Yes, I imagine the only reason we imagine a cyberpunk future instead of a bio-punk future (think: Yuuzhan Vong, Ayleids, AOT Titan “mechs”) is because we basically have free range to innovate with silicon intelligence and extremely limited range to innovate with carbon-water intelligence. Carbon is seemingly the most versatile element in the universe. It can be used to create life, it can naturally (with other organic compounds) form into rich energy sources (natural gas isn’t necessarily from dead life, there are moons with seas of hydrocarbons), and the strongest substances are made of carbon (Kevlar, diamonds). The main mechanical issue with carbon-based life is that it requires relatively inefficient forms of energy consumption. You can’t just plug it in. It needs other nutrients as well and especially oxygen to exist, which in large animals requires certain fragile systems. It’s easy to give people Kevlar skin, it’s a lot harder to give them Kevlar organs. It’s possible that with a good enough grasp on biology, humans could “go anabolic” and live off strange means like extremophile microorganisms. The problem is, like I said before, biology marches at an extremely slow pace due to regulations in testing and sale and the tediousness of long-term studies.
I’m not sure how far we can get with regeneration from just carbon. There is a huge benefit to “wireless” life, it can do things faster and with more complex coordination. But as you point out, this would be rendered vulnerable to wireless attacks. Chemical agents can be used against humans but you can’t hack a human. The only solution to this I could see is something really advanced like relying on quantum entanglement but this is a lot to ask when quantum computing is already proving to be a bust.
I don't seek or foresee the abolition of sili-tech, since it is optimal in it own domain, but it will fail to eliminate bio-tech. The failure of sili-tech against bio-tech would give symbolic credence to creationist arguments that you cannot out-do God, you can only tinker with the gifts he has provided. Some oppose bio-tech because they think it is anti-Christian, but opposition to bio-tech could also originate from a very arrogant and resentful atheism. Sili-supremacists seek to prove that nature is accidental, and can be easily outdone by starting from scratch. Military matters will settle this question.
I strongly disagree with your take on silicon vs carbon water cost. You totally miss that human cost is a constant, while silicon has been improving exponentially for the past 70 years. The supercomputers of yesterday are today cheap gizmos and the equivalent will be true in the future.
Even if AI did eventually abolish engineers, what you say would at least be true in the short term: AI would aid engineers, not abolish them. Directionally I may engage in some hyperbole but the actual effect would be something like a reduction in the number of engineers, or a reduction in pay.
Yes, I imagine the only reason we imagine a cyberpunk future instead of a bio-punk future (think: Yuuzhan Vong, Ayleids, AOT Titan “mechs”) is because we basically have free range to innovate with silicon intelligence and extremely limited range to innovate with carbon-water intelligence. Carbon is seemingly the most versatile element in the universe. It can be used to create life, it can naturally (with other organic compounds) form into rich energy sources (natural gas isn’t necessarily from dead life, there are moons with seas of hydrocarbons), and the strongest substances are made of carbon (Kevlar, diamonds). The main mechanical issue with carbon-based life is that it requires relatively inefficient forms of energy consumption. You can’t just plug it in. It needs other nutrients as well and especially oxygen to exist, which in large animals requires certain fragile systems. It’s easy to give people Kevlar skin, it’s a lot harder to give them Kevlar organs. It’s possible that with a good enough grasp on biology, humans could “go anabolic” and live off strange means like extremophile microorganisms. The problem is, like I said before, biology marches at an extremely slow pace due to regulations in testing and sale and the tediousness of long-term studies.
I’m not sure how far we can get with regeneration from just carbon. There is a huge benefit to “wireless” life, it can do things faster and with more complex coordination. But as you point out, this would be rendered vulnerable to wireless attacks. Chemical agents can be used against humans but you can’t hack a human. The only solution to this I could see is something really advanced like relying on quantum entanglement but this is a lot to ask when quantum computing is already proving to be a bust.
I don't seek or foresee the abolition of sili-tech, since it is optimal in it own domain, but it will fail to eliminate bio-tech. The failure of sili-tech against bio-tech would give symbolic credence to creationist arguments that you cannot out-do God, you can only tinker with the gifts he has provided. Some oppose bio-tech because they think it is anti-Christian, but opposition to bio-tech could also originate from a very arrogant and resentful atheism. Sili-supremacists seek to prove that nature is accidental, and can be easily outdone by starting from scratch. Military matters will settle this question.
I strongly disagree with your take on silicon vs carbon water cost. You totally miss that human cost is a constant, while silicon has been improving exponentially for the past 70 years. The supercomputers of yesterday are today cheap gizmos and the equivalent will be true in the future.
Diminishing returns.
Not to mention of you undercut a proven and current technology with vague science fiction notions of accelerating the birth process.
Even if AI did eventually abolish engineers, what you say would at least be true in the short term: AI would aid engineers, not abolish them. Directionally I may engage in some hyperbole but the actual effect would be something like a reduction in the number of engineers, or a reduction in pay.