Let's face it, almost everything man does, nature does better, more efficiently and with style.
Organic lifeforms > Synthetic tech.
Every time people envision the future they think of metal and glass cities, with harsh lights and hideous architecture. But what if instead we imagined a city with trees glowing with bioluminescence at night replacing street lights, buildings with green sides that photosynthesize electricity for us, and living houses that literally grow as we wish them to?
So why aren't scientists and companies trying to advance in this direction?
>>59221138
Because this gets into the realm of genetic modification, which is already widespread but what you are talking about will still take a while to develop and could destroy the ecosystem.
Plus, photosynthesis doesn't create "energy" in any form that existing tech would use. Solar cells are far more useful in this regard if their efficiency keeps increasing.
>>59221138
Because it's hard. It's reverse engineering hardware built not but human minds (whose action we can model and predict) but by an alien optimization process. But we are on the cusp of understanding it better and technologies like machine learning will help. Give it a little time. The downside, of course, is that we may well wipe ourselves out before we really reap the rewards. When a genome printers are as cheat as 3D printers are today, someone will try to play Pandemic IRL with them.
>>59222341
Pardon the typos.