Although we live in a world where the things around us (i.e., our environment) are constantly changing or evolving, ¹ often we’re unclear as to what the concept really means. One of the most robust models of evolution is natural selection (sometimes [mis]interpreted as survival of the fittest) proposed by Charles Darwin.

When people hear the term “survival of the fittest,” they often assume that what’s meant is that only the strong survive. This isn’t the case, however, and isn’t what Darwin had in mind. What Darwin was getting at, and what this phrase really means is that those organisms that are best adapted to their environment have the greatest chance of surviving and having their genes passed on to a future generation.

The thing is, the environment is constantly changing, both due to the actions of organisms in the environment, and due to the changes that happen because of natural processes. And just like the natural environment is undergoing constant change, so too is the information technology environment. Different ideas are always being put out into the world (and at what seems to be an accelerating pace), and some of those ideas like the PC survive and have a significant impact in changing the environment, while others like HD-DVD die and may be quickly forgotten.

Now since the natural environment is fairly constant in the 21st century, there is little need to adapt to that environment ² But failing to adapt to the changing information environment can put you at serious risk of “death” in what’s been termed the knowledge economy. ³

One way to ensure your survival in the knowledge economy is by practicing to manipulate information (by critically reading [and writing about] the information you come across) and by doing what reading fiction encourages—imagining the possibilities that each technology brings and uncovering the hidden “meanings” and connections between those technologies.

In Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, most animals have gone extinct or are endangered and have been replaced by artificial versions.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?