X-Message-Number: 21139
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:05:41 +0100
From: Henri Kluytmans <>
Subject: Evolutionary design methods

I wrote :

>> 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.

Philip Rhoades replied :

>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.  

Actually, I was not mentioning how these artificial systems 
would be designed. And, indeed, I think that many designs will be 
evolved rather than being created by humans. And especially for 
complex problems evolved designs will often do better. 

I did not mention that evolutionary methods could/will be used, 
becaused I didn't want to get side-tracked. But actually, I 
assumed combinations of evolutionary methods, directed 
design, and free evolution by self-adaptation (and in this case, 
natural selection) will create the artificial organisms, entities 
and ecologies I was referring to.

(I certainly will not claim that it is always possible to make better 
designs by directed design than by using evolutionary methods.)

>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.  

But when we evolve an artifical system we don't have to understand 
how it works.

>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).  

Yes, I know. And these other systems too can be replaced by 
better artificial MNT based replacements.

Actually Freitas also thought about artificial platelets ... 

Please read :  "Clottocytes: Artificial Mechanical Platelets"

See :   http://www.imm.org/Reports/Rep018.html


>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.

Of course, to do that, would indeed not be a smart move.

As Freitas intended it, they would serve only as an additional 
system augmentation for therapeutic or other (as in sports) 
applications, and not to serve as total replacements. Unless 
those other functions will also be replaced. (And R. Freitas 
certainly did not forget these other functions.)

In my case, I was only using it as an example, that in the near future 
artificial systems will be possible that will do much (many orders 
of magnitude) better than biological systems in performing certain 
functions.

====

And I don't think it will be a sensible approach to replace 
every biological system in the human body with a better performing 
artificial equivalent but still keep the overall system architecture 
(i.e. the body-plan) the same. 

A totally different overall system architecture designed especially 
to optimally implement the artificial systems will perform much 
better. Although the actual design will depend on which "body" 
functions are considered more important.

Therefore, when such advanced technology will become available, it 
looks like the whole biological body will be outdated soon thereafter.

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

No, I don't underestimate the power of evolution. 

I think people over-estimate the power of biological systems 
(based on proteins, DNA, and other biological building blocks).

Natural evolution will also drive the development of the 
non-biology-based life-forms in the future.

(One could see it as the continuation of life in general, but 
transferred over into another, better performing, substrate.)

I think I was mixing up two meanings of the word "artificial" before.
Artificial as in "made by men" and as in "non-biology-based".

When I was speaking of artificial organisms, entities and ecologies, I 
was mainly having in mind that last meaning.

When I was talking about improving certain biological functions by 
artificial replacements, I was having in mind that first meaning.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21139