Encryption is the hidden guardian protecting our data. Each email or WhatsApp message is encrypted to prevent access from unauthorized users. What began thousands of years ago with Caesar and the so-called Caesar cipher then evolved into mechanical devices such as the Enigma machine during World War II, and later into digital systems. Today, AES and RSA encryption systems are commonly used.
The development of RSA public-key cryptography in 1977 was an important moment for data security. Introduced by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, RSA enabled parties who had never met to exchange asymmetrically encrypted messages without prior secret key sharing for the first time. RSA's mathematical foundation relies on the computational difficulty of factoring large composite numbers into their prime factors, which is a problem that exponentially becomes more difficult as numbers grow larger.
Complementing RSA, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) plays a crucial role in symmetric encryption. The system relies on a step-by-step process of changing and shifting numbers. Developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology beginning in 1997 and published as FIPS 197 on November 26, 2001, AES became the first publicly accessible encryption standard approved by the NSA for top-secret information protection, demonstrating exceptional algorithmic robustness.
But here's the thing: a new threat now approaches that threatens to render current cryptographic infrastructure obsolete. Quantum computing. In 1994, mathematician Peter Shor developed his groundbreaking quantum computer algorithm, which demonstrated that sufficiently powerful quantum computers could efficiently solve the integer factorization problem forming RSA encryption's mathematical basis. The technical elegance of Shor's algorithm lies in its exploitation of quantum mechanical properties, particularly quantum superposition and entanglement. Unlike classical computers processing information in binary bits, that can be either 0 or 1, quantum computers employ quantum bits or qubits that can exist in superposition states, meaning they can be both 0 and 1 simultaneously. This property allows quantum computers to do multiple calculations simultaneously, providing extreme speedup for certain mathematical problem types. For RSA encryption specifically, Shor's algorithm reduces factoring time complexity from exponential time (practically impossible with classical computers) to polynomial time (doable with quantum computers). Where classical computers might require millions of years to factor a 2048-bit RSA key, quantum computers running Shor's algorithm could accomplish the same task within hours or days.
However, practical quantum computing faces significant technical challenges. Quantum systems are extraordinarily fragile, requiring isolation from environmental interference that causes quantum decoherence and environmental shiftings. Current quantum computers operate at near absolute zero temperatures and require sophisticated error correction mechanisms. While current quantum computers cannot yet threaten existing cryptographic systems, experts estimate cryptographically relevant quantum computers may emerge within 10-20 years, prompting worldwide preparation for the post-quantum cryptographic era. As encryption became digital society's invisible backbone, an interesting paradox emerged regarding cryptographic security control and management. Despite the personal nature of protected data, encryption implementation and key management have been largely outsourced to major technology corporations. Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft position themselves as primary digital privacy guardians, creating complex trust relationship webs that most users don't question. When individuals send WhatsApp messages, store Google Drive files, or make Apple Pay purchases, they implicitly trust these corporations to implement encryption correctly, manage cryptographic keys securely, and resist malicious actor attempts to weaken security. This represents faith-based security rather than user-controlled protection, wherein individuals must largely trust corporate privacy protection promises. We just hand over our data and hope for the best.
As we confront the dual challenges of quantum computing threats and corporate cryptographic power concentration, an alternative paradigm emerges from an unexpected source: biological computation. The biocomputation field recognizes that living systems have solved complex computational problems for millions of years, often more efficiently and adaptively than traditional digital computers. Living organisms routinely perform information processing tasks highly relevant to cryptography. Immune systems recognize and respond to novel pathogens, neural networks process sensory information and generate behavioral responses, and cellular networks coordinate complex developmental programs. These biological systems exhibit properties particularly suitable for cryptographic applications: they are distributed rather than centralized, adaptive rather than static, and resilient rather than fragile with built-in redundancy and self-repair mechanisms. DNA-based encryption for example takes advantage of genetic material's massive information storage density and biological system complexity to create novel cryptographic protocols. Researchers have explored using the inherent randomness of biological processes for cryptographic key generation, exploiting molecular interaction unpredictability to create true random number generators surpassing algorithmic pseudo-randomness approaches.
This project uses the behavior of Physarum polycephalum, commonly known as slime mold, as an inspiration and active participant. This single-celled organism challenges fundamental assumptions about intelligence, problem-solving, and information processing. Research by Nakagaki, Yamada, and Tóth in 2000 demonstrated that this amoeboid organism could solve complex maze problems, finding shortest paths between food sources despite lacking a centralized nervous system, without a brain. Further research revealed even more remarkable capabilities. Reid, Latty, Dussutour, and Beekman demonstrated in 2012 that slime mold uses externalized spatial memory to navigate complex environments. This discovery revealed that Physarum polycephalum can create persistent external markers of exploration history, allowing it to avoid previously explored areas and optimize foraging behavior over time. What makes slime molds particularly relevant to cryptographic applications is their ability to generate complex, unpredictable patterns that nonetheless respond to environmental conditions. The organism's growth patterns, network topology, and temporal dynamics create rich entropy sources potentially harnessable for cryptographic key generation. Unlike digital random number generators relying upon algorithmic pseudo-randomness theoretically predictable given sufficient computational resources, slime mold behavior represents genuine biological randomness emerging from complex molecular and cellular processes that are fundamentally unpredictable.
The environmental responsiveness of Physarum polycephalum becomes a feature rather than limitation in cryptographic contexts. The organism's sensitivity to temperature, humidity, nutrient availability, and other environmental factors means generated cryptographic keys reflect specific maintenance conditions. This environmental coupling creates biometric security wherein user-specific care practices become part of the cryptographic system's security profile. Unlike static digital systems, this architecture makes security a dynamic property. When the organism thrives under attentive cultivation, encryption strength increases accordingly. Should care decline and organism vitality decrease, cryptographic protection weakens in direct proportion. This correlation establishes an unprecedented responsibility relationship between biological stewardship and data security.
Lets put this into a thought experiment: The convergence of quantum computing threats, corporate encryption control, and biological computation capabilities points toward a new cryptographic security paradigm: personal responsibility for encryption through living systems under individual care and control. Rather than delegating cryptographic security to distant corporations or relying upon mathematical assumptions potentially vulnerable to quantum attacks, individuals could take direct responsibility for protecting their information through biological systems they personally maintain and nurture. This approach represents a fundamental shift from current cryptographic security models. Instead of trusting algorithms implemented by others, users would trust biological systems they personally maintain. Their encrypted data security would depend not upon distant corporate servers or abstract mathematical theorems, but upon their ability to care for living organisms that generate and maintain their cryptographic keys. Let's think about what this actually means. We're talking about making your data security dependent on keeping a living organism alive and healthy. Not just alive but thriving. Because here's where it gets interesting, or even troubling. Would we develop a different relationship with our data if we had to personally care for the system protecting it? Right now, our data exists in some abstract cloud, protected by algorithms we don't understand, managed by corporations we've never met. It's completely divorced from our daily lives. We never think about it. But what if your encryption literally depended on you feeding and maintaining a slime mold culture in your home? What if forgetting to check on your bio-encryption system for a few days meant your banking data became vulnerable?
In a world where data has become the most valuable commodity and privacy the most precious resource, perhaps the solution lies not in more sophisticated mathematics or more powerful computers, but in the ancient wisdom of living systems that have protected and processed information for billions of years. The biological approach to encryption offers paths toward futures wherein digital security is not a service provided by distant corporations, but a responsibility embraced by individuals through their relationships with living systems under their care. But is that really what we want? Or more precisely, are we willing to accept that level of responsibility and inconvenience?
The bio-encryption system embodies what Nel Noddings describes as "ethics of care" applied to digital security systems. Care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in networks of social relations. In bio-encryption contexts, this relational understanding extends to human-organism partnerships in maintaining digital privacy. This caring relationship transforms digital security from passive consumption to active engagement. Users must develop "cryptographic empathy“, which is the ability to understand and respond to needs of living systems upon which their security depends. Unlike conventional empathetic computing wherein technology empathizes with humans, bio-encryption reverses this formulation: humans must empathize with technology that is literally alive.
Consider what "cryptographic empathy" actually demands. You'd need to learn to read your slime mold's health. Is it growing properly? Is the color right? IYou'd develop a relationship with an organism most people find disgusting. You'd worry about it. Check on it. Adjust its environment. And all of this just to access your email securely. The cognitive and emotional load would be enormous. We're already overwhelmed by digital maintenance, software updates, password changes, two-factor authentication codes. Now add biological caretaking to that list. The temporal dimensions of posthuman security differ fundamentally from conventional approaches. Digital encryption operates in computational time: milliseconds of processing, discrete transactions, scheduled updates. Bio-Encryption operates in biological time: rhythms of growth and decay, cycles of activity and rest, evolutionary adaptations to environmental change. Users must align their security practices with biological temporalities, developing what might be termed "cryptographic patience“, which is the ability to work with security systems that operate according to living rather than digital rhythms. Cryptographic patience. That's a nice way of saying you can't just reboot your security system when it's acting up. Slime molds grow at their own pace. They have their own rhythms. They don't care that you need to make an urgent bank transfer right now. If your bio-encryption system is in a slow growth phase, you wait. If it's stressed from environmental changes, you wait. If you accidentally killed it by forgetting to maintain it properly, you start over from scratch and hope you have backup access to your encrypted data. The frustration potential is staggering. Users cannot simply "use" the system, and maybe that's the real question here. Do we want that kind of relationship with our data security? Constant attention. Ongoing responsibility. Emotional investment.
Main refferrences:
- Adamatzky, Andrew. 2010. Physarum Machines: Computers from Slime Mould. Singapore: World Scientific.
- Nakagaki, Toshiyuki, Hiroyasu Yamada, and Ágota Tóth. 2000. “Maze-Solving by an Amoeboid Organism.” Nature 407 (6803): 470. https://doi.org/10.1038/35035159.
- Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Reid, Christopher R., Tanya Latty, Audrey Dussutour, and Madeleine Beekman. 2012. “Slime Mold Uses an Externalized Spatial ‘Memory’ to Navigate Complex Environments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (43): 17490–17494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215037109.
- Rivest, Ronald L., Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman. 1978. “A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems.” Communications of the ACM 21 (2): 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/359340.359342.
- Shor, Peter W. 1994. “Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring.” In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 124–34. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700.
- U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2001. Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). FIPS Publication 197. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/fips/nist.fips.197.pdf.