[Biology Vs Technology]

[Xannari Ferrows]

Let's clear it up right now: Biology loses as of now. Technology has surpassed biological anatomy and physical capability in almost every way, from physical strength to reasonable intellect.

Name anything, and a piece of technology has probably already been created to fit your description. Learning, smart responses, individual thinking, philosophy, even creativity.

Composers, free thinkers, ideologists, artists, you name it.

Although technology has evolved with a greater mind indeed, it is true that the human mind is revered as the most complex technology. All of the categories listed above wrapped into one package, along with a few other attributes that machines haven't been built for yet. It is not built for processing power, but energy efficiency. Our memories may fragment, but that is perhaps because of the sheer magnitude of data out brains try to store at once. A camera, for instance, does not capture a full shutter, but rather a rolling shutter; scanning strips of data one by one for every pixel. Our minds use a frame rate too difficult to put into words, and there is no certainty to whether there is a limit.

We can solve riddles, as an added bonus. Seeking out puzzles to solve is one of the wonders of our mind. Looking at different angles, trying new definitions, looking for metaphors, and getting the pool of satisfaction afterwards.

All in all, our overall biological position on the board is okay, but trumped by technology by a marginal amount... but, to what avail? I mean, what is the apex of technological evolution? Speculate all you want about that, but what about biology? Imagine this:

Technology becomes dominant throughout the Terran system. Not a day goes by without it, and it can only continue to expand. A breakthrough in propulsion research has let us travel the galaxy. We go forth and explore, but run into someone unexpected...

A species that has chosen the route of biological evolution rather than technological. Vessels with regenerative properties, neural binary processing, brains as a memory core, neural interfaces to call out commands, biological weaponry, highly advanced immune responses, and even defenses evolved into them as well, such as built-in weapons or multi-cellular adaptability.

This species finds us as a threat, and attacks us. What can we do? Fire weapons, alright. Makes a dent, which heals right back. Our limited technology, and just technology in general will most likely never reach the level of efficiency that biology can possibly reach.

Although that sounds like a baseless and very bold claim... well, actually it is. I have no idea what the limit of technological evolution is, but I honestly suspect that the potential of biological evolution is far greater than the capable reaches of technology. Some may disagree, and that's fine. I mean, look at it now...

But try to look past our own species, as difficult as that may be. Which category do you think wins the battle?

Edited June 15, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Camacha]

I do not think you can separate the two. Technology is just another form of evolution and biology. It is our brain, along with a couple of other traits, that makes technology possible the way you see it. It is just another way of dealing with the world we live in.

Meanwhile, you see what you call technology more and more drifting towards biology. Self learning AI becomes better and better, yet gains some carnal properties in the process, as it would simply not work easily without. We make chemicals by altering bacteria, rather than trying to synthesize the chemical from scratch. We make better foods, rather than just better ways of growing the foods. The separation, if you insist on seeing it, becomes more and more blurred every second and will pretty soon become totally indistinguishable.

Biology is just very fine tuned technology, while technology just is a fairly crude (yet quickly evolving) extension of biology. Both are using chemistry and physics to their advantage.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Biology is just very fine tuned technology, while technology just is a fairly crude (yet quickly evolving) extension of biology. Both are using chemistry and physics to their advantage.

Relevant to a thread I made a while back actually. Is the strive for sentient technology a form of technological development, or reproduction? It is in our [the general majority's] nature as a species to preserve our own existence for as long as possible. While not immortal, we give offspring to continue making marks on the world around us. How is this technology any different? Discoveries carried from generation to generation in the hopes that one day, someone may be able to use it for the purpose of bettering us as a species.

Very good point there. I'll have to add something about this to my projection list...

[RainDreamer]

Ehhh....we have a field called biotechnology, you know? Biological processes are simply just another facet of the natural world that we one day will be capable of understanding and hopefully master through sufficiently advanced technology.

Now, if you are asking nature vs designed...that is a whole another thing. Or organic vs inorganic. Or natural vs artificial. I am still not entirely sure where we are taking this discussion.

[lajoswinkler]

To truly understand this, you need to peek into the cellular mechanisms. Histology, physiology and molecular biology. Then you will see that our current technology is still vastly inferior in most cases. We're talking about elaborate molecular machines and even some sort of analog computers inside us, all connected by chemical signals in a macroscopic body. Billions of years of development.

Technology has lots of potential, even more than our own biology offers, but it's still inferior. Even with its development, it will have to piggyback on biology.

[Xannari Ferrows]

To truly understand this, you need to peek into the cellular mechanisms. Histology, physiology and molecular biology. Then you will see that our current technology is still vastly inferior in most cases.

Well, when it comes to developmental sophistication, of course we outclass our creations. For the sake of argument, let's say that our cells are inferior to the technological axioms. It's never about how advanced the tool is, but rather what you do with it. Self sufficiency is often seen as the superior factor, but I always agree that the pieces of the puzzle, rather than a picture, unlock a whole new world of far more advanced creations.

[Bill Phil]

Biology is natural technology. Energy is converted into work, processes take place, etc.

[-Velocity-]

Technology does not "win". Present technology cannot exceed biological brain power or efficiency, it doesn't even come remotely close. The most powerful supercomputer in the world has just now come close to the same computational power of the human brain- but it uses TWENTY MEGAWATTS, and fills up a massive room. The human brain uses 20 watts and is nothing but the size of two fists held together.

But! Moores law! You're just being short-sighted!

WRONG. We are hitting the physical limits with silicon technology right now, too. Transistors are approaching the size where we can't shrink them any more because they wouldn't be composed of enough atoms. We're talking about gate oxide layers with thickness on the order of single-digit atomic numbers of atomic diameters. Very soon, in order to continue improving our computers, there will have to be a massive paradigm shift. Moore's law is definitely no "law", and there will be at least a large "stutter" in it soon, unless the paradigm shift happens more smoothly than most people think it will.

Name a single piece of complicated technology that can replicate itself and solve all the environmental challenges that even a simple bacterium can. Nothing comes close.

Ultimately, there is likely to be no clear dividing line between what you think of as "technology" and what you think of as "biology". Biological cells are not magic ("alive" and "dead" is just a human concept). They are nano-electro-chemical-mechanical machines. They are nanotechnology. Silly science fiction writers have envisioned tiny nanotechnology robots- "nanites"- for years, without realizing that they themselves are nanites!

I've read a few science fiction novels where nanotechnology is featured. One of the more acclaimed is "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson. I didn't think it was that great of a book- many of the devices he envisions are patently impossible due to scaling laws. I would know- I'm an electrical engineer who has designed, tested, and fabricated MEMS devices. I believe that eventually, assuming civilization survives long enough, we'll see a coming-together of micro and nano technology with biotechnology, and the clear boundary we have right now between living organism and machine will disappear.

Edited May 23, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Tex_NL]

Neither one is superior or inferior to the other.

Technology is more durable, it can survive events biology can not. Biology on the other hand is more flexible and can adapt.

Technology can evolve quickly. Biology can evolve on its own but takes time. You can help biology evolve but then it becomes technology.

[Mr_Brain]

Currently, in many ways, biology still beats technology. But once artificial superintelligence and self-replicating nanobots are a thing, that will change.

[Technical Ben]

Have you seen biology?

No, I mean for real. Up close. The intricate nitty gritty workings of it. Look close, real close. Like on the atomic scale. It works at that scale. That is where it all starts. It processes just above it, in the molecule (though often smaller as well) space.

Take for example, the length of one single DNA strand in the human cell. The speed it's replicated. The error checking. The folding and construction mechanisms. That's all before we go on to build the rest of the cell and the person that it all makes up.

Biology surpasses technology in it's finesse and efficiency at every solution. Though technology can hit harder, biology comes off victorious in the long run.

Currently, in many ways, biology still beats technology. But once artificial superintelligence and self-replicating nanobots are a thing, that will change.

What is the difference? Technology would have to be biology to even stand a fair chance. While we could comprehend (silicon) computers more powerful, it would be so big, bulky and power hungry it would fail to a cockroach getting stuck in it's cooling vent.

To which we could try different types of technology. So upgrade to photonic transistors, or quantum computers (using silicon or other materials). But again, biology already surpasses that on the molecular levels it operates at and in the speed/concurrency of operation too.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Technical Ben

[Argylas]

As Bill Phil said there's no real distinction between technology and biology - it is only in our heads. Biology is still a way to turn energy into useful work, just as technology. It just turned out that nature had some organic material laying around and "made" life out of it. If it was more advantageous to use iron or something similar, we would have been walking metal robots instead of blobs of organic matter and water.

That being said, "biology" as you call it, thanks to billions of years of evolution, is far, far ahead of technology right now. Each cell, every neuron, every muscle in our bodies is a finely tuned machine or computer, geared at doing its job incredibly well. Just think of how complex an organ the eye is and what it is capable of doing. We can't reproduce its sensitivity or complexity using current technology. We can make instruments that can be more well-suited for a particular situation, but we cannot make something that does everything the eye is capable of in a better way. The same goes for almost every organ in our body. And when we move to microscopic level - our cells, our hormones, etc. - humanity's efforts to emulate "biology" are even more pathetic at the moment.

The reason most people think there is some inherent difference between "biology" and "technology" is because we can make machines that are better than us in specific tasks. However, living organisms were "designed" (for a lack of a better word) with a different goal - to survive at all costs. Humans (and all living things) are able to receive useful information from numerous stimuli, to interpret this information and to act on it in order to survive. And for that to happen living things are equipped to deal very well with everything that comes their way in their habitat. Which is orders of magnitude more complex than anything technology can do today. Given some centuries of continued technological progress and we may get there. I say "may", because the complexity of life is so big that the task of emulating it gargantuan and unquantifiable - it may take us decades, it may take us centuries or even thousands of years.

So to summarize - if in the future we develop "technology" (with which I assume the OP means things made of "artificial" stuff like metal or silicon) and meet a hostile civilization, which has developed "biology" (which I assume the OP means things made out of organic matter) AND both species at a relatively similar progress level, I think there would not be any difference. To use the OP's example - if we shoot missiles at them, they may heal the damage using organic molecules or whatever. If they shoot organic explosive pods (peashooter for teh win! at us, our ships will heal the damage using microscopic nanobots, which will use available surplus material to mend the holes in the hulls. So to summarize - at similar progress levels "biology" and "technology" are the same thing. Only the source material everything is made of is different (metal & plastic vs. organic matter). And this doesn't give a particular advantage to any side.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Argylas

[-Velocity-]

So to summarize - at similar progress levels "biology" and "technology" are the same thing. Only the source material everything is made of is different (metal & plastic vs. organic matter). And this doesn't give a particular advantage to any side.

Actually, there kinda is an advantage, to biology. You're assuming it's possible to make nanotech robots that utilize metal or plastic or any of the materials we consider "synthetic". You should not make this assumption, we have no evidence at all that this is even possible (and even if it's possible, we don't have any reason to believe that it's the best solution). The materials you're talking about frequently don't work very well on micro or nano scales. Nanotech would likely end up being made out of organic materials or at least, something very different than the traditional materials we currently make machines out of.

On the other hand, we know for certain that it is possible to make "nanobots" out of organic substances, planet Earth has been doing it for about 4 billion years and counting. I think that any sufficiently advanced nanotech device is going to end up resembling a life form anyway, and the question of "is it technology or is it biology" will be recognized as being an artificial distinction (there is no difference).

Maybe it's not, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", could it be "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from biology"?

Edited May 23, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Technical Ben]

If there is no difference... I'd like to see how we consider producing something biological from "scratch".

Slightly off topic joke:

Scientist challenged God to show His existence, as they concluded they could make their own living organisms in the lab.

"Ok", God replied, "I accept the challenge, first show I'm not needed by making something alive out of dirt."

The scientist took to work and picked up a handful of dirt to take to the lab.

"Oh no you don't." God interrupted, "You have to make your own dirt first!"

But back on topic. If technology, using silicon and other materials, logic gates and transistors was a better method, then theoretically (on any side of the argument), biology would already be using these systems. That it is not already, suggests they are not the best solutions to the problems. If it was simply "survival at all costs" we could already make/program a computer/machine to do this. I don't see that as even possible!

Though they may be better solutions from technology to different problems. Such as global communications, space travel, industrial energy production etc. They won't solve the problems biology tackles and faces.

PS, ninja post beaten by Velocity. I'd love to see what/where you worked/studied. Great stuff on biology there!

Edited May 23, 2015 by Technical Ben

[Three1415]

"Technology," even by the OP's limited definition, it still vastly superior in almost every regard. The only thing biological systems are good at is not being bad at anything; they are inherently jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none type systems, and thus suffer significant inefficiency in anything they attempt to do. Any designed or manufactured system will be intrinsically superior in the task it was designed for (i.e, the human eye versus the gigapixel cameras currently in development), and such individual superiority is what is typically selected for in any field of engineering.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, technological systems are intrinsically superior at collecting energy in the first place; constructing, say, a mechanism to process coal and output electricity out of purely organic components would be incredibly difficult, and constructing a fission or fusion reactor would be greatly outside the realm of feasibility. As such, any technological system, as it will have access to superior individual components, larger quantities of energy, and greater efficiencies, will far surpass any biological system in power and ability.

[-Velocity-]

If there is no difference... I'd like to see how we consider producing something biological from "scratch".

You don't have to, you can start with something already existing in nature. This is what we've already been doing for years.

But back on topic. If technology, using silicon and other materials, logic gates and transistors was a better method, then theoretically (on any side of the argument), biology would already be using these systems. That it is not already, suggests they are not the best solutions to the problems. If it was simply "survival at all costs" we could already make/program a computer/machine to do this. I don't see that as even possible!

Evolution is not a perfect process that always arrives at the best solution. It probably NEVER arrives at the very best solution. It's hampered by the fact that it's reliant on random mutations and that, during the course of evolution, all the generations MUST survive; in order for evolution to proceed, every generation must be viable.

It's like... well, imagine if you were in a lab somewhere, and your task was to modify a riding lawnmower into a SSTO space plane, and EVERY TIME you switch out a single part the vehicle must be capable of carrying passengers in forward powered motion efficiently. That's sorta like evolution. There are advancements in organism "design" that evolution simply cannot make because there is not an intermediate, viable form the organism can take, and the chance of all the right mutations coming together at the same time to make the "leap" is negligibly small.

Like, for example, how could an organism ever evolve, say, a nuclear reactor for a power source? Uranium is poisonous, and completely harmful until you finally get enough of it in you to sustain a chain reaction. And then, there's all the other adaptions an organism would need for protecting itself from radiation that would be mostly useless until it evolved a working nuclear reactor.

I know this sounds sorta like the creationist's argument for "irreducible parts" (don't bother wasting your time and looking it up if you don't know what I'm talking about), but that's because the best myths are those that start with a basis in facts.

So, it seems certain that we should be able to eventually find ways to vastly improve our bodies; as we are intelligent designers, and we can skip straight to a better solution that evolution could never be able to find.

Edited May 23, 2015 by |Velocity|

[cicatrix]

Ever heard of the term 'biotechnology'. Whereas technology in many fields at its limit righ now, biology (genetics specifically) is only starting making its baby steps. Biotechnologies have tremendous potential in this century. Technology may raise your level of comfort it doesn't do anything to improve ourselves. Biology, from the other hand, has the potential of prolonging our life, elimination of diseases, etc. Biotechnology should eventually solve the problem of food shortages. Microbiology should help us to reduce industrial waste or elimitate it completely, it will help in ecological restoration and in may other fields. This poll makes one think that biology and technology are something completely different, but they are the same thing. This century is a century of biotech. So, the answer is neither.

[Brethern]

"Technology," even by the OP's limited definition, it still vastly superior in almost every regard. The only thing biological systems are good at is not being bad at anything; they are inherently jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none type systems, and thus suffer significant inefficiency in anything they attempt to do. Any designed or manufactured system will be intrinsically superior in the task it was designed for (i.e, the human eye versus the gigapixel cameras currently in development), and such individual superiority is what is typically selected for in any field of engineering.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, technological systems are intrinsically superior at collecting energy in the first place; constructing, say, a mechanism to process coal and output electricity out of purely organic components would be incredibly difficult, and constructing a fission or fusion reactor would be greatly outside the realm of feasibility. As such, any technological system, as it will have access to superior individual components, larger quantities of energy, and greater efficiencies, will far surpass any biological system in power and ability.

Technology does have one Achilles heel the most common materials used for it are non renewable. Biology on the other hand is based around things that won't run out.

[Technical Ben]

You don't have to, you can start with something already existing in nature. This is what we've already been doing for years.

Evolution is not a perfect process that always arrives at the best solution. It probably NEVER arrives at the very best solution. It's hampered by the fact that it's reliant on random mutations and that, during the course of evolution, all the generations MUST survive; in order for evolution to proceed, every generation must be viable.

It's like... well, imagine if you were in a lab somewhere, and your task was to modify a riding lawnmower into a SSTO space plane, and EVERY TIME you switch out a single part the vehicle must be capable of carrying passengers in forward powered motion efficiently. That's sorta like evolution. There are advancements in organism "design" that evolution simply cannot make because there is not an intermediate, viable form the organism can take, and the chance of all the right mutations coming together at the same time to make the "leap" is negligibly small.

Like, for example, how could an organism ever evolve, say, a nuclear reactor for a power source? Uranium is poisonous, and completely harmful until you finally get enough of it in you to sustain a chain reaction. And then, there's all the other adaptions an organism would need for protecting itself from radiation that would be mostly useless until it evolved a working nuclear reactor.

I know this sounds sorta like the creationist's argument for "irreducible parts" (don't bother wasting your time and looking it up if you don't know what I'm talking about), but that's because the best myths are those that start with a basis in facts.

So, it seems certain that we should be able to eventually find ways to vastly improve our bodies; as we are intelligent designers, and we can skip straight to a better solution that evolution could never be able to find.

We can make a lot of assumptions there, but that gives us little to no real data or idea. Your example of using existing biology is good. It misses one little point on the way though. Technology can be an opposite concept. A car built from the ground up is specifically different from a horse with a saddle. Both use technology, but one is absent of biology, the other reliant on it.

Yes, biology does not use a nuclear reactor. Does it need one?

There is no quick solution to the travelling sales man problem so to speak (it's an NP hard compute problem to find the solutions ). EG protein folding (biological problems) or sustainable fusion (technological problems).

Effectively, saying "science can solve" or "technology can solve" problems is like saying a very very large hammer can solve problems, or a very big calculator can. None of these things solves problems, people and hard work does.

- - - Updated - - -

Edited May 23, 2015 by Technical Ben

[pincushionman]

...Technology is more durable, it can survive events biology can not...

Separate these statements. The second is true; the first most definitely is not. All of our technology requires constant upkeep, else it wears out and breaks. There is no self-repair or self-replication of even our most advanced technologies. Biological systems, on the other hand, have had millions if not billions of years to practice surviving, and are hell-bent on continuing that trend. Self-repair systems abound to treat injury from a wide variety of sources, and while they do in fact wear out, there are other systems in place to produce their own replacements. It's almost like it's the whole point.

[-Velocity-]

Yes, biology does not use a nuclear reactor. Does it need one?

Well, if you didn't have to eat but every 10 years, that would give you a massive survival advantage, would it not? Of course, there is the problem of your s*** being highly radioactive.

Anyway, don't get hung up on irrelavant details. The point is that there are things that life cannot evolve on its own, or would have a very difficult time evolving. Evolution does not arrive at the best solution, it arrives at the an optimal solution. It might be the "best" solution, but it is probably not. An example is silicon exactly. Even if silicon were better than neurons, how would we ever incorporate silicon transistors into our brains? It's not possible. The composition of the silicon has to be controlled to an EXTREMELY high tolerance that biology could never achieve. Also silicon does NOT dissolve easily, and the things that it does dissolve in tend to be highly toxic, and actually may convert it into SiO2, which is insoluable in water (I'm not exactly sure what the chemistry is). I do know that yet another reason it would be impossible to get elemental silicon is it is highly reactive with oxygen. Pretty much the instant you expose it to oxygen it forms a thin oxide layer (which protects the silicon deeper inside from oxidizing). Oh yea, good luck growing silicon crystals too. Biology simply cannot make use of silicon transistors, they could never evolve naturally, not in a trillion years, so the fact that we don't use silicon transistors in our brains doesn't really mean anything.

[LN400]

Just a couple of thoughts. Biological evolution is not driven towards a goal. There is no planning in evolution. No design evaluation. As far as evolution goes there is now and what is physically/chemically/biologically possible right now but evolution has no concept of future. There are no reasons why one would think evolution gives us "the best". Evolution is full of examples of twists and turns that ended up in dead end alleys, or that worked but makes no sense whatsoever in terms of planning ahead.

This however is not relevant to whether or not biology is more or less complex than the most complex technology humans have created. It's been said already in this topic but I'll repeat it. As far as complexity goes, the most complex technology we have created is barely worth mentioning compared to the complexity of biology. It's been repeated many times how technology is superior in any and every way but when one shows a giga- (let's go overboard with a peta-) pixel camera is superior to the eye, I don't think they understand the complexity involved at every level from light entering the eyeball, and every step, towards the brain processing the neural signals. This whole process is one where biology is superior. So, you have your petapixel camera. What will technology do with that camera other than press the shutter button? How will technology build up an awareness of the world around it to the same level we build up awareness of our surroundings? Yes we do need technology to say, go into environments that would kill us if we didn't have the tech but that is not an indication of technology's superiority to biology. Could just as well have been an indication of biology's command of technology.

[KerikBalm]

The distinction between technology and biology gets more and more blurred.

If we take technology as that which arrises from an "intelligent designer" (ie we think about it, and make it), and biology as the product of iteration and selection (ie, evolution):

Technology has yet to achieve any true intelligence. Computers can do more calculations per second, and do them more accurately, but their problem solving capabilities are pretty much non-existent, and limited to simply executing a program that a biological entity produced.

It also can't propogate itself. A cell is an extraordinary self replicating machine... nothing fom the minds of humans has come close.

The brain and the cell still do things far beyond what human technology can do.

But now we have biological technology, and evolved techology (particularly now with the use of genetic algorithms).

So.... who knows where things will lead.

[Technical Ben]

Well, if you didn't have to eat but every 10 years, that would give you a massive survival advantage, would it not?

If it was a survival advantage, it would have that system already. Some animals avoid eating for long periods of time. Though I think we are mixing up "acquiring resources" and "acquiring energy". Uranium is great for energy, but useless for building materials. Thus as an animal is already eating for the building/repair materials, it can get energy at a much more efficient means than uranium.

Such as solar (or sodium if in a cave) or other animals. There is a reason we use petrol, which is oil, which is a biological construction. Because it's energy density is amazing, plus it's storage is rather simple (so less waste on additional systems).

As said, for an animal to require uranium power, it would need a massive size to offset it's additional bulk for the containment systems. Else it would need an energy requirement many orders of magnitude more than a city, which generally is not a worry for a fox or a deer.

I'm not jumping to "irrelevant details". Quite the opposite. I'm thinking about what actually makes a different to the animal and systems, not what I wish will make a difference.

The point is that there are things that life cannot evolve on its own, or would have a very difficult time evolving.

There are things it certainly is impossible to develop. How do we know which is which?

LN400, as said, it's already an observed fact that biology does what it does. Why is not part of the discussion I agree. But the fact of the matter is, it's as small as it could be, as efficient as it could be, etc. It's hard to argue we could make a "smaller/quicker/cheaper/more efficient" of any of it's versions of tasks and features.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Technical Ben

[LN400]

*snip* who knows where things will lead.

Very true.

"prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." - Niels Bohr

On a flip note: Personally, I see any scenario where we are replaced as a species by our own technology as the Final Failure of ours as a species. There are visions around of a utopia where humans are all gone and replaced by machines. There are people who wish (really, wish) humans were machines in the most technological, physical sense. I see no gain for us in those scenarios and I would certainly not call it utopia, more a nightmare, as going extinct is not what one would call a victory.