/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10335080
Re-engineering viruses and microbes is actually what they mean when they go on about nanites.
It's much easier, for starters.

>>10335080
We don't know if we can practically construct them.
>>10335084
That is not what is meant at all... Reengineering biology is going to be extremely limited.

>>10335101
>That is not what is meant at all... Reengineering biology is going to be extremely limited.
And yet, it is the first step we're going to have to take.
Not to mention, what exactly do you want us to be able to do with nanotechnology?

>>10335101
Looks wobbly. Would not rely on/10.

>>10335080
Its funny, because if I mention Smart Dust(DARPA patented it in the 90s), and Morgellons disease(they claim its psychosomatic, but had a medical research team from the US military investigate a few cases) in the same thread it usually gets deleted shortly after.

>>10335107
>>10335101
I also think he's underplaying the complexity of realy existing biology on that scale, look at a ribosome for instance.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLEDd-PSTQ
I'd say that's plenty complex, and naturally so.

>>10335121
>*... realy... -> already

engineered viruses are already nanobots. They are extremely efficient to the point of approaching the limits of physics.

Why re-invent the wheel when nature gave you the tools you can just use?

CRISPR works like this as well. It's just the mechanics bacteria uses to exchange genetic data between each other but we modified it to cut out and edit RNA which we can then later insert into all kinds of cells using phages or other virus delivery systems.

Look at how the virus actually looks. It's extremely efficient and already mechanical looking. How are you going to design something more efficient than this?

>>10335105
>>the first step we're going to have to take
it does not follow. Using biology is completely lateral to this.
>>do with nanotechnology
I want the insane power densities that become possible with being able to structure matter with atomic precision.
>>10335107
wait till you see how proteins actually work. They are writhing masses of spaghetti
>>10335113
get out of here schizo fag. Nothing really became of smart dust, turns out MEMS sucks.
>>10335121
>>complex
and that's the problem. It's too complex to work with and engineer. Biology is a shit show. Plus everything happens at the speed of diffusion and it only works in water. Fucking spaghetti.

>>10335129
>I want the insane power densities that become possible with being able to structure matter with atomic precision.
That's actual sci-fi, syntheic biology isn't.

>It's too complex to work with and engineer. Biology is a shit show.
So we simplify and keep what we need. There's no reason to (as >>10335128 put)
>Why re-invent the wheel when nature gave you the tools you can just use?
Stop wanting to be made of silicon, you loser.

>>10335129
Yes biology is opposed to metallic machines. They are meant to be separate.

>>10335128
>>They are extremely efficient to the point of approaching the limits of physics
by what metric and citation needed
>>Why re-invent the wheel when nature gave you the tools you can just use?
Because sometimes you can't find a wheel you need in nature. Nature only works in a limited set of environments. So you want something that works in solid ice or at really cold temperatures? Good fucking luck with that.
>> How are you going to design something more efficient than this?
why should I want a virus? Also phage therapy is a meme.
>>10335142
>>actual sci-fi
this is a thread about nanobots. Synthetic molecular machines aren't sci-fi and were the subject of the 2016 Nobel Prize in chemistry. In my book viruses and bacteria don't count, because they don't do exactly what we want.
>>So we simplify
good luck with that.
>>Stop wanting to be made of silicon, you loser.
and where did I ever say that?

>>10335080
haven't you heard guys, nanotechnology is bs

Elon musk said so

>>10335163
>In my book viruses and bacteria don't count, because they don't do exactly what we want.
They can be made to target certain cells.

>>10335167
that was my personal autistic opinion, you didn't have to respond to that.
>>They can be made to target certain cells.
how accurately? It is difficult to use such things because they are attacked by the immune system. If you're referring to phages, phage therapy is a meme.

>>10335172
>how accurately?
Well, apparently it is being considered by prestigious institutions:
>https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2018/oncolytic-viruses-to-treat-cancer

>If you're referring to phages, phage therapy is a meme.
Do you usually give up so easily? Engineering solutions to this problem is going to be easier, and cheaper, than synthetic nanomachines.

>>10335128
>>10335163
how did the saga of CRISP-anon go? did he inject his eyeballs after all?

>>10335565
CRISPR*

>>10335080
Perhaps but I doubt there exist humans smart enough to figure it out which is why I’m extremely angry we don’t have mass eugenics and spend hundreds of billions on genetic engineering for intelligence.
Fact is, there may not be people intelligent enough or not enough of them to create these sci fi inventions that this board gets stiffies from.
Chimpanzees won’t be creating a space shuttle and we might not be able to make nano bots, faster than light traveler etc if such things are possible.