[TT 018] sustainable building, sci fi etymology, collective intelligence, practical religion, origami
Happy Thursday!
This week I'm reflecting on closing rituals and what it means to transition gracefully and diligently. Most of my writing, when I have time to do it, has been personal journaling about where I've been and where I'm headed. A liminal space indeed.
As part of my transition, I've been packing and cleaning up my physical and digital spaces. Aligned with BASB I've been revamping my PKM system as well as my project documentation. Only time will tell if this is useful, but it already feels more interconnected and coherent. I especially liked going back through past newsletters and tagging each section with my 12 Favorite Questions and Table of Interests so I can easily pull up everything I've written on any given topic. More on the insights I've garnered in future editions.
On to this week's Thriving Thursday!
---
On building sustainably from building waste
I'm fascinated and intrigued by various sustainable building methodologies. Back in Thriving Thursday 005 I wrote about the massive environmental impact of concrete, so it perked my interest to find an Indian architect building homes & offices from concrete waste.
We cannot conceivably sustain the rate at which we fill landfills, so I appreciate the concept of building from "waste" materials. It's even dandier to construct from construction waste.
Sadly, I'm not sure this concept would fly in America. First, the concrete materials are collected and processed with laborers (and labor is much more expensive in the US). Second, the materials are gathered (presumably for free) from not-so-subtle dumps on the side of the road or near rivers. Awesome that this has the secondary effect of cleaning up collection areas, but in the US this is much more organized and construction waste gets lumped in with all other landfill waste. Finally, I wonder how repurposed materials can be processed in a way that satisfies construction codes.
I suspect there is a conceivable business model of "recycling construction waste" where a company picks up contractor dumpsters and parses out reusable items and processes waste into reusable materials. Habitat for Humanity's reStore already partially serves the reusable construction materials market, so not sure if there is room for others to tackle this thorny corner of the market.
Still, I found some nifty ideas for sustainable architectural design:
- rainwater harvesting structures
- solar power plants
- kitchen wastewater treatment
- insulation & natural air flow that requires no AC or fans in extreme heat (and cold?)
- soil excavated from construction site used for making packed bricks
Time will tell when I focus on this more fully, but I hypothesize that it's possible to build a sustainably designed living and working structure at or below the cost of an equivalent "new build".
On the etymology of sci fi literature
This past month I listened to the sci fi classic Dune (amazing book and audio book!) and it's sequel Dune Messiah (book 2 of 6 in the series, and notably less good). That, plus binge watching The Expanse (first 1.5 seasons not great, the rest increasingly awesome), got me thinking about how quickly certain outlandish science fiction ideas become actual science fact. Now, we can have a definitive answer to that question.
Back in January, obsessive lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower published the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction.
The project is a spinoff from a crowdsourced Oxford English Dictionary nerdfest coupled with a recent ingestion of pulp magazines into the Internet Archive. And, of course, COVID made him do it.
The sci fi dictionary tracks meanings, categories, first known usage and authors for >1800 science fiction words.
Some words, like laser gun, came about shortly after scientists created the actual laser technology (~1960). Others, like vibroblade predate the harmonic scalpel technology by over 50 years.
Of course, because this is editor led there is selection bias in both the words and the attributed authors. But it's still a valuable resource and incredible force of passion.
Now who could have imagined that the viewphone would someday become the technology of choice for cat lawyers?
And do you think any of Asimov's citations included his lecherous limericks?
On quantifying collective intelligence
Back in Thriving Thursday 015 I wrote that I believe we are entering the Age of Synthesis where the signal to noise of human knowledge is drowning out sense making. Individuals can have varying degrees of isolated success, but I think the most potent societal improvements come from group collaboration and intelligence.
That begs the question: how do we optimize group outcomes?
A cross-university research group recently published a paper in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences arguing that it's more about how we set the container of collaboration than the talents of the individuals in the group. Also, surprise surprise, having a gender and age balanced group was better for collective intelligence.
I read this synopsis because I couldn't get access to the full article to dig deeper (send it over if you can access!) and I don't fully understand the black magic statistical treatment of this meta-analysis. But I do have first-hand experience of first-rate individual contributors that suck at working together and can't get anything meaningful done. I've also experienced, in less professional settings, unexpected fluidity and efficiency from seemingly mediocre individuals that somehow gel into an effective team.
My sample size is limited and consequently biased, but these findings resonate with my experience and intuition. I'm not sure what these authors found as being successful "group collaboration process" but this reminded me of Daniel Coyle's Culture Code. Coyle's writing is so so, and there is definitely a significant bias in his examples, but the core question and some ideas for how to elevate and empower group collaboration stuck with me.
On Buddhism as a practical toolkit
David Chapman is my kind of thinker - science-y, rational approach to spirituality. In his Principles and Functions post he talks about Buddhism as a set of tools for spiritual purposes.
On some level, that's true of all religions. I think the reason I'm drawn to Buddhist practices is because the fundamental logic of Judeo-Christian religions is "because god said so". As Chapman points out, the fundamental logic of Buddhism is one of function:
Functions can be understood in terms of base, path, and result. The base is the kind of situation in which the practice is useful. (Most practices have prerequisites of various sorts.) The path is the practice itself: what we do in the situation. It leads to its result. Only when we want its particular result does it make sense to apply a practice.
Different yanas have different underlying world views of reality, which then informs the practices and the aims to accomplish with those practices. Importantly, these are various tools that may come into or out of focus depending on what's happening in life at any given moment.
I deeply appreciate Chapman's first principles approach and am gaining a crisper understanding and appreciation of why I'm drawn to certain Buddhist philosophies. Even more interesting is that he's clarifying what tools are (and are not) relevant to my spiritual practice at any given moment.
On origami bonsai
Japanese artist Naoki Onogawa uses paper cranes to reimagine landscapes and the natural world. I agree that the simple cranes have a solemn beauty, especially en mass. Check out this incredibly intricate yet uncomplicated beauty
---
What traits or qualities define the most "collectively intelligent" groups you've been in? That's an area I'm very interested to explore and learn from you.
Warm regards from a warm sunny day,
~Henry