Contrary to popular opinion, artists do not have a Natural Right to profit from their work. In fact it is the opposite: the natural state of creative works is to be "owned" by all of society, because (unlike real (i.e. physical) property) they can be freely shared and duplicated.
Eh.. definition of "creative works" needs improvement. They are not by definition non-physical and able to be duplicated, and so their natural state is not as you say.
Actually there is just starting to be active research in artificial photosynthesis. The idea is to exploit qualities of the biochemical processes. Duplicating nature exactly is difficult and costs time or energy/money and may not accomplish what we want. Also the nature version offers low efficiency which if cheap enough may cause space issues.
Also the use of certain photoactive dyes is more heavily researched and a relatively new promising path to cheaper photovoltaic modules with similarities to photosynthesis but, has its obstacles.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to popular opinion, artists do not have a Natural Right to profit from their work. In fact it is the opposite: the natural state of creative works is to be "owned" by all of society, because (unlike real (i.e. physical) property) they can be freely shared and duplicated.
Eh.. definition of "creative works" needs improvement. They are not by definition non-physical and able to be duplicated, and so their natural state is not as you say.
Actually there is just starting to be active research in artificial photosynthesis. The idea is to exploit qualities of the biochemical processes. Duplicating nature exactly is difficult and costs time or energy/money and may not accomplish what we want. Also the nature version offers low efficiency which if cheap enough may cause space issues.
Also the use of certain photoactive dyes is more heavily researched and a relatively new promising path to cheaper photovoltaic modules with similarities to photosynthesis but, has its obstacles.