HongKong Moss Machine

2019 | Green Topia | HongKong
Ku­ra­tor: An­drew Lam Hon Kin
Vi­sua­li­sie­rung: R.H.

Con­cept for a Hong Kong Moss Ma­chi­ne to Green Topia

Train of Thoughts by Rolf Hin­te­r­e­cker

For thou­sands of years, peo­ple lived in huts and buil­dings made of na­tu­ral ma­te­ri­als such as bam­boo, clay, wood, etc., which wea­the­red after a cer­tain time. The temp­les and tombs, which were most­ly made of stone, were also sub­ject to wea­the­ring, de­pen­ding on the re­gi­on and cli­ma­te. A ve­ge­ta­ti­ve in­fes­ta­ti­on of li­chens (Bo­ro­bo­dur / In­do­ne­sia), mos­ses (Peru) or a com­ple­te over­grow­th (Ang­kor Wat) be­long to the cul­tu­ral his­to­ry of ar­chi­tec­ture. Espe­ci­al­ly the co­lo­ni­al buil­dings in the tro­pics of­fe­red nu­me­rous points of at­tack for a di­ver­se flora.
Ferns and small trees be­lon­ged to the towns­ca­pe of most co­lo­ni­al ci­ties and were ac­cep­ted as na­tu­ral so­me­ti­me. Even the first con­cre­te buil­dings of the Ro­mans star­ted to have a ve­ge­ta­ti­ve pa­ti­na.

Only the skys­cra­per fa­ca­des in the urban cen­tres of mo­dern times set new stan­dards. With their aes­the­tic ele­gan­ce, there is no space for moss and mush. The ve­ge­ta­ti­on is im­plan­ted into the buil­dings in ela­bo­ra­te art lands­ca­pes with palm trees and wa­ter­falls. Out­si­de, war was de­cla­red on na­ture. Espe­ci­al­ly in of­fi­ce and ad­mi­nis­tra­ti­on buil­dings with their large mir­ror and glass fa­ca­des, the level of che­mi­cal use for clea­ning and ener­gy con­sump­ti­on rose.
Mega-ci­ties and me­tro­po­li­ses are the­re­fo­re in the spe­ci­al focus of the cli­ma­te dis­cus­si­ons.

The idea of the moss ma­chi­ne is a phi­lo­so­phi­cal con­si­de­ra­ti­on or an im­per­ti­nence.
De­spi­te all its glo­ri­fied be­au­ty, na­ture also con­sists of di­sea­ses, death and other ug­li­ness. The rot­ting of ve­ge­ta­ti­ve ma­te­ri­al pro­vi­des the bree­ding ground for in­sects, these in turn, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.. When of­fi­ces plan this "be­au­ti­ful new world" with their spe­cia­lists, from na­ture de­sign to cli­ma­te en­gi­nee­ring, and use the tools of scien­ti­fic and tech­ni­cal pos­si­bi­li­ties, the nai­ve­ty with which they un­de­re­sti­ma­te the vi­ru­lence of bio­lo­gi­cal and cli­ma­tic pro­ces­ses is also fa­s­ci­na­ting.

The ques­ti­on if we all should do what we could do is in­cre­a­sin­gly asked - not least against the back­ground of the cur­rent glo­bal war­ming dis­cus­si­ons ->Fri­day for fu­ture.

Moss ma­chi­nes an­ar­chi­cal­ly green the fa­ca­des of buil­dings, in­dus­tri­al halls and other ob­jects such as highways, bridges, etc. that store heat.
The moss is spat out - its seeds* are blown out and re­lea­sed as a water mist.
The exact func­ti­on is un­cle­ar, since the ex­pe­ri­men­tal ar­ran­ge­ment of the la­bo­ra­to­ry de­vi­ces are them­sel­ves li­ving or­ga­nisms that lead their own lives.

There is a high risk that the re­lea­se of the moss will cause the en­ti­re city to fall into a kind of green sleep and the fa­ci­li­ty ma­na­gers will be busy cut­ting ob­ser­va­ti­on slits into the fa­ca­des.

Walk-in la­bo­ra­to­ry equip­ment, in­stal­la­ti­on and en­vi­ron­ment with va­rious or­gans.

Bio­lo­gi­cal back­ground

Re­pro­duc­ti­on of moss
The role of se­xu­al re­pro­duc­ti­on in in­cre­a­sing ge­ne­tic di­ver­si­ty is con­si­dera­b­ly li­mi­ted in mos­ses. About half of the mos­ses are mo­noe­cious and pre­do­mi­nant­ly self-pol­li­na­ted (no self in­com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty). In ad­di­ti­on, many dio­ce­san spe­cies occur only in pu­re­ly fe­ma­le or pu­re­ly male po­pu­la­ti­ons and can­not re­pro­du­ce se­xual­ly.
The re­la­tive­ly low pro­ba­bi­li­ty that the sper­ma­to­zo­ids will reach the ar­che­go­nia in water for fer­ti­li­sa­ti­on is com­pen­sa­ted by the fact that in such a case very large num­bers of spo­res are usual­ly pro­du­ced. Daw­so­nia holds the re­cord with five mil­li­on spo­res in one sporan­gi­um. Se­ver­al hun­dred thou­sand are also not rare in other spe­cies. The spo­res are very wi­despread, most­ly much fur­ther than the ac­tu­al art areas. The­re­fo­re, many mos­ses can react very quick­ly to cli­ma­tic chan­ges and co­lo­ni­ze new, sui­ta­ble ha­bi­tats.

DNA re­pair

The moss Phys­co­mitrel­la pa­tens has been used as a model or­ga­nism to study how plants re­pair da­ma­ge to their DNA, espe­ci­al­ly the re­pair me­cha­nism known as ho­mo­lo­gous re­com­bi­na­ti­on. If the plant can­not re­pair DNA da­ma­ge, e.g. dou­ble-strand breaks, in their so­ma­tic cells, the cells can lose nor­mal func­ti­ons or die. If this oc­curs du­ring mei­o­sis (part of se­xu­al re­pro­duc­ti­on), they could be­co­me in­fer­ti­le. The ge­no­me of P. pa­tens has been se­quenced, which has al­lo­wed se­ver­al genes in­vol­ved in DNA re­pair to be iden­ti­fied.[20] P. pa­tens mu­tants that are de­fec­ti­ve in key steps of ho­mo­lo­gous re­com­bi­na­ti­on have been used to work out how the re­pair me­cha­nism func­ti­ons in plants. For ex­am­ple, a study of P. pa­tens mu­tants de­fec­ti­ve in RpRAD51, a gene that en­co­des a pro­te­in at the core of the re­com­bi­na­tio­nal re­pair re­ac­ti­on, in­di­ca­ted that ho­mo­lo­gous re­com­bi­na­ti­on is es­sen­ti­al for re­pai­ring DNA dou­ble-strand breaks in this plant.[21] Si­mi­lar­ly, stu­dies of mu­tants de­fec­ti­ve in Ppm­re11 or Ppra­d50 (that en­co­de key pro­te­ins of the MRN com­plex, the prin­ci­pal sen­sor of DNA dou­ble-strand breaks) sho­wed that these genes are ne­cessa­ry for re­pair of DNA da­ma­ge as well as for nor­mal grow­th and de­ve­lop­ment.