it only takes one or maybe two of the points to be wrong, in order for the end-to-end argument to fall apart
Regardless of the specific argument here, biological cells are already near pareto optimal robots in terms of thermodynamic efficiency. There is essentially no potential improvement for designs that are better at converting energy into replication of code, or just converting energy into carefully arranged nanostructures in general. This is a much stronger airtight argument not against the possibility of nanotech, but against the promise of nanotech.
Photosynthesis still sucks. Modern solar panels are WAY better.
Conversion of light to ATP and NADPH is a little more efficient than typical solar panels. If you want to talk about the efficiency of CO2 to sugar vs industrial systems, you should compare that to current direct air capture (with solar power) efficiency—plus water electrolysis and conversion to chemicals, I suppose. As for talking about fusion as an advantage of nanobots specifically, that’s retarded. If you want me to debate you seriously, post something that shows you deeply understand something about biology or chemistry. Maybe run it by an expert in the field first so you don’t waste everyone’s time.
Regardless of the specific argument here, biological cells are already near pareto optimal robots in terms of thermodynamic efficiency. There is essentially no potential improvement for designs that are better at converting energy into replication of code, or just converting energy into carefully arranged nanostructures in general. This is a much stronger airtight argument not against the possibility of nanotech, but against the promise of nanotech.
You can point to little bits of them that are efficient. Photosynthesis still sucks. Modern solar panels are WAY better.
Also, bio cells don’t try to build fusion reactors. All that deuterium floating around for the taking and they don’t even try.
Nanobots that did build fusion reactors would have a large advantage. Yes this requires the nanobots to work together on macro scale projects.
Conversion of light to ATP and NADPH is a little more efficient than typical solar panels. If you want to talk about the efficiency of CO2 to sugar vs industrial systems, you should compare that to current direct air capture (with solar power) efficiency—plus water electrolysis and conversion to chemicals, I suppose. As for talking about fusion as an advantage of nanobots specifically, that’s retarded. If you want me to debate you seriously, post something that shows you deeply understand something about biology or chemistry. Maybe run it by an expert in the field first so you don’t waste everyone’s time.