In the long run, does art trump science?
Lateral communication—sending information from point to point around the world—is so fast and efficient these days that we tend to take it for granted. But how good are we at passing information forward in time—what you might call longitudinal communication? If we wanted to send a message to our kids’ kids’ kids, how well would we do?
If it seems a strange question, blame it on the excess of “culture” I was exposed to at last week’s meetings marking the 50th anniversary of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures Lecture.
Both meetings I attended—one in Cambridge MA and the other at the New York Academy of Science—were marvelously enjoyable and stimulating. But there was one idea in particular that intrigued me, prompted by a talk by Harvard University’s Peter Galison: If you wanted to convey something to people living 100, 1000 or even 10,000 years into the future, how would you do it?
Of course it depends on the type of information we’re talking about here—I’ll get to that in a minute. But let’s focus on the storage media first. 100 years out, information stored on digital media might—just might—survive. 1000 years out, and you begin to fall back on older technologies—writing on durable surfaces for instance. But 10,000 years out? Even if you could encode information in a format that would survive that long, how would you ensure the people reading it could understand it?
Think about this for a moment. You send an email today. Will it still be round in a year’s time? Assume it’s archived somewhere—will that archive still be intact 10 years from now? 100 years down the line, there’s a pretty high chance that the media on which the email was stored will have failed—digital storage has a limited lifetime. What are the chances that someone has faithfully transferred the message to new media on a regular basis? In 1000 years, the chances of the data and the software to read it still being available are pretty slim. And in 10,000 years, it’s hard to imagine anything as ephemeral as digital data surviving intact.
Putting aside the irony that the information age could end up leaving a gaping hole in the historic records as digital documents replace more durable written ones, this rather trivial example does illustrate the difficulties in passing meaningful information forward through successive generations.
So back to the original question—if you have something important you want to pass on hundreds or thousands of years into the future, how do you do it? Sticking with the media for the moment, one partial solution is to use more durable media. Flash memory lasts a year or so. DVD’s will last for several years before degrading. Archival paper lasts tens or even hundreds of years. Parchment can last even longer. And stone—if protected—can retain information for millennia.
You can see a pattern emerging here—the more recent the media, the more quickly it fails. At the rate we’re going, we’ll be loosing information as fast as we generate it in 50 years’ time—leading to Kurzweil-like singularity event that ends up with civilization collapsing rather than emerging into a brave new world. I’m being facetious, but you can see the problem.
This is only half the issue though. The flip side is how information is read and interpreted. We have information etched in stone from millennia ago, but getting a handle on what was intended is not easy. And understanding the meaning behind the information is harder still.
If information is to be transmitted a long way into the future, it must be accompanied with some means to interpret it.
So what’s the answer here?
The first part of it, I think, is to work out what sort of information we are talking about—what exactly is it we might want people to know 10,000 years down the line? Let me be bold and suggest that it is stuff like how to stay healthy; how to craft societies that work; how to ensure people have access to food, water, heat and shelter; how to understand what it means to be human. I don’t think that preserving the blueprints for the latest iPod will be that high on the agenda.
Once the type of information is known, the means to capture that information and pass it on in a durable manner need to be found.
This is exactly the challenge faced by a group of people back in the 1990’s and brings me back to Peter Galison’s talk. In 1974, the US Atomic Energy Commission chose an ancient salt bed 26 miles east of Carlsbad for exploratory work in the search for an underground radioactive waste repository site—somewhere to dispose of defense-related transuranic radioactive waste. In 1999 the first shipments of waste arrived at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP for short—the vanguard of a program that is scheduled to continue for some years to come.
As the site was being developed, it was clear that the task of preventing unnecessary exposure to the material being buried would require some imaginative cross-generational communication. The target point was 10,000 years into the future—a little under half the half-life of plutonium-239. The challenge: design markers that would warn people of the dangers buried within the site, and deter them from releasing the harmful material, that could transcend changes in environment, culture and technology for the next 10 millennia.
The recommendations of the groups tasked with designing appropriate markers make interesting reading (excerpts can be accessed here). The design criteria they arrived at included the following:
- The design of the whole site itself is to be a major source of meaning, acting as a framework for other levels of communication, reinforcing and being reinforced by those other levels in a system of communication. The message that we believe can be communicated non-linguistically (through the design of the whole site), using physical form as a “natural language,” … Put into words, it would communicate something like the following:
- This place is a message… and part of a system of messages… pay attention to it!
- Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
- This place is not a place of honor…no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here… nothing valued is here.
- What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
- The danger is in a particular location… it increases toward a center… the center of danger is here… of a particular size and shape, and below us.
- The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
- The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
- The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.
- The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- All physical site interventions and markings must be understood as communicating a message. It is not enough to know that this is a place of importance and danger…you must know that the place itself is a message, that it contains messages, and is part of a system of messages, and is a system with redundance.
- Redundancy of message communication is important to message survivability. Redundancy should be achieved through: (a) a high frequency of message locations, permitting some to be lost; (b) making direct and physical links among message levels, that is “co-presentation” of messages; and (c) multiple and mutually reinforcing modes of communication…
- While the system of marking should strongly embody the principles of redundancy, at the same time the methods of achieving redundancy should be carefully designed to maintain message clarity. Redundancy should not be achieved at the expense of clarity.
- The method of site-marking must be very powerful to distinguish this place from all other types of places, so that the future must pay attention to this site. The place’s physical structure should strongly suggest enhanced attention to itself and to its sub-elements. To achieve this, the volume of human effort used to make and mark this place must be understood as massive, emphasizing its importance to us. The site’s constructions must be seen as an effort at the scale of a grand and committed culture, far beyond what a group or sect or organization could do.
The resulting proposed markers are intriguing, as can be seen in these two conceptual examples:
Forbidding Blocks, view 2 (concept by Michael Brill and art by Safdar Abidi)
Menacing Earthworks, view 1 (concept and art by Michael Brill)
And with this we arrive at the key point here—to communicate a message across millennia, the group resorted to durable forms that captured and conceptualized what they wanted to convey.
In other words, when it came to the “long shout,” art was considered more important than science or technology in the long run.
Now I don’t want to get too carried away with this. But I do think there is an important message here that will be blindingly obvious to historians and archeologists—in the long run, the arts, religion, cultural traditions, mythologies and the like provide the more durable route to preserving socially and culturally significant information.
Of course this doesn’t denigrate science and technology in any way. Science and technology are essential in underpinning future prosperity and quality of life, and there are many powerful synergisms between science and non-science. But it does stress the importance of looking beyond science and technology if we want to preserve information that is important to society over long timescales.
At this point, anyone with half a brain will be lambasting me for my naivety—this has all been recognized for thousands of years. But here’s the crux of the issue: Apart from Peter’s talk, there was little discussion on the importance of non science-based disciplines in last week’s Two Cultures meetings. On the contrary, there was a sense from many quarters that science is all that matters, and “the arts” are a sometimes useful but otherwise superficial decoration—something to be enjoyed; something to help promote science, but otherwise not that important.
This seems dangerously short-sighted. OK so science and technology are needed to help maintain and improve a world where there is less disease, where people have access to food, water and shelter, where we have the freedom and tools to better understand what it is to be human. But in the long run this knowledge will most likely fade, unless we find a way of transmitting the essence of it to future generations.
And the only way we know how to do that at present is through the “arts”—something that probably shouldn’t be forgotten in a science and technology-obsessed world.
End Notes
I dislike posting such a superficial article about such an important and deeply explored subject, but that is the nature of blogging unfortunately. Suffice to say these are simply my poorly informed musings on a subject that grabbed my attention at an academic workshop. There are complex questions about how science and technology enable “art” (used in a very broad sense of the word) that aren’t addressed. Neither is the distinction between cultural transmission of technology as distinct from science explored. And then there is the whole question of whether today’s society is poised to transcend a dependence on art, tradition, religion etc, or whether we are as deluded as previous great civilizations no doubt were.
These will all have to wait for another day though!
I really enjoyed this. Encouraged me to think about art and science in a way I never have before. Science and technology are semi permanent. I am sure there are examples of civilizations that have gained and then lost a technology but retained their myths and cultural crafts, which then outlived them. Anthropologists can study a civilization as a whole if they uncover enough artifacts but without the ability to communicate important ideas symbolically we will have a jumble of things with no context.
I’ve always been of two minds, both art and science but I never thought of it quite this way. The spent nuclear waste being a prime example of how technology might fail us in the near future so we rely on symbolism ingrained into our deepest psyche to transmit knowledge to far off generations further than we can imagine we’d ever have to preserve that information for. It reminds me of the Voyager spacecrafts with their grooved, gold-plated disks and etched symbols to show some alien race how to operate the player. (I guess they won’t be sending an iPod on the next interstellar space vehicle, huh?)
I always had this sense that digital information was somehow preserved in a more permanent form than say film or paper but now I realize that the ability to extract that information (if the information even does survive on data disks) might be lost too.
So I guess with all this information we’re amassing, it can be all destroyed in an instant and like you said, leaving a whole in our historical record—a sort of informational dark age. I wonder what people think may be left for future scientists to discover and what it will say about us if the data we are so busily amassing one day disappears?
Thanks Lon. The information storage issue is an interesting one. It’s more complex than I indicate here, in part because of the role of distributed storage on the web and the preferential archiving of information perceived as having value. Yet the reality is that without constant maintenance, the media we use now are way less durable that what was being used thousands of years ago!
Cheers Andrew… I enjoyed this but i wonder if you are too focused on ‘transmit mode’..
For me the implications of what you are saying is not simply that we need to find ways of creating the ‘long shout’ today to share our own precious knowledge with deserving descendants but also need to be listening out for the culturally embedded knowledge of yesteryear from the long shouts emitted by our (and others) ancestors.
I don’t see any good evidence that human beings have got any smarter in how they handle and analyse the natural world yet modern science has a maddening tendency to arrogantly dismiss traditional cultural knowledge and received wisdoms as ‘superstition’, prioritising the latest journal findings over preserved cultural knowledge. Indigenous cultures run into this ahistorical narcissism of the science establishment all the time and even when scientists begrudgingly later admit that traditional cultures knew something all along its usualy belittled because its was not appropriately expressed in scientific terms.. yet as your piece nicely shows – preserving important knowledge for the long haul needs more robust carriers (think story, myth, belief systems) than peer reviewed journals, mathmatical models and standard nomenclature.
I like that idea of applying the arguments in reverse – what are we learning form our forebears? Of course, there’s a lot that has been transmitted down the ages culturally (far less science-wise before the last few hundred years; most of the old science and technology we have now was transmitted through “cultural” media). But it makes you wonder how much has been lost…
Reading this, I suddenly realized how rarely anyone discusses the concept of permanence these days. We are captives of the moment. Thank you for the thoughtful reminder of context.
Thank you Michele
Reading this sparked many thoughts.
Much of what you talk about, thinking long term, is discussed my a group called the Long Now Foundation. They encourage discussion of long-term thinking and fostering responsibility for preserving knowledge. I find their site and lectures very interesting. http://www.longnow.org
It seems that Important ideas last, not because of the media that they are written to, but because of the intrinsic value of the idea itself. The Magna Carta was written onto organic materials, as was the Bible. The I Ching, the Papyrus Ebers, Epic of Gilgamesh; all date back at least 1500 years or longer. Many of these did not last on their own, but we renewed and passed on because of their importance to the culture.
Sometimes I feel as though there is a limit to the amount of knowledge that can be retained. Important knowledge persists, less important ideas fade, and it isn’t the author that gets to decide that. Maybe the reason that current media of storage has a shorter life, is because of the increase in the amount of information that is being generated.
Maybe we don’t put value on the longevity of information because we have increased the value temporary, disposable items and activities. Shakespeare’s works are propagated and live on, I hope that reproductions of the Jerry Springer show are not around for my descendants 500 yrs from now.
Thanks for the link to the Long Now Foundation Tim – I suspected this was a subject that others had thought long and hard over.
The question of information transmission through reproduction is an interesting one, and one that I don’t really do any justice to whatsoever! Where information needs to be duplicated to survive, you always have a dangerously weak link in the chain. The question them it seems, is what determines which information is passed on, and the accuracy with which the information is transmitted. I suspect – but with little evidence to hand – that it is cultural/religious values that keep the chain intact.
Which raises a really controversial question – does science need religion to survive?! Definitely one for another day.
Andrew – great topic. I’ve been particularly intrigued by the notions of civil permanence and durability since Danny Hillis et al got going on the Clock of the Long Now – which in itself is certainly a synthesis of art and science. Your writings and musings posted here- along with the comments of other readers – are a valuable addition to conversation. I look forward to more!
I’ve just finished reading Geraldine Brooks’ People of the Book, in which a literary archivist reconstructs the (mere) five-hundred year history of a singular book that has been preserved through a complex series of efforts by members of three different faiths (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) merely because the book is so singular that its preservation outweighs any conflicts between those faiths. One of its themes is the temporal disruptions of peaceful co-existence between the three faiths – and yet the continued renaissance of cultures that allow for such peaceful co-existence.
I was quite startled to have an aboriginal friend talk to me about the ‘coincidence’ of native spiritual and Catholic belief systems – that had truly not occurred to me, given the radically different notions of deities between those particular expressions of faith.
As for the nuclear waste issue – very interesting indeed. One of the things I have often puzzled over is the inappropriateness of some 20th Century iconography. I scratch my head as someone who lived in that century at some pictograms and have to ask what they’re supposed to mean (remember the days before male/female washroom pictograms being almost universally adopted?). The trefoil symbol used to indicate areas of high radioactivity has always struck me as particularly absurd. Someone not indoctrinated in its meaning could, I think, be forgiven for thinking it meant you’re about to come upon a wind farm. 😉
It is interesting to speculate on how obvious the “obvious” really is – like the trefoil system, there’s a high chance of meaning becoming obscure over time. But if there are common understandings/responses that are programmed into us as humans, it should be possible to select an iconography that transcends superficial changes changes in culture. This, of course, is part of the essence of durable art. I wonder also whether it is associated with the coincidence between belief systems you mention…
“As the site was being developed, it was clear that the task of preventing unnecessary exposure to the material being buried would require come imaginative cross-generational communication. ”
Should say “some imaginative…” not “come imaginative…”. Hope this helps.
Made the correction – thanks Ray
Andrew