most of us are college or highschool students... what did you expect! 
Nanorobotics vs Biorobotics
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
nano nano
I prefer the bio side of nanotechnology, but the evolutionary trail will undoubtedly lead to nanobots. Nanobots can function without some of the vulnerabilities that bio based nanostructures have. Also the nanobots will be programmable, whereas bio based nano will need to use other structures or devices to try to coax the desired result. :bugeye: :m: :m:
I prefer the bio side of nanotechnology, but the evolutionary trail will undoubtedly lead to nanobots. Nanobots can function without some of the vulnerabilities that bio based nanostructures have. Also the nanobots will be programmable, whereas bio based nano will need to use other structures or devices to try to coax the desired result.
:bugeye: :m: :m:
read through the ALL replies there thx. We agreed that in the end nanites will have little to nothing in common with biology. All I am saying is that the technology starts with biorobotics.
>> Once they crack all the proteins need for cell survival and
>> replication we can improve upon it and make organism that
>> do basic task that no natural organism does.
If they aren't careful, we will end up with microscopic Borg! Lets just hope they keep it in the petry dish.
>> replication we can improve upon it and make organism that
>> do basic task that no natural organism does.
If they aren't careful, we will end up with microscopic Borg! Lets just hope they keep it in the petry dish.
Despite the belief we do not want these thing to evolve or be self aware and it is very easy to prevent that... in fact considering the amount of control we will have over these things it would be a cold day in hell when a biorobot accidentally takes over the world.
If you have large quantities of biorobots, wont you still have problems with undesired mutations? I've seen it suggested that bio-engineered cells could lack a key enzyme which would have to be supplied to keep them alive and multiplying. With millions of these robots, what are they chances of 1 of them mutating to not need the enzyme? How do you prevent this from happening? (not suggesting you can't prevent it, I just don't know)
I do agree that biorobots/nanorobot will eventually mix traits, but I'm wondering about the near future.
I do agree that biorobots/nanorobot will eventually mix traits, but I'm wondering about the near future.
In nature life evolved a reasonable rate of mutation: checks and repair mechanism were made to work well but no were near perfectly. Life needs to be able to mutate so that it can evolve and compete against other life forms
Biorobot is very different. We will need to engineer them with redundant copiers of genes and check in mechanism as well as cross checking. If we have a 6 copy redundancy and cross check them and mark and repair all mutated nucleotides it would take 3 identical mutations to get passed that cross check. Also if we add in normal read and replace checking must mutations will be corrected before cross checking. It would not be hard to engineer a biorobot with a rate of mutation many fold smaller then normal life. Because of this a biorobot will not be completive with natural life and would die off in the wild against a constantly adapting advocacies. We can also engineer redundant copies of a self terminating operon so that if enough mutations are detected the biorobot will self destruct.
All of this though requires careful design and good planning, mistakes only happen from stupidity or intended evil.
Biorobot is very different. We will need to engineer them with redundant copiers of genes and check in mechanism as well as cross checking. If we have a 6 copy redundancy and cross check them and mark and repair all mutated nucleotides it would take 3 identical mutations to get passed that cross check. Also if we add in normal read and replace checking must mutations will be corrected before cross checking. It would not be hard to engineer a biorobot with a rate of mutation many fold smaller then normal life. Because of this a biorobot will not be completive with natural life and would die off in the wild against a constantly adapting advocacies. We can also engineer redundant copies of a self terminating operon so that if enough mutations are detected the biorobot will self destruct.
All of this though requires careful design and good planning, mistakes only happen from stupidity or intended evil.
designing a system that has the intrinsic quality of being able to evolve is probably a bad idea. We may think we can control it, but time will probably outsmart us. Time works in favour of evolution and the fact that human always fuck up.
>> considering the amount of control we will have over these
>> things it would be a cold day in hell when a biorobot
>> accidentally takes over the world.
I am thinking more along the lines of genetically engineered bacteria. We currently have a handful of engineered bacteria that have an entirely different food source than their non-engineered cousins; just off of the top of my head I can think of bacteria that feed on oil, and bacteria that feed on the bacteria in our mouths that cause tooth decay.
As long as these engineered bacteria have a food source, they probably won't die off naturally. In short, if we release them into the 'wild', they will probably thrive because they have no competition. If they thrive, they may hinder the work of other 'helpful' bacteria, or even extinguish another species. We may be forced to permenantly rely on a poorly engineered bacteria.
>> things it would be a cold day in hell when a biorobot
>> accidentally takes over the world.
I am thinking more along the lines of genetically engineered bacteria. We currently have a handful of engineered bacteria that have an entirely different food source than their non-engineered cousins; just off of the top of my head I can think of bacteria that feed on oil, and bacteria that feed on the bacteria in our mouths that cause tooth decay.
As long as these engineered bacteria have a food source, they probably won't die off naturally. In short, if we release them into the 'wild', they will probably thrive because they have no competition. If they thrive, they may hinder the work of other 'helpful' bacteria, or even extinguish another species. We may be forced to permenantly rely on a poorly engineered bacteria.
Read above I already answer your question.
the present state of engineering is only simple modification. Biorobotics comes from designing a genome on a computer and then printing it out off a DNA synthesizer. The problem is todays DNA synthesizer are way to slow and inefficient. We are limited to genomes of about 100,000 nucleotides at this point. Breakthroughs in speed and efficiency are on the horizon... trust me.
the present state of engineering is only simple modification. Biorobotics comes from designing a genome on a computer and then printing it out off a DNA synthesizer. The problem is todays DNA synthesizer are way to slow and inefficient. We are limited to genomes of about 100,000 nucleotides at this point. Breakthroughs in speed and efficiency are on the horizon... trust me.
youngbiologist
Registered Senior Member
nice topic
heres the deal. Genetics, and biology is way way easier then nanotech. The main difference between a biomachine and nanomachine is one of them uses lipid bilayers and the other does not. How they intend for nanomachines to be able to do stuff while being so small is beyond me. Circuits can only be so small, so I wonder just how many transistors they can stick in a nanomachines brain. DNA is just a better cpu IMHO, it can be compact when needed and all of the proteins for making it work already exist.
Biotech is way easier
Nanotech is harder, may be better in the end
heres the deal. Genetics, and biology is way way easier then nanotech. The main difference between a biomachine and nanomachine is one of them uses lipid bilayers and the other does not. How they intend for nanomachines to be able to do stuff while being so small is beyond me. Circuits can only be so small, so I wonder just how many transistors they can stick in a nanomachines brain. DNA is just a better cpu IMHO, it can be compact when needed and all of the proteins for making it work already exist.
Biotech is way easier
Nanotech is harder, may be better in the end
Biorobots or Nanorobots, they will merge.
Already I read an article about micromachines, they plan to use the peristaltic motion of some bacteria to pump fluids through tiny cappilaries, the merge of micromechanics and bioengineering.
Also they plan to use viruses shells to "tranport" nanocomponents which will attach to the designated "receptor sites" so that you can more easily build a complex nanostructure.
All very interesting and wonderfull, and perhaps even a bit dangerous (Got Grey Goo?)
Already I read an article about micromachines, they plan to use the peristaltic motion of some bacteria to pump fluids through tiny cappilaries, the merge of micromechanics and bioengineering.
Also they plan to use viruses shells to "tranport" nanocomponents which will attach to the designated "receptor sites" so that you can more easily build a complex nanostructure.
All very interesting and wonderfull, and perhaps even a bit dangerous (Got Grey Goo?)
Considering that there is plenty of research in both fields, I don't think it's an "either/or" sort of question. There is great interest in both areas from a variety of sources, both of them will get funded (and the particularly perceptive will probably find a way to get money from both sides of the house). There are plenty of very smart protein engineering types who have the long term goal of extending the possible range of functions one finds in organisms via de novo protein design, as well as chemists who are more interested in enzymes for their ability to stereoselectively catalyze reactions than in the biological aspects of the enzymes.
I would like to mention that nanotechnology is more than just silicon based devices and structures. There is a quite a range of inorganic materials being used currently. The big issue (as I see it) is that being able to scale up nanotech is a very expensive proposition, at least at the current time.
I would like to mention that nanotechnology is more than just silicon based devices and structures. There is a quite a range of inorganic materials being used currently. The big issue (as I see it) is that being able to scale up nanotech is a very expensive proposition, at least at the current time.
You could subscirpe to something like this:
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0006-3592/
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0006-3592/
Bio-Tech verses Non-Organic Nano-Tech
Is true that most of you believe that much of our future technology will be developed from the basic building blocks up? I'm going to assume yes. There will be a distrobution of both among the different fields i believe, at least for the next few thousand years. For instance, most structures will still be non organic, its easier currently, and for a while, to produce them this way. Non-Organic nanotech has already started to change our limits for structures, who has read the article in discover about the space elevator? we're inches from being able to actually producing such a device. while most medical neesds will be taken care of biologically. There may be immune system upgrades and the such, helping people live longer, but biotics prolly wont take a step out of that field for a while. but i forsee structures being grown instead of built. Theres two ways, the first, we can restructure plants, re model them to our own needs, which may or may not be easier then the second, have non organic nanotech grow them the same way, build them up from local materials, more when im not having people annoy the hell out of me
Is true that most of you believe that much of our future technology will be developed from the basic building blocks up? I'm going to assume yes. There will be a distrobution of both among the different fields i believe, at least for the next few thousand years. For instance, most structures will still be non organic, its easier currently, and for a while, to produce them this way. Non-Organic nanotech has already started to change our limits for structures, who has read the article in discover about the space elevator? we're inches from being able to actually producing such a device. while most medical neesds will be taken care of biologically. There may be immune system upgrades and the such, helping people live longer, but biotics prolly wont take a step out of that field for a while. but i forsee structures being grown instead of built. Theres two ways, the first, we can restructure plants, re model them to our own needs, which may or may not be easier then the second, have non organic nanotech grow them the same way, build them up from local materials, more when im not having people annoy the hell out of me
wickedwilliam
Registered Member
Personally for the long term I see both as eventually converging and working in tandem. However, for the short term I expect nanotechnology to thrive more and advance faster. Simply because it appears more lucrative and it appears like more of a rational transition to most people, whereas there seems to be somewhat of a stigma around biorobotics. But like I said, I think they will then augment biorobotics with nonrobotics and vise-versa.
Last edited:
Actually it’s the other way around: We are far more advanced in Biorobotics then we are in nanorobotics.