In Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, most animals have gone extinct or are endangered and have been replaced by artificial versions. Because of their rarity, real animals are quite expensive and owning one is tied to a person’s social status. What’s interesting about Dick’s novel is that while nuclear war hasn’t made some animals endangered, today some species are in danger of being replaced like Dick suggested. The other day, Tal Pinchevsky asked “Can Robots Replace the Natural World?” And while I gave a quick comment that suggested it’s possible, I’m going to expand on that thought here.

We know from biology that different species are adapted to different environments and that they compete with each other to occupy specific niches. Now while technology may not exhibit all the traditional characteristics of life, Steven Kelley makes a compelling argument that technology is the seventh kingdom of life. And if we accept this argument, then we can conclude that different technologies can be described as species and that each technology will end up occupying different niches and competing with each other species.

So looking at whether or not robots (or any other technology) can replace the natural world, it’s possible if a robotic species can out-compete the natural species it is designed to replace. I had added to the example of a real dog being replaced by a robot dog. Until a couple of decades ago, real dogs were well adapted to the environment they found themselves in. For instance, with less television to watch (and now online video clips and general Web surfing), people had more time to take care of a dog. ¹ But with all the time pressures that people face today, taking care of a real dog can become too much of a commitment—a commitment that a robot dog doesn’t need (you don’t need to feed or walk a robot dog). Add to the convenience that the robot dog provides with the fact that children are already starting to interact with robotic dogs like they do with real dogs, and we could see robot dogs replacing real dogs—and the same thing could happen with other species—our new technological species can become easier to use and live with than the real species, and so most of us could stop living with the real species.

So while Dick got it wrong with nuclear war, he may have gotten it right with real animals (and ultimately the natural environment) being replaced by artificial or robotic versions. But as we begin replacing the natural environment with an artificial one, do we become more artificial as well?

Recent news reports (e.g., this article from CBC News ) have suggested that consumers’ grocery bills are on the rise because of rising costs for corn which is used to produce ethanol.

This shouldn’t be much of a surprise since it’s a simple implication of the law of supply and demand. As the demand for corn increases for ethanol production, there is less supply available for human and animal consumption. As a result, the price of any food product with corn goes up.

This is similar to a conclusion that I came to while studying the potential of biodiesel and why any biofuel isn’t a good investment or a solution to rising gas prices. Quite simply, using crops to provide energy rather than using those crops as food sources ignores the larger trends affecting the agriculture industry.

From the mid 90s to 2006, vegetable oil consumption in China has increased from 8kg/person to 16kg/person,¹ while vegetable oil consumption in India was 10kg/person in 2005.² While neither of these countries matches the per capita vegetable oil consumption of 34kg/person in North America,³ their consumption levels are only likely to increase as they continue to industrialize.

More significantly, China and India add approximately 25 million people to the planet each year. (That’s slightly less than one Canada per year!) Since both countries already import a lot of food, the growing populations combined with their current consumption level suggests that these countries will need to import even more food in the future. Based on these demographics and figures, agricultural production would need to increase by one Canada almost every five years just to meet current demand for food.

Although the above analysis is overly simplistic since I’m only looking at one crop, the implications should be clear: food prices are going to keep increasing because of rising demand/decreasing supply. Similarly, the price of biofuels will continue to increase simply because they are in competition with food. Since its unlikely that a government will allow its people to starve, biofuels don’t really have a future.

NOTE: THIS POST WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED MAY 23, 2007 AND REPUBLISHED TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BLOG.