[Biology Vs Technology]

[baggers]

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.

You say "failure" and "victory".

What mean these words in the universe point of view?

Who give our species a "Final" that can "fail" or "win"?

Only humans can give temselves a goal: evolution is totally blind.

Edited May 24, 2015 by baggers

[LN400]

Well, I also took a side step from the main discussion to comment on some of the visions you will find around, so these are my views in that context. As for failure as a species, well the sole purpose of being is well, to be, to have offspring and to adapt as a species. If we replace ourselves with our own machines then we are no more and we have failed the only purpose there ever was. Same for 'victory'. Some ideas of Utopia are very clear that it would be humankind's greatest achievment if we replace ourselves with our own machines. So yeah, victory seems like a fitting word here.

Edited May 24, 2015 by LN400

[Xannari Ferrows]

...to have offspring and to adapt as a species. If we replace ourselves with our own machines then we are no more and we have failed the only purpose there ever was.

Is there a difference? We replace ourselves with our offspring. In some ways, making machines to do our handiwork is no different. Of course, it is your view, but I trust all the questions have been answered?

[baggers]

Well, I also took a side step from the main discussion to comment on some of the visions you will find around, so these are my views in that context. As for failure as a species, well the sole purpose of being is well, to be, to have offspring and to adapt as a species. If we replace ourselves with our own machines then we are no more and we have failed the only purpose there ever was.

Only because it is a purpose you actually give to the human specie.

"Life" itself don't care about species: look at how many have extinct! ^^

Edited May 24, 2015 by baggers

[LN400]

Not sure if something is read into what I wrote that I didn't write or intend to write but I agree, life itself couldn't care less about each species. As for difference between offspring taking over and machines taking over, that is fundamentally different. Our offspring is our own species, our machines are not so the arguement still stands, as a species, having machines replacing us, or any other species, will be a failure of the species. Mind you, arguements like "but machines have already replaced us, look at robots" is not a relevant arguement in this context. I'm not talking about machines doing our work for us, some machines even better, but a wholesale replacement of an entire species of living organisms of a complexity and richness in variations no machines are yet to come remotely close to.

[Argylas]

It is my opinion that if we are replaced by our machines, then we have not "failed" as a species. On the contrary - we have produced "offspring" that are even better adapted to their environment (humans are not adapted to living in space, while our machines may be). Saying that to be replaced by our machines is a "failure" is a complete lack of understanding of how life works. Our machines will be just as much alive as us, even if they are made of different materials like metal. And who says they will be made of metal - we will probably be able to build "machines" out of organic matter in the future. In my view homo erectus did not "fail" as a species because they were supplanted by homo sapiens, as homo sapiens are their "offspring" specie. It should be the same with us and our machines - the fact that evolution in this case will not be random and carried over through the DNA mechanism is irrelevant. It is evolution nonetheless.

[DeepOdyssey]

I think in the far future, our bodies won't be replaced by machines. Why? Because we are biological machines. It's easier for us to replace or repair "metal/mechanical" machines, because they are very crude in comparison to any biological system. With a very good understanding of biology, genetic engineering, biotechnology we will be able to produce, and repair biological machines like us in the same manner as we do with "metal/mechanical" machines today. The Chinese are far deeper in such projects than any other country, they benefit from the lack of regulations on this field. We will have capabilities to augment our bodies in a mere 10 years from now. The problem is, there are people who fear this might produce a "technoracism race" where people which their endless greed would want to be better, and better and better. There be a lot of people who will be left behind in this race.

[LN400]

First obstacle is noone understands fully the biological processes, the best scientists are still working on understanding more, to make claims we can produce equally successful tech. This whole idea that machines are superior, to me, sounds like the old dream of Dr Frankenstein meets modern technophilia, an untamed enthusiasm for what we can do (and quite often ignoring the failures along the way). In short, the notion that somehow we can be Creators, or even, should be Creators. I don't believe in any creator and looking at how technology has failed before and will fail over and over again, and seeing the surface of the vast depth of complexity of a single cell and how we have no tech that is in the same league, seeing human pride when perhaps a bit more modesty would fit better, I don't expect anyone to come up with a tech that will, on every level, evolutionary, psychologically, culturally, socially, match the human species. We are still baffled by the complexity of amoebas, single cell organisms. We can't even match that and as far as we know, they really are simpletons.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I don't believe in any creator and looking at how technology has failed before and will fail over and over again, and seeing the surface of the vast depth of complexity of a single cell and how we have no tech that is in the same league, seeing human pride when perhaps a bit more modesty would fit better, I don't expect anyone to come up with a tech that will, on every level, evolutionary, psychologically, culturally, socially, match the human species.

Choosing to purchase a meal or a spice. In many ways, our cell is like a spice: Lively on it's own, but not capable of much. When combined with other ingredients, it becomes part of the greater whole, surpassing the deliciousness of the meal you contemplated earlier.

This meal is not unlike machines: Convenient, easier [though still decently complex], and self sufficient. Capable of immediate satisfaction on a minimum level, but hardly allows room for creativity. Never as complex as what you can create on your own, but more complex than the axioms that make your creation what it is. Each package has it's own share of failures; wrong ingredients, improper ratios, ect.

Also, you think no machine can match the human level of sociology? While I agree on physiologically and certain subsections of culture, I disagree socially. Talk to Mariyate for a bit if you still don't think so.

(I'm here! I have to use parenthesis to speak, because otherwise it gets really confusing as to who talks. I'd make my own account, but the rules don't merit my doing so since this is all one client. Xany thinks I share the same social level as everyday people. While I disagree with ***, I still consider myself decent. Go ahead, fire the questions away if there are any.)

[dansmithers]

Biology, technology-it's all just baryons(and a few mesons I guess) in the end.

The only difference is the specificity of the systems(biology, as a rule, can and will do most anything it's mechanically capable of doing).

It's sort of like the difference between an Orion drive and a VASIMIR engine- both solve the same problem, but in vastly different ways and each comes with its own pros and cons.

All told though, I do love me some flashy tech.