X-Message-Number: 21107
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:15:02 +1100
From: Philip Rhoades <>
Subject: Re: biological organisms eating diamond
References: <>

Henri,

> Message #21094
> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:38:28 +0100
> From: Henri Kluytmans <>
> Subject: biological organisms eating diamond
> 
> Thomas Donaldson wrote :
> 
> >As for diamond materials, there is a problem with what you say
> >here too. Right now biological systems have no reason to evolve
> >any means to consume diamonds. They are too rare to give much
> >benefit if consumed. (Remember that they are carbon, a basic
> >material of living things). If we start making and using lots
> >of nanotech devices which use diamond, that situation will change.
> >So many good sources of carbon lying about! If we can make diamond
> >without expending lots of energy to do so (high pressure and high
> >temperature) then biological systems will evolve able to destroy
> >it --- literally eating it up --- with similar low energies.
> 
> OK, maybe biology could evolve and develop the tools to "eat"
> diamond(oid) structures eventually. However one has also to
> take into account the speed of the respective "metabolisms".
> 
> MNT produced systems will have much faster "metabolism". They
> will be able to repair and reproduce faster than biological
> systems, providing that enough energy is available. If the energy
> resource is scarce, and efficient energy usage a requirement,
> then matters get more complicated. Although I dare to wager
> that even in that case artificial systems can still out-class
> biological systems.
> 
> Basically, what I'm claiming is, that for every function you
> can imagine, an artificial system can be made that will perform
> better than its biological counterpart.


In terms of a total system, this is not likely to be true - I have had 
some experience with virtual organisms and ones that have "evolved" 
through "natural selection" routinely outclass human "designed" ones 
for particular features.  But even with "evolved" artifical designs you 
are still probably being a bit optimistic about humans understanding 
_everything_ about the most complex system in the universe (that we 
know of) and designing artifical replacements for _all_ of the 
different bits.  eg you mentioned red blood cells and gas carrying 
capacity but red blood cells do other things besides carry gas (eg they 
act as "bricks" in clotting blood).  To simply replace red blood cells 
with a (much smaller?) artificial respirocyte might keep the gases 
moving but you might bleed to death from millions of micro haemorrhages 
that are occurring constantly.


> Claiming otherwise accounts to biological centrism.


I think you are underestimating the power of evolution and the 
complexity of what it has developed (at the expense of individuals 
within populations).

What _we_ need is a new "personal evolution" that _benefits_ us as 
individuals and _not_ an evolution that works at the expense of 
individuals but for the benefit of the larger population.  This would 
be a "good thing" but it is difficult to see how it could work.


R&LL,

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

Pricom Pty Limited  (ACN  003 252 275)
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
Mobile:  +61:0411-185-652
Fax:  +61:2:8923-5363
E-mail:  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21107