyperfruit that “Grunches like an Apple. Tastes like a Grape.”

The manufacturers of the hyperfruit cheerfully present their product as the missing link between candy and traditional fruits that – according to them – could even be an answer to unhealthy eating habits:

“With childhood obesity increasing at alarming rates, Grāpple® brand apples could go a long way to improving the eating habits of children and introducing them to more produce.”

The Grapple is made by adding flavorings to a regular Washington Extra Fancy Fuji Apple, the process uses some “complex” infusion technique and adds no additional sugars or calories.

Grapples are not genetically altered in any way, which might give parents some comfort, although we should actually be disappointed that the Grapple is merely a processed apple, rather than a bred fruit, as this means that the production of every single Grapple requires additional energy and resources – then again, the same is true for traditional sugar candy.

Anyhow, parents will be in trouble when their kids ask to show them the “Grapple tree”.

See also: Who designed the Banana?, Why are Carrots Orange? It is political, Hyper fruits, Some Kids don’t like Chicken, Better than the real thing. Thanks: John Weeks.

1. Apple Salad
2. apple stickers
3. Fruit4Day

Kiss the snake, eat the fruit. Different fruit, same principle? Nature changes along with us. Our peculiar image of the week was created for the Economist alongside the very readable cover story “Progress and its Perils“.

1. Apple Salad
2. Tourist Terrorist?
3. Office Kiss

Mud tub is an experimental tangible interface that allows people to control a computer while playing in the mud. By sloshing, squishing, pulling, punching, etc, in a tub of mud (yes, wet dirt), users control games, simulators, and expressive tools; interacting with a computer in a new, completely organic, way.

The installation was developed by Tom Gerhard in an attempt to further close the gap between our bodies and the digital world, allowing humans to use their highly developed sense of touch, and creative thinking skills in a more natural way. The current applications are merely demonstrators, but we expect to see some digitally enhanced sandboxes in the neighborhood soon.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you feel like getting dirty: Mudtub is on display at the lustrous Transnatural exhibition in Amsterdam until 19 March 2010.

1. Microsoft Surface Computing Parody
2. Do you “MIND”?
3. Miracle Banana Diet

My first razor I got when I was fifteen. It consisted of two blades on a simple metal stick and I remember it gave me a really close and comfortable shave. In the twenty years that have passed since my first shave, I’ve used nine different models of razors. This morning I shaved myself with the Gillette Fusion Power Phantom, a rather heavy, yet ergonomically designed battery-powered razor that looks like a bit like vacuum cleaner and has five vibrating blades with an aloe strip for moisture. So what happened? A story about design, technology, market and evolution.

By KOERT VAN MENSVOORT

First, a personal disclaimer (in case you were wondering): Yes, I agree shaving technology was already sufficiently developed when I got my first razor twenty years ago. Actually already in 1975, shortly after the Gillette Trac II razor – the first two-bladed men’s razor – was advertised, its excessive design was parodied on the US Television show Saturday Night Live. The creators of the satirical television program played on the notion of a two bladed razor as a sign of the emerging consumption culture and made a fake commercial parody for a fictitious razor with the ridiculous amount of three (!) blades, emphasizing the consumer is gullible enough to believe and buy everything seen on TV. Of course, the comedians of Saturday Night Live could not know a three-bladed razors would become a reality on the consumer market in the late 1990’s. Let alone that they could have anticipated I would shave myself with a five bladed razor this very morning. Welcome in the twenty-first century folks: No we don’t travel in spaceships… but we do have five bladed razors!

Fortunately, it is still possible to buy brand new blades for my very first razor model today. These older blades are not only cheaper – they are sold in a box of ten pieces for less money than a box of blades fitting the latest model, which contains only four cassettes. The older blades are also more durable. And yet, in the years that have past since my first shave, I bought over a dozen different razors – I honestly have to confess I’ve bought some models of the competing brand as well. So, why did I buy this whole collection of razors over the years? Perhaps it is because I am the type of person who is keen on new things: I am a sucker for innovation.

Before we analyze my own behavior as a buyer, lets first study the razors. If we look at the development of razor technology over time, we can distinguish quite some similarities with an evolutionary development as we know it from the biological world: 1) Every new model builds upon the properties of the previous model. 2) Successful alternations are preserved in future generations, whereas unsuccessful alternations will fade out. 3) The shift from functional technologies, like a pivoting head, to seemingly functionless aesthetics of the newer models, that only change in color and have no other purpose than to stand out amidst the competing razor models, remind us of the exuberant tail of a male peacock. 4) The unique click-on systems for replacement blades on different models resemble biological immune systems withholding intruders from entering and feeding on your environment. 5) There even are different survival strategies being tested, which over time may even result in separate species – think of the parallel branches in the more recent models that come with and without a battery. Apparently the marketers aren’t sure whether electric or non-electrical shaving has the future and decided to gamble on both strategies – and yes I confess: I bought them both.

INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

Now it may seem quirky, corny even, to consider the development of razors from an evolutionary perspective. After all these are industrial products assembled in factories. Yet I propose to look at them as the result of an evolutionary process. Now I already hear you oppose: “These razors didn’t evolve, people designed them! How can that be and evolutionary process?” Well, let me elaborate – and this is where we learn something on our symbiotic relation with technology. Indeed it is true that all the individual razors were created by engineers and designers, however, if we look at the design of the whole series of shavers as it developed throughout my shaving-career, it will be difficult to pinpoint one creator. Where is that one big mind, that ‘intelligent designer’ responsible for the transformation of the razor from a simple blade on a stick to a five bladed electric razor?

Obviously many designers and engineers have been involved in the creation of my razors over the years. No doubt these are all descent and friendly people – with good incomes too – but what more are these creators of the individual models than little cogs in the perpetuating Gillette Corporation? Calling them engineers and designers is arguably too much credit for the work they do, as they merely sketch up the next razor model of which one can already predict the ‘innovative’ new properties: it will be a slight variation on the current model with some added nanotech-sharpened blade, an extra moister strip, an anti-slip grip or perhaps even a custom customizable color scheme. The razor designers don’t have a lot of room for truly creative design work really. Its not like they are in a position to think deep on the meaning and origins of shaving, in order to reinvent how this ancient ritual can be improved upon. Like bees in a beehive their work is determined by the logic of the larger structure. The chair of that one great ‘intelligent designer’ steering the entire development of shavers over time is empty. The larger design gesture emerges from the closely interrelated forces of the consumer market, technological affordances and of course the competition – think of the Wilkinson brand that first introduced a four bladed shaving system, thereby forcing Gillette to answer with a five bladed system. Together these contextual influences constitute an ecosystem of a sort, which (again) closely resembles the environmental forces known to play a part in the evolutionary development of biological species.

EVOLUTION, BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT

Of course there are also arguments against this evolutionary view on the development of razor technology – so lets get both sides of the coin here. The most common objection is that “people play a role in the process, so it can’t be evolution.”

This reasoning is tempting, however, it also positions people outside of nature – as if we are somehow placed outside of the game of evolution and its rules don’t apply for us. There is no reason to believe this is the case: after all people have evolved just like all other life. The fact that my razors are dependent on people to multiply is also not unprecedented. The same is valid nowadays for many domesticated fruits like bananas as well as a majority of the cattle on our planet. Moreover, we see similar symbiotic relationships in old nature: just think of the flowers that are dependent on bees to spread their seeds.

Another objection might be that my razors cannot be the result of an evolutionary development because they are made of metal and plastic and not a carbon–based biological species. Underneath this argument lies the assumption that evolution only takes place within a certain medium: carbon–based life forms. A variation of this argument states that evolution only takes place if there are genes involved – like with humans, animals and plants. This way of thinking exemplifies a limited understanding of evolution, as it is a mistake to constrain it to a certain medium rather than to understand it as a principle. In fact the genetic system of DNA underlying our species, is itself also a product of evolution – DNA evolved from the simpler RNA system as a successful medium of coding life. There is no reason why evolutionary processes could not transfer itself to other media: Richard Dawkins already proposed ‘memes’ as a building block of cultural evolution, whereas Susan Blackmore suggested ‘temes’ as building blocks for technological evolution.

In the end, the question we should ask ourselves: are the environmental forces of economy and technology, at least equally or perhaps even more important for the shaping of razor technology, than the design decisions made by the ‘inventors’ of the individual models. I am pretty sure this is the case and hence I propose to consider the development of razors as a truly evolutionary process – not metaphorically, but as reality. The species it brought into being we will call: Razorius Gillettus. It is just one of the numerous new species emerging within the techno-economical system – and it is evolving fast.

TECHNODIVERSITY IS INCREASING

Once we agree to perceive the development of razor technology as an evolutionary process, lets zoom in a bit at our own role in the evolutionary game. How can we see our relation with Razoritus Gilletus and its numerous fellow evolving techno-species? Are we like the bees – who feed themselves with nectar from flowers and in return spread their pollen, enabling the flowers to reproduce – heading towards a symbiotic relationship with the technosphere, which feeds upon our labor & creativity, and in return gives us Razorius Gilletus? Should we take pride in our role as catalysts of evolution? Propagators of a technodiversity unlike the world has ever seen: the one and only animal that transfers the game of evolution into another medium? We can. Yet, as in every symbiotic relationship, we should also be keen on whether both parties are actually getting a good deal. And although I did buy all these razors and they have been providing me with an ever-smoother-closer shave throughout my life, I am not entirely sure about that.

INNOVATION WITHOUT A CAUSE

To many of what we call ‘innovations’ are merely directed at increasing the growth and wellbeing of the technosphere – bigger economy, bigger corporations, more technological devices –, rather than actually improving the lives of people. Indeed my latest shaver does shave just that tiny little bit more smoothly than the previous model. Yet, if you would ask me if the device has ‘innovated’ my life, I’d have to say no.

Let’s face it: the new shavers from Gillette are primarily created for the sake of Gillette Corporation: higher turnover, more profit, more shareholders value. Now that’s all not bad to begin with, as good business also provides people with good jobs and steady incomes, which allows them to live a happy live – and buy more razors. So far it’s a win-win situation. Yet, the production of all these abundant devices also uses an amazing amount of resources, putting quite some pressure on the biosphere – remember, that old nature that used to surround us before the emerging of the technosphere? We should not be naïve about the fact that corporations – I know they’ll tell you otherwise – do not intrinsically care all that much about the wellbeing of the biosphere. Being able to breathe clean air simply is not important for Razorius Gillettus, as it has a whole different digestive system. Clean air is merely a requirement for carbon–based life forms like algae, plants, birds, polar bears, and of course people.

CATALYSTS OF EVOLUTION

So how to continue? I am the first to concur that there is a certain luster in the development of Razorius Gillettus. The notion that human activity is causing the rising of such a peculiar new species and that we are now co-evolving towards a shared future is intriguing to say the least. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have thought of this. Perhaps he would have pointed at the serious risks involved in this evolutionary leap. Certainly, our awareness of our own role as ‘catalysts of evolution’ has yet to mature. It is a quite responsible job description we have got our hands on there. If we feel we are not fitted for the job, we could better grow our beards and return to our caves. We can do that, perhaps. At least some people have proposed we should do that, however, trying to turn back the clock of civilization would also be a denial of what it means to be human, or at least it exemplifies a cowardness towards the unknown. On the other hand, a purely techno-utopist attitude of ‘letting grow’ will expectedly also not be in the longtime benefit of humanity and our fellow biosphere–dependent species, as we run the risk of being outsourced altogether.

The mature thing to do in our position as catalysts of evolution is to develop a stewardship that focuses on maintaining a balance between both the declining biosphere and the emerging technosphere – between old nature and next nature. Towards an environment in which both can find a place and live in relative harmony. Now, I am not saying it will be easy. But if we are able to do that, we will have something to be truly proud of.

1. Evolution in the Bathroom
2. Birdfeeders spit Blackcaps in two species
3. The mobile evolution

Don’t worry, your tongue will only stay neon green for an hour or two after consuming Liquid-Plumr-Cardio. Despite the plaque-busting nanoparticles, we doubt whether this is the do-it-yourself future of medicine. Fortunately it is merely a speculative product created by John W. Stanovich. Peculiar image of the week.

Via Wired. Thanks Jan.

1. Backpacker Airplane
2. Pondering the Future
3. Meanwhile in the Woods..

“Have you seen my stapler? No, but just look it up on Google home office maps.”

CSIRO Researchers have developed miniature sensors that track lab equipment, coffee mugs and staplers in the office.

The sensors are called Fleck Nano and were build on CSIRO’s existing Fleck technology that is being commercially produced for monitoring cows on farms.

Fleck sensors collect data like location and temperature. They form an ad-hoc mesh network, and communicate with static nodes and each other via radio waves.

CSIRO ICT Centre researcher Phil Valencia told iTnews they were similar to active RFID (radio frequency identification) tags, which also transmit signals autonomously.

“We’re aiming to enable a level of ubiquitous sensing that hasn’t been experienced yet and see how it impacts on day-to-day activities,” Valencia said.

The current Fleck Nano prototype is slightly smaller than a 20 cent piece. Data is collected and accessed by custom software that uses drop-down boxes to ask questions like “Where is my coffee mug?”

Since the a battery attachment would significantly affect the size of the device, the researchers are currently looking into reducing the Fleck Nano’s energy demands and ways to harvest energy from the environment.

The prototype cost $50 to manufacture. Valencia said a mass-produced device is likely to cost “orders of magnitude” less.

In future, Valencia said the technology could be integrated with machine learning algorithms that will allow for applications like kettles that automatically boil water as a coffee mug is carried to the kitchen.

Source: iTnews. Via Beyond the Beyond.

1. Plant Sensors
2. Smart Forests – EWAN
3. Office Kiss

Once, we wore footwear to protect our feet from the hostile influences of our natural environment. But with the replacement of our natural environment by a world of design, the function of our footwear changed along.

From a purely functional piece of clothing, the shoe became a desirable aesthetic object and a status symbol. Many people (at least in the western part of the world) believe that he shoes you wear, kind of make you who you are…

IT’S REALLY HARD TO WALK IN A SINGLE WOMAN’S SHOES – THAT’S WHY YOU SOMETIMES NEED REALLY SPECIAL SHOES! – Carrie, Sex and the City

If that’s true, than shoes are important symbols in our production cycle of meanings. They are Reality Machines. Maybe this goes a little extra for sportshoes, or sneakers as you wish. In itself, sports should be seen as a significant co-effect of Next Nature: with the replacement of our natural environment with an artificial environment, old patterns (like a hunter/ gatherer lifestyle and physical labour) disappear while others (like division of labour and division of work and leisure) emerge. Sport is behaviour designed to cope with an important consequence of our designed environment: less physical excercise. But for now, that let’s not go to deep into that. Let’s get back to sneakers.

Sport as a Next Nature spinoff
While ‘normal’ shoes can be seen as part of our designed environment (or ‘culturally emerged nature’, what is basically the most proper definition for Next Nature), ‘sport’ shoes are predominantly designed as a reaction to (the side effects of) this designed environment and should be understood likewise. Sport shoes don’t really protect you from a hostile environment, as sportclubs and gyms can hardly be called that way. More than that, they make you run faster and excercise more comfortable so that you don’t hurt your spine when you’re jogging in the park. So in essence, they protect you against protecting yourself from the side effects of your environment!

But it gets even more complex. In our post-Fordist society, physical exercise becomes a leisure activity instead of a daily routine. And with that comes the appreciation of sports and sportswear aesthetics, resulting in many brands targeting sportswear not at sportsmen, but at the cool kids on the block. Again, your shoes make you who you are.

WE TRAVEL ON GRAVEL, DIRT ROAD OR STREET /
I WEAR MY ADIDAS WHEN I ROCK THE BEAT
– My Adidas, Run DMC

My AR Adidas
Now, Hiphops’ favourite sneaker brand takes things one step further, buying into one of the technology trends of this time; Adidas Originals is launching the first Augmented Reality experience in footwear. Their shoes are not longer only a status symbol for the cool kids, but are becoming an essential element in the creation of an urban life-style and all the symbols that go along with that.

“The foundation of augmented reality lies in adding a layer to the real world,” says Chris Barbour, head of digital marketing for Adidas Originals. “That’s what we have done. We have taken a real world item and added a fantastic virtual world on top of that”.

The adidas Originals AR Game Pack is a set of 5 shoes, each printed with an AR code on the tongue. When you hold the code in front of your webcam, you’ll gain access to a virtual version of the adidas Originals Neighborhood.

“We are not trying to mimic a real-world look, we have a more stylized, pop-up book creative approach,” says Barbour. “The neighborhood is displayed on a two dimensional computer screen, but you can use your shoe to control the angle and depth of view and zoom in and out, giving a 3-D sense of perspective.”

From Natural Environment™ to Brand Environment™
Over the next few months, Adidas plans to introduce three augmented reality games developed by game developer xForm into the virtual neighborhood. The sneakers will then serve not only as the key to get in, but also act as the controller for the games. Among those available will be a skateboard game, where the sneaker acts as the controller to navigate the virtual city’s alleys, a Star Wars-like game with the sneaker and a music-based game. The shoes with the augmented reality codes will cost between $65 and $95 and will be available starting February.

It seems that shoe wear evolved from a somewhat one dimensional protection from our natural environment to the creation of a complex symbolic environment. This is a beautiful symbol for Next Nature Thinking; ‘the environment’ has shifted from something that is fixed and has to be dealt with (The Born), to something that is constantly being produced and reproduced (The Made). Or simply put: natural environment becomes brand environment. Now where are my wooden shoes? I’m in for a walk in the dreadful dutch rain!

“HOW STRANGE, WHEN YOUR FATHER’S WEARING WOMEN’S CLOTHES AND PLATFORM SHOES, THAT A PAIR OF LOAFERS LOOKS INCREDIBLE”
– Moon Unit Zappa, daughter of Frank Zappa

1. Augmented (Hyper)Reality
2. Augmented Fish Reality
3. Augmented Reality Girlfriend

Peculiar image of the week. By Vladstudio

1. Earth As Seen Fom Earth
2. Fight climate change: Hack the Planet
3. Tourist Terrorist?