Visionaries should crunch numbers.

Quiet Babylon

Nomads and Homesteaders – Cyborgs & Architects 3

Friday July 10, 2009 || by Tim Maly

Part of a series: Cyborgs & Architects

locust
Creative Commons License photo credit: estherase

As I conceive it, the conflict of cyborgs and architecture is the story of nomads and homesteaders, recast in very 21st century terms. Cyborgs are fundamentally mobile. They are individuals who can go anywhere and adapt easily. Architectural artifacts stay put. So to, the people who depend on and must maintain them.

There has been a deep distrust between these groups for as long as there has been agriculture, I imagine.

The morality story of the ants and the grasshopper is a lesson about the importance of an architectural kind of hard work. The ants, one of earth’s other infrastructural species, are cast as the hard-working foresightful protagonists. The grasshopper, failing to anticipate the future, dies in the snow.

Here are some alternate versions of the story: 1) When the winter comes, the grasshopper leaves for warmer climes, returning with the spring. 2) The grasshopper is actually a locust and a horde of them descends on the ant stores, stripping all the food before moving on to the next place. When winter comes, the ants starve in their empty corridors.

It’s Ranchers vs Indians, Romans vs Barbarians, Farmers vs Swarms, Europe vs Gypsies, Bees vs Bears, Ottomans vs Bedouins, Locals vs Tourists.

To built a home, to run a farm, this is a capitally intensive project. You invest an enormous amount of effort into moulding a stretch of territory to your particular plans. You have to wait quite some time between the sowing and the reaping. Ant-like patience and foresight are your watchwords.

To be a nomad requires a a different kind of watchword. You arrive at a patch of land, use it, and then leave it to regenerate. Foresight is the ability to know when to move, where to go, and when to come back.

Small wonder that sparks fly when there is an encounter between these approaches. Homesteaders don’t want the nomads exploiting all that investment in seeds, roads, sewers, policing. Nomads were planning to pass through and now there are fences, tunnels, and dudes with Tasers.

All of: Cyborgs & Architects


  • stillcrapulent
    this cyborg-architecture tension relies on defining architecture as a discipline dealing only with static structures, however. i'm (clearly) not up on my architectural theory, speculative or otherwise, so i don't know to what extent this definition has been problematized, but it seems to me to be deceptive.

    why must we restrict "architecture" only to stationary built environments? why do we think of the camper van primarily as a vehicle, as opposed to a building? are there other productive ways of thinking about architecture and mobility? it is certainly relevant to thinking about the architecture of temporary structures, or does it somehow cease to be a matter of architectural consideration when it becomes a collapsable, portable building?

    on the flip side, walking houses, floating castles, fortresses on wheels (baba yaga's chickenleg house, the castle in the sky, howl's moving castle, etc.) abound in myth, fantasy and sci fi, but what about modern cruise ships, themselves larger in size and occupancy than the majority of stationary buildings one encounters? or a space station, which is necessarily mobile, or for that matter, any large (existing or projected) space cruiser? vessel v. domicile? the nostromo? the death star?

    obviously in -many- of these cases there is still the an imbalance in the issue of investment of effort/resources/capital at work, but it hardly applies across the board, or at least applies variably enough as to complicate the dichotomy being set up.

    on a non-terrestrial, or further a non-resource-providing plane, need the homesteader not be nomadic?
blog comments powered by Disqus