As genetic manipulation becomes more and more advanced, are we

>>9088825
Fuck no.
>>The machines that we have now are quite inefficient compared to biological systems.
not true, fucking shitter. Motors are 90% efficient, muscles are 30% efficient.

Not to mention we have not a goddamn clue how to engineer biological machines and won't for long time.

>>9088825
"Biological machines" are already used to produce various chemicals. The typical example are bacteria that produce proteins that are great for snowmaking. I would think that the pharmaceutical industry uses bacteria everywhere.

For energy and motion, biological materials are not very good. As stated earlier, electric motors have much better efficiency than muscles. Energy conversion is also more efficient with electronics, but biological power plants (no pun intended) are obviously cheaper to manufacture.

Information processing is debatable, as it seems that human brains will still be the top dog for quite a while. Still, transistors are much more efficient with energy and space, so they are in a sense superior. However, designing computers similar to a brain is not doable with current technology, and nerve cells do have other nice functions that would require multiple transistors to reproduce.

All in all, electrical machines are almost always more efficient, but biological machines are mostly readily designed and often cheaper to produce.

>>9088913
>As stated earlier, electric motors have much better efficiency than muscles
Yes, but when you put either them together with a skeletal system and control system, biological still has a huge edge. Control systems for robotic movement such as bipedal gait, and fine motor control of for example hand and finger movement, are in their infancy.

>>9088932
either *of* them

>>9088932
Well bipedal control and dextrous movement brings you way past little fish. I also suspect those fish wd have to spend most of heir time eating that doing anything useful.

You also forget that dextrous movement is a product of the brain not necessarily the muscles.

Design me a brain.

>>9088825
if we are smart ecology will replace automation

>>9088825
>The machines that we have now are quite inefficient compared to biological systems.
Wrong. Human machines are MUCH more efficient, but they have a couple of drawbacks that make biological machines more lucrative:
1. They are too big
2. They don't self-heal
3. They have to run on batteries

>>9089164
>1. They are too big
we can make some tiny-ass machines, but most of the time, we don't need to
nanomachine-small is sci-fi even with "biological machines"
>2. They don't self-heal
ok
but they usually don't need to - modern construction materials are generally more resistant than tissues
>3. They have to run on batteries
because running it on food is so more convenient
tfw phone died because you forgot to feed it it's vitamins