A Discussion Of Urban Groundwater

I would just like to relate some things that I have noticed over the years about groundwater.

Many landscapes have a very subtle slope, which is often barely noticeable. The street on which I live actually has a slope which I never noticed until I became interested in the natural history of the area. It is often impossible to detect a very subtle slope on land without looking along a paved road.

The reason that this is important is water. Water is much more sensitive than the human eye to any slope in the terrain as it follows where gravity takes it. Farmers tend to be especially aware to the slope of the ground, knowing that plowing must be done along the slope and not perpendicular to it.

A typical urban landscape consists of a checkerboard of building with "rough" ground. On built-up areas, including buildings, parking lots, roads, and cared-for lawns, water generally cannot emerge freely. It is on the "rough" areas of empty fields and unused and unpaved ground that water can follow it's natural course.

Years ago, there was an open field where nothing would ever be built because there were electric power lines overhead. The field was much drier then than it is now. There was a little bit of water in low-lying areas in that field, but there is usually considerably more now.

There was a large field not far away from this. At one time, there were two ponds in that field as well as some trees and bushes that would absorb water. But then, that field was developed into a large store and theater. The entire field was paved over.

What happened is simple. Water from rain and melting snow could no longer be absorbed by that field, so it migrated downstream to the next rough area.

Streets block the flow of groundwater close to the surface, but not that which is deeper. Where I live, there is a subtle slope to the southwest. I recall that there was one field with dense bush growth in the southwest corner of the field. There was a nearby field with a pond in the southwest corner.

What this means to you is flooding. If an open area of rough ground is paved over some distance up-slope from you, it can cause your basement to suddenly start flooding when it never has previously. The water will simply migrate down-slope.

Such flooding can be circumvented by digging a ditch or pond between the newly paved over area and the flooded area, or by planting bushes whose roots will intercept shallow groundwater..

Something like a highway will also channel water. There was a large pond in the field described above that eventually was paved over. I later realized that it must have been dug purposely. It was right next to an interstate highway and there was a landfill with high ground not far up-slope. The pond had been dug to absorb water that ran off the high ground of the landfill, and was channeled by the highway, so that there would not be flooding downslope.

Inventions And Nature

This posting will later be moved to the progress blog, www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com .

What I find striking is just how unoriginal humans really are. We have come up with some brilliant inventions, but virtually all inventions can be seen as an imitation of nature in some way. Very little of what has been invented is really and truly original. This leads us to the conclusion that there might be a myriad of better ways of doing things out there that we never notice because there is no precedence in nature.

We have seen in "Reverse Archeology" and "Familiar Patterns", on the patterns and complexity blog www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com , how we tend to use the same patterns over again but in different ways, and how we design technology based on what we are. But I would like to explain today how we are virtually incapable of coming up with anything new unless we can see some precedent for it.

Living things in the environment around us can be said to "blaze a trail" for us in terms of technology, and this includes how our own bodies operate. We have one great advantage over other living things in that we have opposible thumbs, whereas animals do not. This allows us to readily use implements, such as pieces of bone, as tools.

I do not consider something as truly original if it can readily be used as a tool. This includes bows and arrows. The only reason that simple tools are not seen in nature, other than some primates, is that animals lack thumbs to hold the tools.

In the same way, it is not that writing and art are truly original human concepts. It is just that animals without thumbs and the manual control that humans have are precluded from engaging in such activities. If animals could potentially create writing or artwork, but didn't, then we could say that these are original developments of humanity. But that is not the case.

Civilization is based on gaining control of elements of nature, such as agriculture and fire. But plants and fire are things that already occur naturally, and are not our inventions. It was a major step to gain control of nature, but this cannot be considered as entirely original.

It is easy to see how the patterns of modern economics are based on the old patterns that we are most familiar with. Businesses "fish" for customers, by luring them in, while customers "hunt" for bargains. The interaction of money and goods is the same as that of males and females, the two are equal so that they pair up. Investing is like planting so that we can reap more than we planted.

Would we think of building homes if we did not see animals living in nests and dens, and caves are readily available for shelter in some locations? Would we even have thought of making clothes if we did not have skin already covering us, and see animals with fur?

There was nothing truly original about the pyramids, and the ziggurats that preceded them. They originated with the idea of mountains because religious ceremonies were supposed to take place on high ground.

Would we have thought of building bridges if we had not seen a fallen tree across some chasm or gap? Would we have considered building a tower to extend our view, if we could not climb trees or hills? Would buildings have foundations if trees did not have roots?

Would there ever have been boats and ships if early humans had not seen floating logs? A canoe is actually a hollowed-out log. How about the branching collection and distribution networks that we use, would we have thought of this without seeing the branch structure of trees? Dams are not original, beavers have been building them for far longer than humans.

There is nothing original about knives and sharpened cutting edges, animal claws and teeth, and human teeth are the precedent in nature.

Would we have thought of producing medicines if there had not already been some natural medicines in plants?

Would we think of putting valuable items in packaging and containers if we had never seen seashells?

Would there be concrete for building without the precedence of stalagtites forming in caves? Would we think of asphalt to pave roads without the occurrence of natural bitumen? Would we have though of making plastics if we were not so familiar with natural clay?

Would there be electricity if it did not occur naturally as lightning, and we could see how the human nervous system works?

Would there be internal combustion engines if not for our own digestive systems, and out familiarity with stoves?

I very much doubt that there would be aircraft if we had never seen birds flying, and seen the fins on fish. There would not be helicopters without the precedence of hovering insects. Neither would there be battle tanks without turtles or submarines without fish. Propulsion by jet or rocket is not even original, that is how an octopus can propel itself.

There certainly would not be an antenna without the leaves of plants to receive the light of the sun. We wouldn't have thought of lenses if we didn't have eyes, nor pumps if we didn't have hearts, nor filters if we didn't have livers.

What we basically do is to imitate nature, and try to improve on it. Our ideas are almost always based upon a precedent in nature. Very little that we come up with is truly original.

There is the wheel. It is true that it has no precedent in nature. The native Indians of the western hemisphere had some really advanced civilizations, but do not seem to have developed the wheel. But it can also be seen, like agriculture and fire, as actually a taming of nature because the idea must have come from seeing rocks or logs rolling down a hillside.

Guns do not occur in nature. Some primates can throw things, but there is no chemical propulsion of a projectile for hunting and defensive purposes.

But the most original invention that I can see humans as having developed are locks. Absolutely nowhere in nature do we see an impermeable barrier that becomes easily permeable if only one has a key or password.

Think of all the ideas that must be out there somewhere, but that we are unable to see because they have no precedence in nature.