Last week, I got seriously obsessed with what, at first glance, looks like a really daft question:
What does the Internet actually *look* like?
All the ways to answer this are fascinating and full of surprises. Here are some in a thread:
1/
Here is the simplest, most straightforward and wrongest answer.
It looks like the box in the corner of your room that you sit in front of every day, "enjoying" its contents.
Devoid of context, that's what my senses tell me. But obviously this is absurd. Let's move on.
2/
If "the Internet" is the signal, all that data flying around, then in a sense it looks like this.
99%+ all international data races along sea floors at around 16 mill. times the force of a home Internet connection, through cables roughly the width of a can of Coke.
3/
Incredibly, the first colossal undersea cable was laid back in 1858, when two steam-powered (!) battleships met mid-Atlantic to connect together two pieces of a telegraph cable running for over *2,500 miles*.
Or maybe the Internet is where data *stops* moving, in the data centres and other machine-holding architecture.
Photographer Dave Greer got curious about this, with oddly beautiful results (in a Simon Stålenhag sort of way): qz.com/770849/these-b…
5/
Or maybe our best way to see "the Internet" is indirectly, to trace its passing - like this mesmerising datavis of geotagged tweets using the hashtag #sunrise one day in 2014, showing a spluttering blaze of yellow marking dawn:
(I can find my old blog on it. It's tiny but it's there. Had a website for more than a decade? Go searching. I bet you'll find it.)
9/
But maybe the only maps that fit here are abstract, subjective and virtual. Maybe you have to be *inside* to map it properly.
Kevin Kelly's Internet Mapping Project asked people to draw what they thought the Internet looked & felt like: kk.org/ct2/the-intern…
10/
"The internet is intangible, like spirits and angels. The web is an immense ghost land of disembodied places....Yet everyday we navigate through this ethereal realm for hours on end and return alive. We must have some map in our head." - Kevin Kelly (brainpickings.org/2009/06/08/int…)
11/
I'm writing more about all this soon, first for paying subscribers & later for everyone, in my @SubstackInc newsletter, Everything Is Amazing:
And if all that has left you feeling a overwhelmed and a bit lost, don't worry! Here's the end of the Internet, so you at least know where one of the edges or corners is:
On the 21st July 1976, NASA released the very first colour image taken by the Viking 1 lander from the surface of Mars.
And....wait, what?
The Martian sky is BLUE?
1/
This is obviously not what anyone was expecting. Mars is...
Well, you can see it for yourself on a clear night, with your naked eye. It's noticeably red - about as red as Betelgeuse, tenth-brightest star in our night sky.
No blue. So - what? WHAT?
2/
The Martian atmosphere just isn't thick enough to be blue - just 600 pascals, vs the Earth's 101,000.
That scene in "The Martian" where the rocket's in danger of being blown over? No, sir. Not enough punch to it: space.com/30663-the-mart…
You know the BEST thing about ancient history? All that pristine grey-white stone! SO CLASSY AND REGAL.
Look at this gorgeously monochrome scene from 'Gladiator'. Just look at how *right* it looks.
Yeah. Except - no. Get ready for a shock.
1/
In the middle of the Parthenon in Athens, the ancient Greek sculptor Phidias (480 – 430 BC) built a gigantic statue of Athena Parthenosos, about 11 metres high.
Alas, nothing remains of it today. But there are enough accounts of its construction to make a replica...
2/
...so someone did that: sculptor Alan Le Quire, in (of all places) Nashville.
Not quite what you were expecting, mayhaps?
Well, it was built around a core of cypress wood, and then panelled with gold and ivory plates. That's the description. That's what they did.
When my Zanclean Megaflood thread went nuts in February, some folk said "look into a thing called Atlantropa! It's just as mindblowing!"
They weren't wrong. And now I can't get *this* story out my head either.
So, once more, here we go.
1/
It's 1928.
This is German architect Herman Sörgel. Horrified by the First World War, keen to see everyone put down their weapons & actually, properly work together for a change, he's just had a idea that would solve *everything*.
He's going to drain the Mediterranean.
2/
No, really. It's simple!
All it would take is a series of dams:
- Across the Gibraltar Strait
- Across the Dardanelles to hold back the Black Sea
- Between Sicily and Tunisia, road-linking Europe & Africa
- At the Suez Canal.
There's a vast patch of seagrass off the coast of Australia (3 x the size of Manhattan) - and now genetic testing has discovered it's a *single plant* around 4,500 years old:
OK, I lied. It's only really here can you walk along it: the Þingvellir National Park, where, geologically speaking, North America & Europe are slowly drifting apart.
Enjoy the sunshine! There's none where we're going.
2/
If we went southeast into the water, it gets deep really quickly - maybe 2,000 metres, same as the Black Sea. About the depth of a Russian battleship.
*cough*
But we're following the Mid-Atlantic Ridge - so southwest it is.
Off of the news that Twitter is banning advertisements that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change (washingtonpost.com/technology/202…) and the inevitable kerfuffle, a distinction worth noting:
Denialism is not the same as healthy, questioning criticism. Not at all.
1/
This gets incredibly complicated and tangled, but - whenever something is contradicting the consensus with *absolute certainty*, it's probably bullshit. Utter certainty is the smoking gun there.
No curiosity, no interested questions, no willingness to be proven wrong.
2/
I guess it's the effect of "one man against the world" narratives, but - the thing about the consensus is it's where basically the weight of all the evidence is.
To overturn one, you need to try to overturn the other. If you're not, while claiming utter certainty?