Do you consider Humans to be Animals?

[Nauritropia]

Obviously we are.

[Chinese Regions]

yea probably not, there is not much advantage to a non-biological existence.

There is tons of advantage.

What's wrong? Can't argue that Neanderthals are not/are animals?
It's pretty clear you hate biology but, again know some of it or just stop this 'dumb on purpose' thing. Humans are animals. We have the properties of a member of the Kingdom Animalia.

[Kleomentia]

Yes, yes i do.

[Apto]

Yes, yes we are.

[Ansario]

I thought it was absolutely obvious that Humans were animals. If not animals then what are they?

[Miencraft]

Since we are in the Kingdom Animalia then it is instantly so and are we nothing else but animals.

The only other possible classification would be as a fungus. I'm sure we aren't fungi.

[Lithiumev]

Yes we are all animals.. We're not plans so what else is there...

[Awesomeland]

I definitely consider humans to be animals. Being "people" requires a level of intelligence that not all humans have actually achieved. For instance, babies have less intellectual capacity than, say, a pig. As such, I do not regard them as "people", merely a human animal. Conversely, it is possible that a machine may someday achieve the level of "people", without ever, at any point, being an animal.

[Soleichunn]

An electrical motor has a 99% percent potential energy input to output. We haven't reached that not even close, but that is the theoretical limit.

Muscle at best gets 15%. And isn't getting better.

It's merely a matter of engineering.

an electric motor has a much narrower force range than a muscle, and has a much higher operating energy, and most importantly wears out. muscles have built in feed back systems, repair mechanisms.

you design for me a electric motor that can be repaired without dis-assembly and will never wear out I I'll listen. Electric motors are great if they are disposable.

So... You're just ignoring the huge quantity of energy required to support that (and the support systems for the support systems)? That'd be like saying the a coal power plant has better energy efficiency to a specific house 50km away than a natural gas one, whilst ignoring the gas plant sends the power from 5000km away.

(or an electric vehicle and an ICE and not including idle energy use)

Also, why would it need to be repaired without subassembly? Cells move around the body, and replacement cells are replicated to fill in areas, sometimes transfering from a single point (such as mature T & B cells from the thyroid). Cells, whilst they can rearrange themselves drastically (such as the muscle cell cytoskeleton) in normal operation, are more limited in this 'self contained repair'.

If you had a series of automated factories linked by a railnet (with automated raw resource & energy production), could that not be considered a self contained system?

I mean, feel free to coment how well adapted cellular (and multicellular) organisms are to the modern environment (they are, but that's to be expected from the length of time spent), and how they manage a degree of versatility beyond any single device available (though this does ignore scale of operation, and ignores that a specific mechanical system can be retrofitted/improved far more quickly than an individual/species), but don't overstate the case. I do agree with your point about nanoscales, but only for the uses specific to biological organisms (which do have quite a bit of overlap with mechanical/industrial areas, but don't mean biological is 'better', nor that non-biological/biologically inspired methods can't be developed).

[Sociobiology]

an electric motor has a much narrower force range than a muscle, and has a much higher operating energy, and most importantly wears out. muscles have built in feed back systems, repair mechanisms.

you design for me a electric motor that can be repaired without dis-assembly and will never wear out I I'll listen. Electric motors are great if they are disposable.

So... You're just ignoring the huge quantity of energy required to support that (and the support systems for the support systems)? That'd be like saying the a coal power plant has better energy efficiency to a specific house 50km away than a natural gas one, whilst ignoring the gas plant sends the power from 5000km away.

what huge amount of energy, if you really want to be fair, you have to include the factory that made the motor, AND the mine the extracted the raw material AND the power plant supplying the energy.

Also, why would it need to be repaired without subassembly? Cells move around the body, and replacement cells are replicated to fill in areas, sometimes transfering from a single point (such as mature T & B cells from the thyroid). Cells, whilst they can rearrange themselves drastically (such as the muscle cell cytoskeleton) in normal operation, are more limited in this 'self contained repair'.

look up regeneration, mammals and birds don't have great regeneration because it is not all that helpful, from an evolutionary perspective, but even mammals can regrow entire limbs, with the right engineering being able to regrow most of the body would be possible.

If you had a series of automated factories linked by a railnet (with automated raw resource & energy production), could that not be considered a self contained system?

yes
now work out the scale difference.
especially if you build in some redundancy.

I mean, feel free to coment how well adapted cellular (and multicellular) organisms are to the modern environment (they are, but that's to be expected from the length of time spent),
and how they manage a degree of versatility beyond any single device available (though this does ignore scale of operation

actually it doesn't read my other post.

, and ignores that a specific mechanical system can be retrofitted/improved far more quickly than an individual/species)

1. you are talking about improving the species anyway,
2. yes they can by a self sustaining biologic, but can a broken mechanism repair itself.

, but don't overstate the case. I do agree with your point about nanoscales, but only for the uses specific to biological organisms (which do have quite a bit of overlap with mechanical/industrial areas, but don't mean biological is 'better', nor that non-biological/biologically inspired methods can't be developed).

Again read my other post, both have different advantages so you use both.

If you want something that can react to a variety of conditions with flexible physical abilities you want biologics. If you want something that can operate for a long time you want biologics, if you want to do one highly specialized thing extremely well you want machines. the best systems are a variety of mechanical specialty devices that fit on a general biologic core system. the biological core can react instantly to varying conditions and select a mechanical unit when it needs specialty equipment. it can repair itself and repair the specialty systems so it is self sustaining.

[Avalar]

Yes we are technically. But I don't consider us to be animals.

[Chinese Regions]

Yes we are technically. But I don't consider us to be animals.

Then what are we? Plants? Fungi?

[Hetland 2]

Yes we are technically. But I don't consider us to be animals.

Then what are we? Plants? Fungi?

I'm pretty much a plant.

[Aluzky]

Then what are we? Plants? Fungi?

I'm pretty much a plant.

Are you a vegan? Would that be cannibalism?

[Chiota Tau]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

[Straight From Above]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

I dunno. I've been changing my stance on the kariotic issue.

After reading Michelle Bachmann's autobiography, I've been becoming more and more prokariotic.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

Unless we decide to add a kingdom.

[Sociobiology]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

actually it leaves us two
animalia or fungi

[Tlaceceyaya]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

Unless we decide to add a kingdom.

Why would we?
Taxonomists organize Kingdoms, Families, etc. based on assumed genetic closeness.
It's too late to add another kingdom.

[Straight From Above]

Why wouldn't we be? We're eukariotic heterotrophs, which leaves us exactly one kingdom.

actually it leaves us two
animalia or fungi

I knew a girl from Guymon Oklahoma who was straddling those...

[The Emerald Legion]

Unless we decide to add a kingdom.

Why would we?
Taxonomists organize Kingdoms, Families, etc. based on assumed genetic closeness.
It's too late to add another kingdom.

And?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Why would we?
Taxonomists organize Kingdoms, Families, etc. based on assumed genetic closeness.
It's too late to add another kingdom.

And?

And therefore, a new kingdom can not be added.

[The Emerald Legion]

And?

And therefore, a new kingdom can not be added.

You act as though it's a fundemental law of the universe. It's just paperwork.

[Tlaceceyaya]

And therefore, a new kingdom can not be added.

You act as though it's a fundemental law of the universe. It's just paperwork.

Paperwork determined by genetic closeness. We CANNOT get a new type of creature equally related to animals, plants, fungi, etc. because the common ancestor of all of them is long dead.

[The Emerald Legion]

You act as though it's a fundemental law of the universe. It's just paperwork.

Paperwork determined by genetic closeness. We CANNOT get a new type of creature equally related to animals, plants, fungi, etc. because the common ancestor of all of them is long dead.

So lie. No real point in it anyway.