Single day record for solar energy use, Germany:

Originally posted by googlefudge
no no no.

You are going right back to where we came in.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs.html

[quote]..... Either way, the popularity of the organic technology myth is somewhat baffling. One of the most baffling parts is the fact that it is assumed to be more "advanced". Here's a question for you: when did we produce the fir ...[text shortened]... it will be the de-facto primary means of making just about everything that
I am objecting to.

I am not objecting to the idea that there might be SOME things suitable to
being bio-engineered...

why would that not include, say, silicone carbide? (which is a material that is much stronger than steel and thus could replace it for many applications ) .
Nature has shown that enzymes from living cells are suitable for making complex silicon dioxide structure (think diatoms ) and complex calcium phosphate structures (think bone ) so why not complex silicone carbide structures using bioengineering ? I mean, if you accept that calcium phosphate is suitable for bioengineering (do you? ) because nature is an indicator of this, what physical property has silicon carbide got or not got that would make it less suitable than calcium phosphate for bioengineering?
If you don't accept that enzymes (from living cells although I wouldn't rule out other more artificial possibilities) are suitable for making complex calcium phosphate structures (despite bone ) then I think we just have to agree to disagree here.
If you reject silicon carbide is suitable for bioengineering but accept calcium phosphate is and if you are right about that, then that simply means calcium phosphate, or some material similar to it, probably would replace steel in the far future. This is because weight-for-weight bone is stronger than steel.

If speed of production is a problem, I have already covered that with tediously and carefully explained workarounds so not going to do that again + I have already pointed out that enzymes are often extremely fast and sometimes actually MUCH FASTER at doing the job than man made processes!

As for energy efficiency; would you claim that bone in nature is made very energy inefficiently? Do you even know how efficient it is? I don't but I assume it to be relatively efficient because I assume evolution would optimize the enzymes to be very efficient specially in coldblooded animals where any waste heat generated by energy wastage would generally not help survival. Can you show this assumption to be probably wrong?

Originally posted by humy

I am not objecting to the idea that there might be SOME things suitable to
being bio-engineered...

why would that not include, say, silicone carbide? (which is a material that is much stronger than steel and thus could replace it for many applications ) .
Nature has shown that enzymes from living cells are suitable for making complex s ...[text shortened]... gy wastage would generally not help survival. Can you show this assumption to be probably wrong?

We are going to have to agree to disagree because I cannot get you to understand my objections.
None of which have you answered.

I don't know if it's my ability to express my concerns or what, but you are just not addressing my
problems with what you are proposing and we are just going around in circles and talking at cross
purposes.

It's been an interesting discussion, if ultimately fruitless. 😉

I do like your optimism and enthusiasm for science and technology... I just think you get a bit overly
carried away with the possibilities of the new and shiny on occasions... And as a corollary I am sure
you view me as being overly pessimistic on occasion.

hopefully in our next debate we can come to a more satisfactory conclusion 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
We are going to have to agree to disagree because I cannot get you to understand my objections.
None of which have you answered.

I don't know if it's my ability to express my concerns or what, but you are just not addressing my
problems with what you are proposing and we are just going around in circles and talking at cross
purposes.

It's been ...[text shortened]... c on occasion.

hopefully in our next debate we can come to a more satisfactory conclusion 😉

agreed 🙂