>>11872425>>11872438planes may not be as efficient as birds, but planes can go faster than birds and move more payload than birds.
>>Implying the artificial shit will be any betterthere is the possibility the artificial shit could be better in some aspects, much in the same way a plane is faster than a bird. Biology relies on a number of chemicals bumping around pretty much randomly. Tiny machines made of chemicals that aren't bumping around as randomly might be better in some aspects than biology. When you look at things like motor proteins, they take a relatively long time to bounce around into the right configuration in order to move forward.
>>11872392>>11872445>>11872482you keep saying that people are stupid without giving any reasons why. As for dealing with thermal motion, the amount something swings around due to thermal motion depends on the stiffness of the material used. So by using a stiff enough material and structure, thermal motion may be reduced to acceptable levels. Of course the bigger issue with very small machines is not whether they are possible, but how to practically make them. Making very complicated structures that are better than biology will be challenging to do with synthetic chemistry. If only because yields drop exponentially with each additional reaction. There is of course the proposed method of placing individual atoms and molecules to carry out controlled chemical reactions, but it is still a question as to whether that's possible at all.
