"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g6epgv$sqf$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:68c6e$48895b8b$7937c448$19562@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> actually, once the basic technologies are worked out, likely androids
>> will
>> be generally cheaper in many ways than humans (after all, they don't
have
> to
>> pay for survival, need their own living space, or consume large amounts
>> of
>> food).
>
> What's cheaper? Tweak a few DNA molecules and give the lifeform food or
> mass production of artificial lifeform components? I'd think genetic
> engineering or re-engineering will cost less. If it's a non-human
> lifeform,
> raising many of them is just a form of farming...
>
but, you actually have to treat humans like humans.
androids could be packed into boxes or closets, and only run when and
where
they are needed (they could be treated far worse than any humans without
raising any sympathy).
go and keep some slaves, keeping them chained up in a closet when not in
use, or keep children strapped to chairs in your basement, and people will
tend to not be so pleased...
in general, paying for human life is expensive. a worker may be payed,
say,
40k$ or 50k$ per year, wheras an android may only take around 500$ or
1000$
per year in fuel and maintainence costs.
electrical power could end up being cheaper than food (humans finding
themselves unable to eat electricity or most chemicals), even if the
theoretical energy efficiency is likely to be lower.
also, eventually the component cost is likely to be cheaper as well, given
that mechanical parts can be cheaply mass produced and stored long term
(organic components, however, face issues such as death and decay).
eventually, an android may be around 2000 to 5000$ worth of parts, and
over
a period of years will quickly pay for itself.
>> electricity is likely going to be cheap to produce (using nuclear and
> solar,
>> albeit fuel-oil based generators are likely to go away due to a much
> higher
>> general cost of fuel oil), but is difficult to physically store or
> trans****t
>> (batteries tend to have rather poor limits wrt energy density/capacity,
>> charging rate, and lifespan).
>
> Large scale electron storage is here in different forms:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_energy_storage
>
> But, without smaller scale developments in batteries and capacitors for
> trans****tation, home heating, etc., we're stuck.
>
yes, current batteries are pretty lame...
for example, if I could replace my laptop battery with an equivalent
volume
of wax, and had a fairly high energy conversion, likely I could run my
laptop for about 1 week.
why: because a birthday candle puts out enough energy (in the form of
heat)
to keep such a laptop running, and it would take around a week to burn
through that much wax.
likewise, the amount of physical torque put out by a car engine (and the
resultant power that can be generated) is hardly small, yet at the same
time, the gas tank is tiny vs the battery storage required for an
equivalent
amount of electrical power.
but, oh well, at least NiMH batteries can be quickly charged...
>> gaseous fuels (such as propane, methane, or hydrogen), though possible,
>> require pressurized storage tanks, which are likely to be rather large
>> and
>> heavy for the amount of fuel stored (admitted, people could start using
>> carbon-fiber storage bottles).
>
> Unless there is a major advance in plasma fusion reactors, micro-nuclear
> is
> probably the most feasable technically. Unfortunately, that presents a
> serious material control issue to governments... unless a still useful
> for
> energy, but not so useful for other purposes material is developed.
>
yes, I am aware of this.
I had assumed that most likely this issue would not be resolved, and so
micro-nuclear is unlikely in this case.
nuclear batteries could be possible, but the difficulty is getting a
battery
that generated decently large power output, while still being made of
"acceptable" materials (aka: probably no plutonium, uranium, or
thorium...).
>> in general, liquid fuels could be the most practical means of energy
> storage
>> (and, an android being human-like, could possibly justify using much of
> its
>> body volume as fuel storage). as noted though, the body would need to
be
>> designed in such a way as to prevent the thing from burning violently
if
>> ignited.
>
> There are lots of moral and/or religious issues, but I see no technical
> reason why a human beings can't be genetically redesigned for all sorts
of
> purposes (low oxygen, high temperatures and pressures, low gravity,
> combat,
> chlorophyll "food" source, genetic magnetic compass like birds and
> dolphins,
> etc...). We have the genetic information from numerous other lifeforms
to
> allow just about anything we can dream of and can morally accept.
>
I guess it depends on the purpose for said androids...
I had figured more terrestrial uses, for example, having them as a cheap
source of labor, or for the 'personal entertainment' of the owners, or in
some cases, as fill-ins for humans (such as maids, clerks, and sales and
dispensing with information...).
basically, they could be a potentially cheaper alternative to humans for
many forms of unskilled labor...
>
> Rod Pemberton
>
|
