Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)

[bean (OP)]

What about racial type techonologies, similar to something from MoO? Crystalline tech, etc.

I don't even like those.  While there might be merit to the suggestion that we won't look down certain alleys until prompted, I find the current system annoying.  In one game, I captured about a dozen grav survey vessels with a special technology, but still haven't gotten the tech.  I would go with a very low-point racial tech that unlocks the main one, which is quite expensive.  Even one sample is enough to unlock the gatekeeper, which is researched normally.  Capturing more vessels unlocks the gatekeeper faster, but normal research works too.  Or maybe we could have a checkbox to add them well up the standard tree if you want.

[Havear]

While it's off-topic, I'm with byron. I always found it odd how you had to complete an entire plasma torpedo launcher (close enough, you have to get all the prerequisites to build one) before being able to research them at all. I'd much prefer disassembling giving points, randomly distributed to the three areas needed. If you're lucky and get a few points in all three, then you can finish researching manually. Otherwise, you need to find and disassemble more to give your scientists the basics.

[TallTroll]

Ah, this is where it's gone.

>> I have an answer for that one, too.  http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html
>> All of the issues with nanotech as manufacturing agent apply to microorganisms.

I'd be real careful when reading Wongs stuff. He's a bright guy, but his ability to think for himself is limited. For instance, a lot of his issues with nano manufacturing have actually been solved, at least in concept, so either he hasn't bothered to do research and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or has done the research and is deliberately misrepresenting certain aspects to make his point (which is a perfectly valid rhetorical technique, but poor science)

>> Temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun?  What organism does that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheidae - Pistol shrimp. The snapping of the claw creates a cavitation effect, which when it collapses reaches quite staggering temperatures

>> And you obviously don't understand pressure to be making that claim.  The organism is at the same pressure throughout

I do thanks, but you've forgotten whales, for example. The sperm whale is 1) an air breather and 2) regularly dives to depths of at least a couple of miles, and probably more, but we've never been able to definitively prove that

>> And an electric eel is not that impressive as a user of electricity

You rather miss the point. It's not that impressive compared to our current ability to manipulate electricty, but that it's been much better at it than us for most of the last 100m years or so, and without the benefit of any concious theoretical understanding of it.

>> Forgive me for asking, but what is your background in the sciences?

Trained as a chemist (not used it professionally for 15 years or so though).

>> There's nothing magic about the carbon element.  All of its properties can be predicted by the electron configuration.  And I would point out that silicon is one period below carbon.

That's so wrong, I hardly know where to start. The *physical* properties of the element, and the gross aspects of it's chemistry can be deduced by examination of the electon configuration - but not all of it's properties.

Carbon is the only element that will reliably form stable bonds to itself, allowing formation of long chains (branched and linear), as well as bonding with certain other elements to allow for functional groups. Its' allotropic forms lie at the end a lot spectra of physical properties; it is both very hard and very soft, superconductive and a good insulator, thermally conductive and insulating, transparent and opaque. If a sci-fi writer created an element with properties like that, they would be lambasted for using "unobtainium".

The most interesting aspects don't become apparent until you start looking at bond enthalpy data though. Carbon can form single, double and triple bonds to itself, and break them, all in standard conditions. It is virtually the only element that can release water as part of a reaction (and by that I mean true OH + H = H2O dehydration, not pre-existing H2O leaving a crystal lattice as in almost every other example) and that's a hell of an energetic driver for all sorts of otherwise near impossible reactions.

Silicon is not a good alternative, at all. Si - Si bonds are quite rare, and double / triple bonds even rarer. Si - O bonds are much more its' style, and that rules out almost every interesting reaction necessary for life. Si is too big to play nicely with other elements really, even if it is only one row below C

If you don't want to take my word for this, find a chemist whose word you will accept, and ask them. I assure you they'll essentally repeat what I've just said

All that said, the general point about bad writers using "organic tech" as a code for "superior tech" is well taken. I suspect it's more to do with them getting the gist of the amazing things organic systems can do, but not really understanding the details

>> Similarly, I've always hating the "take tech from the enemy to progress yourself" model

It has roots in real life. The Chinese probably invented gunpowder and metallurgy, but Europeans invented and refined firearms. The Byzantine fleet had Greek fire projectors capable of burning enemy fleets in the water, and dominated the Mediterranean, but the families of the operators remained on shore as hostages to "discourage" any tech transfer. Even in more modern times, nuclear bomb making secrets have been the subject of intense covert operations, and reverse engineering.

It probably gets a bit overplayed in 4X  / RTS type games because it's such a useful game mechanic. It stops a small lead becoming a dominant one, and allows "no research, steal it all" as a valid strategy. Not that realistic, but fun. Mongol chariots + other cities = tanks by about 500 BC 

[bean (OP)]

I'd be real careful when reading Wongs stuff. He's a bright guy, but his ability to think for himself is limited. For instance, a lot of his issues with nano manufacturing have actually been solved, at least in concept, so either he hasn't bothered to do research and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or has done the research and is deliberately misrepresenting certain aspects to make his point (which is a perfectly valid rhetorical technique, but poor science)

Or the issues are not as resolved as you think.  And what are the issues that have been resolved, anyway?  And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheidae - Pistol shrimp. The snapping of the claw creates a cavitation effect, which when it collapses reaches quite staggering temperatures

That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature.  Cavitation happens quite a lot, particularly on things like propellers on ships.  And I've always read that the damage to said props from cavitation is entirely mechanical in nature.  

>> And you obviously don't understand pressure to be making that claim.  The organism is at the same pressure throughout

I do thanks, but you've forgotten whales, for example. The sperm whale is 1) an air breather and 2) regularly dives to depths of at least a couple of miles, and probably more, but we've never been able to definitively prove that

No, you either don't understand pressure or are misrepresenting it intentionally.  When a sperm whale dives, its lungs do not remain at surface pressure.  They are compressed to match ambient pressure, just as a human free-diving is.  A pressure gauge between the lungs and the ambient ocean would read zero, or a very small number.  Again, you're confusing absolute pressure with pressure differential, which is what is required for industrial use.
Edit:
I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for.  The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.

>> And an electric eel is not that impressive as a user of electricity

You rather miss the point. It's not that impressive compared to our current ability to manipulate electricty, but that it's been much better at it than us for most of the last 100m years or so, and without the benefit of any concious theoretical understanding of it.

And the standard by which technology is judged is what we've had over the last 100 million years, not what we have today.  In that case, I need to find another career.  Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary.  

I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.

All that said, the general point about bad writers using "organic tech" as a code for "superior tech" is well taken. I suspect it's more to do with them getting the gist of the amazing things organic systems can do, but not really understanding the details

Amazing compared to what?  An organic system is certainly elegant, but elegance only goes so far.  It won't help you get past Mach 1, or into orbit.  For that, large numbers are required.  

Let's look at a comparison of organic and mechanical technology, namely that of power generation.  Find the nearest internal combustion engine.  Your car might be a good place to start.  Somewhere on it there is a number given in horsepower.  Now, find that many horses, and put them next to the engine.  You should have the same total power output on each side.
(I am not actually endorsing stealing horses for this.  It's a thought experiment.)
Now, a few key technological parameters:
1. Specific Power:
The engine in question is far, far lighter then the horses.
2. Reliability:
The engine runs fine nearly indefinitely when operated by an unskilled human with occasional maintainence from a moderately skilled human.  If something does break, the same moderately skilled human can generally fix it fairly easily.  The horses require more maintainence, and more skill both on the part of the operator, and on the mechanic (vet).  Also, breakages take far longer to fix, and are more common unless care is taken.  Also, the horse has a working life of maybe 15-20 years.
3. Shelf life:
The engine can be turned off and left between uses.  The horses require near-daily attention, and have to be exercised to keep up their strength.  They also require food, even when not being used.
4. Manufacturing:
The engine requires something on the order of days to weeks, and production can be expanded quickly.  The horse takes several years, and production growth is on similar timescales.  Also, it has to be trained.

I don't know about you, but I'd go with the engine.
And I know that I ignored bioengineering.  The specific power of the horse might be multiplied by a factor of 10, but even so, all of the other disadvantages remain.  If those are somehow removed, I'd venture that we're outside "life as we know it" which was included in my original statement.

[xeryon]

Let's look at a comparison of organic and mechanical technology, namely that of power generation.  Find the nearest internal combustion engine.  Your car might be a good place to start.  Somewhere on it there is a number given in horsepower.  Now, find that many horses, and put them next to the engine.  You should have the same total power output on each side.
(I am not actually endorsing stealing horses for this.  It's a thought experiment.)
Now, a few key technological parameters:
1. Specific Power:
The engine in question is far, far lighter then the horses.
2. Reliability:
The engine runs fine nearly indefinitely when operated by an unskilled human with occasional maintainence from a moderately skilled human.  If something does break, the same moderately skilled human can generally fix it fairly easily.  The horses require more maintainence, and more skill both on the part of the operator, and on the mechanic (vet).  Also, breakages take far longer to fix, and are more common unless care is taken.  Also, the horse has a working life of maybe 15-20 years.
3. Shelf life:
The engine can be turned off and left between uses.  The horses require near-daily attention, and have to be exercised to keep up their strength.  They also require food, even when not being used.
4. Manufacturing:
The engine requires something on the order of days to weeks, and production can be expanded quickly.  The horse takes several years, and production growth is on similar timescales.  Also, it has to be trained.

I don't know about you, but I'd go with the engine.
And I know that I ignored bioengineering.  The specific power of the horse might be multiplied by a factor of 10, but even so, all of the other disadvantages remain.  If those are somehow removed, I'd venture that we're outside "life as we know it" which was included in my original statement.

This is, without a doubt one of the silliest "thought experiments" I have ever read.  You are missing the obvious:  The "Horse System" is perfect as nature has been refining that system for millenia and more.  The horse grows itself, feeds itself, to a certain extent repairs itself, replicates itself and is/was freely roaming the countryside for people to collect and put to their own diabolical use.  The waste produce of the horse is biodegradable and when the horse dies it is 100% naturally recyclable.  Let's see you spread your internal combustion engine waste on your tomato garden.

Just saying, you need to use a better analogy.

[bean (OP)]

This is, without a doubt one of the silliest "thought experiments" I have ever read.  You are missing the obvious:  The "Horse System" is perfect as nature has been refining that system for millenia and more.  The horse grows itself, feeds itself, to a certain extent repairs itself, replicates itself and is/was freely roaming the countryside for people to collect and put to their own diabolical use.  The waste produce of the horse is biodegradable and when the horse dies it is 100% naturally recyclable.  Let's see you spread your internal combustion engine waste on your tomato garden.

Just saying, you need to use a better analogy.

I would hardly count the "Horse System" as perfect.  Almost nobody ever goes out, captures a wild horse, trains it, and puts it to work.  They're all raised by ranchers, with the associated costs.  Nor is it a case of "put on the harness, and the horse does what you want".  They have to be trained, and have minds of their own.
I also glossed over the fact that I've never heard of a horse-powered vehicle being able to go 60 mph for any length of time, much less all day.  While the horse is, to a limited extent, self-replicating, the other disadvantages it suffers when compared to internal combustion engines vastly outweigh that factor.
And the waste of an internal combustion engine is good for your garden.  Plants need CO2 and water, and when it dies, I can melt it down and use it for something else.  Also, there's no health hazard, unlike a dead horse.

[xeryon]

It is a perfect system in nature that humans bent to their will.  The time it took to capture and train a horse to do your bidding is nothing compared to the time spent to discover minerals, build mines, develop metallurgy, smelt metals, build factories, build assembly lines, design engines, locate oil fields, build rigs, build refineries, transport fuel to dispensaries and put it in your tank. 

The end product we have created is far more toxic than the decaying body of a horse on numerous levels.  Mountain top removal, strip mining, bore mining, shaft mining, industrial pollutants, oil spills, emissions and a product that is extremely difficult to recycle.  When the horse dies you can "dump it in a field" and come back in two weeks and nature has taken care of it's own.

[Marthnn]

It boils down to choosing between a compact system, easily manufactured yet needing maintenance, and a big system, able to propagate slowly and steadily yet needing the proper conditions to prosper. I'm sure it's possible to design an engine about the same power and size as a horse and requiring little to no maintenance, we just don't have any reason to do so.

Your horse system has adapted to specific Earth surface conditions and will be at a loss in a different environment. To get a living organism spreading in space would require a long evolution time, even with bioengineering or whatever. Living organisms evolve from generation to generation, which is the reason behind bacteria changing so rapidly while most mammals stayed about the same through centuries.

In a distant future relating to Science-Fiction, I doubt you need to worry about horse poop and tomato gardens. It's an era of automated mining and terraforming of entire planets, where pollution is but a distant memory from the past and energy isn't limited anymore.

I don't see what organic technology would add to Aurora, aside from the possibility of a new Star Swarm.

[bean (OP)]

It is a perfect system in nature that humans bent to their will.  The time it took to capture and train a horse to do your bidding is nothing compared to the time spent to discover minerals, build mines, develop metallurgy, smelt metals, build factories, build assembly lines, design engines, locate oil fields, build rigs, build refineries, transport fuel to dispensaries and put it in your tank.  

The end product we have created is far more toxic than the decaying body of a horse on numerous levels.  Mountain top removal, strip mining, bore mining, shaft mining, industrial pollutants, oil spills, emissions and a product that is extremely difficult to recycle.  When the horse dies you can "dump it in a field" and come back in two weeks and nature has taken care of it's own.

Yes, the entire infrastructure to build engines is longer then training a horse.  However, we can assume that that infrastructure is already in place.  If dropped on a virgin world that has horses (don't ask me how), I would use the horses until I got something better, like an internal combustion engine.  That's not the debate.  The debate is which is a more useful source of power right now, engines or horses?  If you think horses are more useful (I'm not going to say better, as that requires a definition of better) then go right ahead and try to prove it in real life.
As for pollution and such, I'm not sure what to say.  It happens and we're stuck with it, unless we go back to horses.  That may be your choice, but it certainly isn't mine.  I'd have to say that, in general, it's worth it.

It boils down to choosing between a compact system, easily manufactured yet needing maintenance, and a big system, able to propagate slowly and steadily yet needing the proper conditions to prosper. I'm sure it's possible to design an engine about the same power and size as a horse and requiring little to no maintenance, we just don't have any reason to do so.

Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work.  Things like horseshoes and deworming.  Horses only take care of themselves in the wild.  We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training.  We just don't, as it's more expensive then existing systems, and there's no need for it.

[xeryon]

The point is, the system you chose to deride as being inefficient is, in fact, not inefficient but is just different in it's allocation of resources to produce and support it. 
The ICE is a smaller and more compact energy system requiring a substantial infrastructure to produce.  The horse system we speak of requires less infrastructure to produce but more resources to support.  Maintenance, I would postulate, is a wash.  We were raised in the heyday of ICEs and it is not difficult to learn to fix them as even the least knowledgeable of us still has a vastly greater working knowledge of machinery then anyone in the 15th century.  On the flip side, that average 15th century person would have no problem handling a horse as that was the system they were raised with.

In its current incarnation the bio-system that is a horse isn't suited for space, the ongoing support system it needs to operate is too large where the ICE is front loaded and by the time it is operational it needs near 0 support.  It is better suited for a space ship.  I could argue the point that the quantity of support resources is actually even, just distributed differently.

Which is my point as to why it was the wrong analogy.  For a comparative analysis you need to be fair and discuss a system far less complex than a mammal. 

[bean (OP)]

The point is, the system you chose to deride as being inefficient is, in fact, not inefficient but is just different in it's allocation of resources to produce and support it. 
The ICE is a smaller and more compact energy system requiring a substantial infrastructure to produce.  The horse system we speak of requires less infrastructure to produce but more resources to support.  Maintenance, I would postulate, is a wash.  We were raised in the heyday of ICEs and it is not difficult to learn to fix them as even the least knowledgeable of us still has a vastly greater working knowledge of machinery then anyone in the 15th century.  On the flip side, that average 15th century person would have no problem handling a horse as that was the system they were raised with.

In its current incarnation the bio-system that is a horse isn't suited for space, the ongoing support system it needs to operate is too large where the ICE is front loaded and by the time it is operational it needs near 0 support.  It is better suited for a space ship.  I could argue the point that the quantity of support resources is actually even, just distributed differently.

Which is my point as to why it was the wrong analogy.  For a comparative analysis you need to be fair and discuss a system far less complex than a mammal. 

Ah.  I think I see where you're coming from, except that it actually strengthens my case.
I'm not arguing for the superiority of the ICE over the horse per se.  I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech.  The problem is that a horse is not organotech.  And for organotech to compete with metaltech, you first need a fairly high level of metaltech.  The infrastructure is already in place and the technology available.  Which would you go for, farther development of ICEs or some sort of organotech which is going to require a couple orders of magnitude improvement to be competitive with metaltech to begin with?  I can tell you where the market will go.
I resent the implication that I'm being unfair.  I chose the most direct comparison I could, that of motive power.  Horses and ICEs are largely used for the same things, moving stuff and farming.  What would you suggest?

[xeryon]

Well, a horse and an ICE are direct comparisons if were are talking only of energy producing systems with regards to moving a load.  A space ship has far more components that do different things besides just locomotion.  Which, as an interesting side note, an ICE is completely useless for space travel as is the horse.  If we get really abstract I think a horse might actually be better at producing power in space.  Think hamster wheel driving a turbine.    Even in 0g the horse can still move if anchored.  It might not produce enough energy to run it's own life support system though.  In it's current tech level I don't think an ICE can function at all due to the atomized fuel coalescing when trying to be delivered into the combustion chamber.  Cooling and oil systems wouldn't work at all right now as they are gravity dependent systems but could be re-engineered easily.

Well, since each system is different there would be different possibilities for each.  What are they?  I don't have a clue.  It would help if I was a biologist and not just some random dude that studies natural systems.  To my untrained mind the most interesting system would be one of hull repair.  Breach repair in an arrangement not totally unlike how coral is built: on the crystallized remains of the diseased.  It's the one I like the theory of the most.  The problem is that even if you get past the science of it and could come to an arrangement everyone agrees appears feasible the storage space required to support it would be a hard argument over just having a room filled with a couple spacesuits, a bunch of metal plates and a rivet gun.

[bean (OP)]

Well, a horse and an ICE are direct comparisons if were are talking only of energy producing systems with regards to moving a load. 

That is exactly how I was comparing them.  I can't think of a more fair comparison then a basic mechanical operation that will always be needed, and can be done by either one.

A space ship has far more components that do different things besides just locomotion.

I'm aware of that.  Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech.  Oxygen-hydrogen burns at about 3500 K, and other propulsion systems are even worse.  The only thing that's remotely plausible is cold gas, and you never get anywhere with that. 
The reason I was using ICEs and horses was because that was an excellent parallel, as mentioned above.

Which, as an interesting side note, an ICE is completely useless for space travel as is the horse.  If we get really abstract I think a horse might actually be better at producing power in space.  Think hamster wheel driving a turbine.    Even in 0g the horse can still move if anchored.  It might not produce enough energy to run it's own life support system though.  In it's current tech level I don't think an ICE can function at all due to the atomized fuel coalescing when trying to be delivered into the combustion chamber.  Cooling and oil systems wouldn't work at all right now as they are gravity dependent systems but could be re-engineered easily.

I'd far rather have an ICE.  It's smaller, lighter, and it doesn't use up oxygen when I'm not using it.  Also, I think you're right about the horse not producing enough power for the life support.  Though a turbine is something you use to drive a generator.  You don't drive a turbine.
Also, aircraft engine function in a zero-G dive.  I'm not sure about car engines, but it's been dealt with. 

Well, since each system is different there would be different possibilities for each.  What are they?  I don't have a clue.  It would help if I was a biologist and not just some random dude that studies natural systems.  To my untrained mind the most interesting system would be one of hull repair.  Breach repair in an arrangement not totally unlike how coral is built: on the crystallized remains of the diseased.  It's the one I like the theory of the most.  The problem is that even if you get past the science of it and could come to an arrangement everyone agrees appears feasible the storage space required to support it would be a hard argument over just having a room filled with a couple spacesuits, a bunch of metal plates and a rivet gun.

How fast does coral grow again?  I'm going to guess not fast enough.  That's the biggest problem with this.  Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything, and self-repair is the only advantaged touted by advocates of organotech.  Also, organic systems take a long time to grow, and don't understand tolerances, both of which are important when dealing with spaceflight.  We use metaltech for a reason.  It works.  And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up.  Not that it could in the first place.  It deals poorly with high pressures, high and low temperatures, reactive chemicals, and radiation.  All of which are prevalent in space.

[TallTroll]

>> Or the issues are not as resolved as you think.  And what are the issues that have been resolved, anyway?

Well, pretty much all the issues he raises are actually non-issues. The primary flaw is treating nanotech as scaled down macrotech, which it isn't, at all. TinyOS and an adaptation of the ATP cycle will allow for arbitrarily large groupings of nanofactories to co-operate in building just about any conceivable object from any conceivable material

>>  And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?

Who knows? Maybe it won't prove to be that cheap, but it will always have applications. Nuclear power was originally supposed to deliver nearly free, unlimited electricity. It didn't work out that way, but it still has a place in the global energy mix, for all sorts of reasons

>> That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature

It very much is the organism manipulating the temperature, surely? If the shrimp wan't there, the temperature wouldn't happen - direct causation. Other organisms are capable of withstanding, even requiring, temperatures above 100c, and yet others thrive at well below freezing. Not all of those properties are present in one organism, but the class of organisms exhibits a great range of acceptable conditions, just like the class of technological objects possess a different but also varied set of capabilities

>> I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for.  The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.

This is pretty much the crux of my argument, it doesn't *need* to do any such thing. That's an engineers solution. It experiences very different pressures, and uses neat biomechanical tricks to avoid having to deal with the consequences, rather than hardening to deal with the pressure as a technological artifact would have to

>> Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary. 

Hardly. But engineering is just one approach to problem solving

>> I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.

In chemistry, "organic" is defined to mean "containing carbon", however you personally choose to use it

>> And the waste of an internal combustion engine is good for your garden.

ICEs produce more than CO2 and H2O, even with a cat. Diesels are worse

>> and when it dies, I can melt it down and use it for something else

Same with any organic object; they are infinitely recyclable, with no infrastructure whatsoever required. I don't need a spanner to make something rot

>> Also, there's no health hazard, unlike a dead horse.

Dead horses (or other creatures) are only a health hazard if you leave them rotting in the street, or in a water source or similar. A broken ICE in a similar place would also constitute a hazard, for different reasons

>> Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work.  Things like horseshoes and deworming.  Horses only take care of themselves in the wild. 

There speaks someone who knows nothing about horses. We shoe horses for our convenience, not theirs, as it increases their ability to put power down, like putting high performance tyres on the car run by your ICE. Just like the ICE, if you run it harder, it's more likely to blow up. In domestication, horses need care because we are asking them to perform tasks they are not optimised for

>> We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training

But if you ever run out of spare parts, or even just people who know how to fit them, the system is useless once it inevitably breaks

>> I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech.

Except it already is. Carbon fibre? Organic tech (see earlier note about definition of "organic"). Organic superconductors? Check. Organic lasers? Check. Organic TV screens? Check

>> Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything

Handy to be able to self repair, so you can drag yourself over to your broken machinery and use external work rather than totally internalised resources to fix it, though

>> Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech

And metaltech is equally astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the contents of the fridge. You pick the tool for the job. The spacecrafts' propulsion system is also astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the ships waste facilities. Again, you need to pick the tool for the job

>> And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up.  Not that it could in the first place.

We'll see

>> It deals poorly with high pressures, high and low temperatures

For now that is somewhat true, although it is worth reflecting on the fact that very high grade heat shielding is in fact often organic, made of graphite or certain phenolic plastics with very good insulating properties, and the ability to withstand atmospheric re-entry, for instance

>> reactive chemicals

Try pumping hot acid through a metaltech pipe and see what happens. We use organic tech for that now.

>> radiation

Metal objects inside a reactor vessel break, due to neutron induced brittleness. Certain bacteria call it home, because their DNA is capable of constantly self repairing. But who'd want a near-pointless trait like that?

[bean (OP)]

>>  And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?

Who knows? Maybe it won't prove to be that cheap, but it will always have applications. Nuclear power was originally supposed to deliver nearly free, unlimited electricity. It didn't work out that way, but it still has a place in the global energy mix, for all sorts of reasons

I've never said that nanofabrication is useless.  However, I believe that it's been grossly oversold.  It has uses, all of which involve making things that are on the same scale it is.  For macro scale manufacturing, the current processes will remain in use.

>> That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature

It very much is the organism manipulating the temperature, surely? If the shrimp wan't there, the temperature wouldn't happen - direct causation. Other organisms are capable of withstanding, even requiring, temperatures above 100c, and yet others thrive at well below freezing. Not all of those properties are present in one organism, but the class of organisms exhibits a great range of acceptable conditions, just like the class of technological objects possess a different but also varied set of capabilities

You seem to have a gift for missing my meaning.  The organism does not use the temperature, which is a side effect of the cavitation bubble.  The fact that instantaneous temperatures approach that of the surface of the sun means nothing in reality.  It's in a very small area, so the actual energy content is tiny.

>> I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for.  The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.

This is pretty much the crux of my argument, it doesn't *need* to do any such thing. That's an engineers solution. It experiences very different pressures, and uses neat biomechanical tricks to avoid having to deal with the consequences, rather than hardening to deal with the pressure as a technological artifact would have to

This is absurd.  Biomecanical tricks can only take you so far.  For spaceflight, or anything approaching it, you need an engineer's solution.  How do you propose to make some sort of space vessel using these biomechanical tricks.  The burden of proof is on you.

>> Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary. 

Hardly. But engineering is just one approach to problem solving

And another is?  Waving your hands about "biomechanical tricks"?  I'm getting annoyed with this disdain for engineering.  If you have a better idea, tell us.

>> I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.

In chemistry, "organic" is defined to mean "containing carbon", however you personally choose to use it

And if I knew you were a chemist, I might have phrased that more carefully.  That said, I believe the original intent (technology that is alive) was clear when the statement was made from the context. 

>> Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work.  Things like horseshoes and deworming.  Horses only take care of themselves in the wild. 

There speaks someone who knows nothing about horses. We shoe horses for our convenience, not theirs, as it increases their ability to put power down, like putting high performance tyres on the car run by your ICE. Just like the ICE, if you run it harder, it's more likely to blow up. In domestication, horses need care because we are asking them to perform tasks they are not optimised for

And the point is?  We do maintain horses, for any number of reasons.  You don't have to take care of a wild horse, but it's not going to do anything for you, anyway.

>> We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training

But if you ever run out of spare parts, or even just people who know how to fit them, the system is useless once it inevitably breaks

Because "never breaks down" is a legitimate design criteria. 
You never build a system assuming that the support infrastructure will go away.  If we did, then it would be impossible to make any progress.

>> I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech.

Except it already is. Carbon fibre? Organic tech (see earlier note about definition of "organic"). Organic superconductors? Check. Organic lasers? Check. Organic TV screens? Check

You're deliberately trolling now.  I added (living starships and so on) explicitly to close this avenue of thought.  To clarify: organotech refers to sci-fi type "living technology"  The best example I can come up with off the top of my head is the Yuzzhan Vong from Star Wars, but I'm sure there are others.  Carbon fiber does not count. 

>> Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything

Handy to be able to self repair, so you can drag yourself over to your broken machinery and use external work rather than totally internalised resources to fix it, though

Yes, but if it takes your living ship twice as long to heal as it takes for my ship to repair at the yard, who wins?

>> Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech

And metaltech is equally astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the contents of the fridge. You pick the tool for the job. The spacecrafts' propulsion system is also astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the ships waste facilities. Again, you need to pick the tool for the job

And when have I ever implied that metaltech is in any way suited to replace the contents of the fridge?  I think a few pages back I explicitly said that for uses related to life support, organotech is obviously the answer.

>> And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up.  Not that it could in the first place.

We'll see

Based on the horse example, it would have to make at least two orders of magnitude improvement in specific power to be remotely competitive.  Any sane investor would run away screaming.

>> radiation

Metal objects inside a reactor vessel break, due to neutron induced brittleness. Certain bacteria call it home, because their DNA is capable of constantly self repairing. But who'd want a near-pointless trait like that?

Because bacteria are remotely suited for structural use how?