Just clearing through some old 'off-topic' articles that come across my desk, and I came across this article, analysing termite mounds to see what we can learn about their ventilation systems, and what lessons could be applied to human buildings. The intention appears to be to marry up this knowledge with the latest in Rapid Manufacturing to create organically shaped systems in our buildings. Personally, I'm sceptical. Okay, so termites have developed a system which doesn't use electricity, but what it does involve (if memory serves) is an awful lot of scurrying about and carrying crap from place to place on the part of the termites. I can't see people being paid to stand in corridors, just to block the airflow. I'm sure some valuable knowledge will come out of this, but when it comes to the future of large buildings, I'll pin my hopes on CFD and genetic algorithms, thanks all the same.
17 comments:
I'm not so sure - I have known people like this in places I've worked.
It already works like this - only we call it civilisation - it's the interaction between ourselves, our laws, and our history generates a program that, perfectly organically, builds towns and cities. If you look down from high up enough, and try to watch all those people dashing about, and just for a moment try to figure out *why* on earth they're scurrying about so fervently, it's completely mystifying - the way nothing more than an intangible web of competing needs and desires gets to build something like a city really is quite awesome. Like termites write large.
As for actually coming up with some set of rules that you can give a team of people that will create something organically, you could simply ask all visitors to 'bring a rock' whenever they visit your site. Assuming you have a constant stream of people all following your rule, before long, you're going to end up with a whole bunch of rocks. Actually putting them together in the shape of something interesting just requires a more interesting rule. Unfortunately you wont know what the correct rule is after millions of years of trying and failing (as evidenced in architecture for example, a sort of genetically defined bone-structure of civilisation) OR, potentially, after a few minutes on a suitably configured genetic algorithm, human rock-depositing simulation that you whip up one afternoon and sell for millions after it determines the appropriate set of rules required for companies to simply and easily build their own offices using nothing more than a blindly obedient workforce.
Don't try to change the subject. I'm talking about architecture - actual buildings, like this:
...not sociological phenomena. And yes, if you can work out a way to make 'distributed instantiation' work, then you have got it made.
That is sociological. And the phenomena is that people will actually do this kind of "scurrying about carrying crap from place to place" and they turn out a product far less interesting or beneficial than a termite mound.
Only in the sense that everything people do is sociological. And what I'm talking about is that termites will block up tunnels with their bodies to change the airflow temporarily. That's not a job for a person, amusing concept though it is.
Exactly. If termites had mass communication systems they would learn about the better mound designs of other colonies and adopt their successful designs. Soon, there would be widespread concern over the uniformity of design and the effect of global warming on their "one-size-fits-all" design philosophy and its potential shortcomings... yada, yada...
We wouldn't use a person to block up a tunnel, we'd simply use an electrically actuated door or wall panel. Stop trying to pretend you're smarter than a termite.
Okay, well, I'm sure some good stuff will come of this. But really, trying to apply lessons learned from a termite mound to a hundred-storey building sounds pretty suspect to me. I mean, you can't simply scale stuff up - fluid dynamics just doesn't work like that. At least, not in my head. And our use of space is entirely different to a termite mound, which is kind of heavy on corridors.
//And our use of space is entirely different to a termite mound, which is kind of heavy on corridors.//
Those corridors are used as nurseries, living quarters, food storage space, transport clearways, waste disposal networks and atmospheric control ducting. Who's the inefficient one, with our single use designation of built space?
It's not about efficiency or inefficiency. You could make a fantastically efficient building (from a termite's point of view), but if nobody wants to live in it (probably because it's cramped and dark and damp), then it's a failure. People have different requirements from termites, in terms of natural light and relationships (personal space, lines of sight, etc.) for a start. It's not even about re-educating people to appreciate a different type of building - there are some biological imperatives here which we ignore at our peril - things like fight-or-flight reactions, a preference for being off the ground, etc.
That shouldn't change the fact we can manipulate airflows within a building to our advantage. We already use far too much power controlling the atmospheric conditions inside buildings. We might do well to learn from critters who've been doing that very thing for the last few million years.
Having said that... who doesn't find the prospect of working in a very tall building in a major city just a little unnerving, nowadays?
I once read a staggering statistic:
The output of the US's nuclear power plants was about 14% of electricity requirements.
The total of usage of the US's airconditioners was about 14% of electricity consumption.
Puts it in perspective, huh?
Quite. The amount of energy we waste because of poor building design is staggering - and don't get me wrong, it's desperately important that we get a handle on this. What's really sad is that we already know an awful lot about passive air conditioning - hell, Arab architects have been using wind towers and cold sinks for centuries. The massive amount of energy pumped into air conditioning is due to economic decisions being made at a time when power was cheap and environmental considerations weren't a factor. The same applies to the architects who are currently throwing up these buildings - most of them learned their trade at a time when such things simply weren't a factor. And active aircon is still the cheaper option - from the builder's point of view. On the plus side, though, many modern buildings have gone back to using some passive elements - Norman Foster's Gherkin being one example. That's a good start, and it's also where we'll learn the truly useful lessons that might one day lead to a tall building which is completely cooled through passive systems. That would be great.
Like I said originally, I'm sure some useful information will come of this. But passive aircon relies on generating thermal differentials, which in a pyramidal termite mound is very different from a linear, uniformly human-comfortable building. And as I've already mentioned, fluid dynamics doesn't simply scale. So I think there are several reasons to doubt that this reearch will lead to revolutionary building designs. Hopefully we'll still learn useful lessons, though.
Try looking at Magnetic Termites.
http://goaustralia.about.com/b/a/044806.htm
They've figured out a fair bit.
Hate to trawl this up - but I was looking at something and it made me think of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
I get into terrible trouble becuase a lot of the time when people think I'm being contrary, it's because I try to use words when really, I should be jumping up and down shouting "Emergence!!"
It's entirely possible that "Emergence" is a cutesy term for "Patterns appearing out of chaos because we are conditioned to look for patterns."
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'pattern'. It's either an objective thing that we are able to appreciate, or, it's something subjective, a product of our relationship with the world. Either way, recognition of pattern is something real, at least, as real as anything else our senses throw up at us. You can make your choice as to how real those things are.
True enough. There are reasons for certain behaviours, whether it's traffic patterns, crowd behaviour or a flock of starlings.
Post a Comment