Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #01298
To: cybug@home.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:31:52 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: plants
In a message dated 3/4/99 9:38:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, cybug@home.com
writes:
> I've built robot plants with solar-cell leaves. The whole plant turns
> to follow the sun ( using a simple solar-engine derivative )and charges
> an on-board battery. Then my CYBUG's come and consume the energy from
> that battery to keep alive.
>
> I guess that is kind of a BEAM plant. Is that what you had in mind?
>
> Craig
Yes, I think that is the accepted definition. I have a tendency to elaborate
on the category. It seems to me that having a bot feed off the plant is a
bonus feature of artificial plants. In nature, plants don't need the bot to
feed. They exist on their own. The definition of a BEAM plant might just as
well include solar powered, organically shaped, plant forms. Most plants
tolerate or exploit the feeding of animals in order to gain some benefit.
Usually reproduction. BEAM plants will likely never reproduce, so they would
require no need to participate in a symbiotic relationship. You are, in
essence, simulating the relationship from the view of the animal. That is,
plants only exist to feed animals, and that's not really true. From the view
of the plant a symbiotic relationship with a bot has no benefit. The bot would
need to do something for the plant in order to call it a symbiosis. I think
BEAM plants should be unique works of biomorph tech that function as the
Bonsai, and ornamental shrub of the BEAM PARK. Works of beauty that can double
as a charging station. That would mean my bouquets and the sketch mentioned
online are plants. Electronic sculpture in the form and function of a
biological creature. Isn't that what we mean when we are talking about the B
in BEAM?
Sincerely,
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home