[General Battuta]

How do you get salmon to turn up at the exact place at the right time without any instruction? How do non-sentient insects construct hives with caste systems and then farm aphids? How do parasitized ants know specifically to crawl to the tops of blades of grass? How could a parasite possible evolve that replaces the tongue of a particular fish species?

Nature does this kind of incredibly detailed stuff all the time. And it's because there's enough room for programming in a single organism - in DNA - to encompass billions of computer programs.

Even if what you suggest was remotely possible, technology would still trump organic weapons because why make a self-replicating organism that you can't directly control when you could instead make a self-replicating robot or nano-machine that you can receive ordinary signals and other information.

Why make a bullet bug when you could make a bullet robot that could do the same job with less risk.

How many bullet robots do you see around you, executing complex behavioral programs with incredible fidelity over thousands of generations?

Yeah, thought so. Not to mention Rian's point that you can control the biological organisms every bit as directly.

And I wish people would read threads before posting about topics already addressed. None of this is about 'organic weapons trumping technology.'

[Akalabeth Angel]

How many bullet robots do you see around you, executing complex behavioral programs with incredible fidelity over thousands of generations?

How many man-made organisms do you see around you, executing war-like behavioural patterns contrary to basic instincts for self-preservation?

And pheromones? Please someone's been playing too much HL2. How can you direct organic organisms with pheromones from your orbital base? Can bugs smell it from orbit? Robots on the other hand, send them a signal and watch them go.

[General Battuta]

None, but I see literally billions (trillions, probably?) of naturally occurring organisms doing so. And that's the whole point. Presumably our Biotech Aliens are big fans of sticking with what works.

[Akalabeth Angel]

None, but I see literally billions (trillions, probably?) of naturally occurring organisms doing so. And that's the whole point. Presumably our Biotech Aliens are big fans of sticking with what works.

The point is, if a sentient being can through genetic manipulation create a warrior bug and program it do whatever it wants then they must have the technology to just create weapons instead so why create a bug?

Or if you're telling me that some bug is going to, through natural evolution evolve into a land mine and explode in some marines face then I say bull**** to that.

[StarSlayer]

If you can create attack bugs to arbitrary specifications, then why couldn’t you create chemical cues to control them? Ants do a lot of their communication with pheromones.

Or a dance like bees..  cuz that would be awesome.

Though seriously where exactly are we heading with this debate?  Are we still arguing a naturally occurring species could defeat a modern military unit, either singly or in a large scale engagement?  Or have we switched to manipulated biological weapons verses technologically developed ones?  If we are arguing about developed biological weapons why even bother with something overt.  Hell just develop a pandemic to wipe out their foodstuffs or cause their pregnancies to fail, if you can design a bullet bug I should imagine building a tailor made viral weapon should be within the scope of your biotech.

[General Battuta]

None, but I see literally billions (trillions, probably?) of naturally occurring organisms doing so. And that's the whole point. Presumably our Biotech Aliens are big fans of sticking with what works.

The point is, if a sentient being can through genetic manipulation create a warrior bug and program it do whatever it wants then they must have the technology to just create weapons instead so why create a bug?

So your assertion is that it's just as easy to create a self-replicating machine with all the capabilities of the above bullet bug as to make the bullet bug itself? *shrug* I don't think that's true, but even if it were, it's not the point.

I really wish people would read threads before posting, because if you go back, you'll see that the point here is not to make a systemic argument that biological weapons can outdo technological weapons. It's to show all the strengths and capabilities that nature has.

The bullet bug is a viable alternative to the bullet that can do a ton of things the bullet can't: namely, propagate itself, adapt, and even xenoform an ecosystem for the weapon designers. You'd have to build a machine from scratch to do that. The capability to do that doesn't exist today, not remotely. We're surrounded by self-replicating biomachines doing incredibly complex things, but I don't see any mating manhacks in my backyard.

Or if you're telling me that some bug is going to, through natural evolution evolve into a land mine and explode in some marines face then I say bull**** to that.

*cheerful whistle* Got your ingredients right there, just needs a power boost.

Anyway, people seem to be missing the point made above. This is an example of a biological weapon that is meant to be compared with a bullet. It is contrived to do so. It exemplifies the advantages of the biological approach: the bullet beetle is a self-replicating bullet with tremendously more versatility at the cost of sheer immediate lethality.

[NGTM-1R]

If you can create attack bugs to arbitrary specifications, then why couldn’t you create chemical cues to control them? Ants do a lot of their communication with pheromones.

Spoofing again. I have yet to see a reliable biological mechanism for randomized encryption. Also, acceptable error issues I mentioned earlier. The replication method of living things has a much higher error rate replicating data. (And in a sense, must.) Granted you could tighten up the controls, but that would cost you a lot of the reason to make it biological in the first place.

Mind I'm not against the overarching concept here, we have creatures that can tear open cars, shrimp that use sonic weaponry (you think I'm kidding, don't you?), fish capable of killing with electrical shock. I simply think that in this particular case, it's not being presented for something it's really a viable method of doing.

Unless you don't mind the Grey Goo Effect.

[General Battuta]

If you can create attack bugs to arbitrary specifications, then why couldn’t you create chemical cues to control them? Ants do a lot of their communication with pheromones.

Spoofing again. I have yet to see a reliable biological mechanism for randomized encryption. Also, acceptable error issues I mentioned earlier. The replication method of living things has a much higher error rate replicating data. (And in a sense, must.)

Cite please? I believe DNA replication is extraordinarily error-proof, more so than digital computers. The error rate is astronomically low and it even has multiple layers of built in, on-the-fly proofreading.

As for the command issue, once we start cracking the chemistry of ant colonies and bee hives and reprogramming them then I'll start worrying about the security of chemical commands!

Unless you don't mind the Grey Goo Effect.

I've said several times now that you can make the end-state of the bullet bug colony into a xenoforming process easily enough. That's not difficult.

[Akalabeth Angel]

*cheerful whistle* Got your ingredients right there, just needs a power boost.

Anyway, people seem to be missing the point made above. This is an example of a biological weapon that is meant to be compared with a bullet. It is contrived to do so. It exemplifies the advantages of the biological approach: the bullet beetle is a self-replicating bullet with tremendously more versatility at the cost of sheer immediate lethality.

Stink Bug != Land mine.
The Bombardier beetle is a self-defence mechanism, not a suicide mechanism. Even Honey Bees which die off after they sting do so out of a requirement to protect the hive, not as assault troops or something similar.

I really wish people would read threads before posting, because if you go back, you'll see that the point here is not to make a systemic argument that biological weapons can outdo technological weapons. It's to show all the strengths and capabilities that nature has.

The bullet bug is a viable alternative to the bullet that can do a ton of things the bullet can't: namely, propagate itself, adapt, and even xenoform an ecosystem for the weapon designers. You'd have to build a machine from scratch to do that. The capability to do that doesn't exist today, not remotely. We're surrounded by self-replicating biomachines doing incredibly complex things, but I don't see any mating manhacks in my backyard.

Yes nature is a powerful force and living creatures can be more creative than any inanimate piece of metal but comparing "bullet bugs" to "bullets" is a flawed argument. You're comparing soldiers to weapons. It's similar to saying, "well I'm going to invade country X and I'm going to send a bunch of random people with no tools or weapons. And Country X is going to defend itself with boxes of bullets. Well  my people only have their fists to use, but they're just as good as the bullets because no one's shooting the bullets and even if there were people around there's no guns to fire the bullets anyway."

If you want to compare bullets to organic material compare it to stingers and venom and claws and pincers and the like.

Because if you say you're going to send in bullet bugs which are self-producing and can cultivate the land I'll say I'll send it automated weapons drones with centuries long fusion power plants and energy dependant or melee dependant weapons and at the end of the day the machines will be the more viable option because the bio-mass dependant organisms have no humans to eat (they're fighting machines after all) and the metal constructs are going to be more durable. Sure the metal construct is less flexible, in theory, and maybe more specialized but it is the superior option. Machines can just as self-replicating as any organism, can likewise adapt with learning software, and more important don't need to eat, sleep or do anything other than seek and destroy.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but, again: we're surrounded by a) bullets and b) extraordinarily sophisticated bugs with warfare programming capable of engineering their environments on a grand scale.

We're not surrounded by self-replicating machines.

That's why the bullets and the bugs are a valid comparison. This isn't 'soldiers to weapons', this is 'weapons to weapons', just one of the weapons happens to be alive.

Anyway, I think the point has been made, and I don't see anything coming out of further discussion since none of us are experts past this point. I'm glad to have thrown out some imaginative and hopefully thought-provoking ideas.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yeah, but, again: we're surrounded by a) bullets and b) extraordinarily sophisticated bugs with warfare programming capable of engineering their environments on a grand scale.

We're not surrounded by self-replicating machines.

That's why the bullets and the bugs are a valid comparison.

No it's not a valid comparison.
You're comparing living, thinking creatures to inanimate objects. And at the same time you're theorizing the creation and application of bioweapons that do not exist. You say that bioweapons can effectively be programmed to do their creator's dirty business. Well that may be THEORETICALLY true but it's not true now. And I'm saying by that same token that technological weapons like self-replicating robots could be THEORETICALLY true and if they did exist they would more than likely be superior to any living creature.

Base your argument on reality vs reality or fantasy vs fantasy not reality vs fantasy because of course fantasy wins over reality, that's why its fantasy. The magical land of make believe.

[General Battuta]

 

Mate, I think you boarded the conversation at the wrong time if your objection is 'reality vs. fantasy', because this is a debate about whether space marines can fight bioweapons or plain ol' nature. It is, by definition, a comparison of living creatures and inanimate objects, especially when one of the perks of one approach is that it involves living, programmed creatures. (I think you're giving bugs a lot of credit by use of the term 'thinking'...)

I've illustrated a lovely hypothetical bioweapon that works as well as bullets. I've also pointed out time and again that self-replicating robots are a great possibility too. I've said more than once that I personally think technology trumps biology.

All that said, it's worth pointing out that self-replicating machines are an order of magnitude harder than engineered organisms; we've already got engineered organisms whereas self-replicating macromachines are probably quite a ways off.

You can continue ferociously humping the straw-man if you like, but in the meantime, nothing in this argument is outside of the magical land of make believe. These are all, by definition, contrived examples with quite a few presuppositions to make things more even.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Mate, I think you boarded the conversation at the wrong time if your objection is 'reality vs. fantasy', because this is a debate about whether space marines can fight bioweapons or plain ol' nature. It is, by definition, a comparison of living creatures and inanimate objects, especially when one of the perks of one approach is that it involves living, programmed creatures. (I think you're giving bugs a lot of credit by use of the term 'thinking'...)

I've illustrated a lovely hypothetical bioweapon that works as well as bullets. I've also pointed out time and again that self-replicating robots are a great possibility too. I've said more than once that I personally think technology trumps biology.

All that said, it's worth pointing out that self-replicating machines are an order of magnitude harder than engineered organisms; we've already got engineered organisms whereas self-replicating macromachines are probably quite a ways off.

We have machines building cars and all sorts of other materials for us. That's probably on par with or exceeding any genetic MANIPULATION done today. Getting a mouse to grow an ear of its back or cross-breeding cats to be non-allergenic isn't the same as dropping some biobug in some faraway land have it multiply and attack the existing population.

The fact is that the argument is fantasy vs reality because bullets are reality but engineered bugs are not. Scientists, as I am aware can not create life. No one has put a bunch of components in a petri dish and out comes a new life form. Scientists have only modified existing life. So to say that at some point in the future, scientists will not only be able to engineer life but to also program it down to the nucletoid or whatever level is just a bit of a stretch.

Life is unpredictable.

Engineer life as much as you want but at some point your engineered creations are going to do something you don't want and at that point you lose control. Hypoethetical super-science bullet bugs therefore would not be as viable as bullets because bullets are predictable whereas any organic lifeform would ultimately be a liability (see the movie Alien)

[NGTM-1R]

As for the command issue, once we start cracking the chemistry of ant colonies and bee hives and reprogramming them then I'll start worrying about the security of chemical commands!

You are aware we can already do that, right? Not reprogram, but enough to tamper with their behavior?  Convince them things are not ants or bees which are, or things which are are ants or bees which are not? Sure.

Also the main problem of information, because I phrase poorly, is not in the replication so much as in the repeated re-replication. A computer works from a master file to replicate the same info many times. Organisms never work from the original, mistakes are made more easily and go unnoticed.

[General Battuta]

As for the command issue, once we start cracking the chemistry of ant colonies and bee hives and reprogramming them then I'll start worrying about the security of chemical commands!

You are aware we can already do that, right? Not reprogram, but enough to tamper with their behavior?  Convince them things are not ants or bees which are, or things which are are ants or bees which are not? Sure.

Yeah, but that just makes the scenario more interesting. Bullets have countermeasures too.

I'm not here to argue for some munchkinesque uberweapon.

Also the main problem of information, because I phrase poorly, is not in the replication so much as in the repeated re-replication. A computer works from a master file to replicate the same info many times. Organisms never work from the original, mistakes are made more easily and go unnoticed.

Again, given the number of replications, I think that DNA actually has a lower error rate than a computer. I could be wrong, but I'm advancing this supposition for now.

The fact is that the argument is fantasy vs reality because bullets are reality but engineered bugs are not

That's, uh, exactly the point. Please reread above posts.

[TrashMan]

The bullet bug is a viable alternative to the bullet that can do a ton of things the bullet can't: namely, propagate itself, adapt, and even xenoform an ecosystem for the weapon designers. You'd have to build a machine from scratch to do that. The capability to do that doesn't exist today, not remotely. We're surrounded by self-replicating biomachines doing incredibly complex things, but I don't see any mating manhacks in my backyard.

ERm...what? Frankly, designing an self-replicating, controllable organizam from ground-up with the abilities you describe is not happening. Anywhere. We don't even have the theoretical knowledge to "build" even a primitive version.

And frankly, mutations anyonyone? The last thing one would need would be a bullet-bug wiht a mutation that's dangerous to the creator (like loss of control) that ends up propagating.

[Akalabeth Angel]

That's, uh, exactly the point. Please reread above posts.

Uh, yeah, I read your posts now try reading mine.

Bioweapons are less viable than bullets because life is unpredictable and once used these bugs WILL at some point do something contrary to the user's wishes while bullets on the other hand will always just be bullets.

[redsniper]

So who are we getting do develop the bullet bugs vs self-replicating machines game?

[Scotty]

Can we get back to where this coversation was when I left it yesterday and two pages ago?  I liked the "technology will unequivocally and always trump nature" argument.

On an only minimally related note, has anyone thought of how differences in gravity would affect one of these fights?  If a tank crushes itself under it's own weight, I think nature wins.  Another thing is to consider how ranges would be affected in higher-lower gravity.  I could hypothetically almost guarantee you that something adapted for higher gravity will have the edge over us, in terms of mobility.

Battuta:  Your bullet bugs, I think, are a little too contrived even for this discussion.  Let's try to keep it to single organisms working in groups or hive mind more conventional forces to keep the Naysayers happy, no?

Trashman:  "We" aren't using those things.  Contrived they may be, stop looking at this from a "human bio-engineering vs. human technology."  I came up with a slightly less contrived example than Battuta's in free time during Psych today.  I would be happy to type it up, on the condition you don't rant at it for not being able to single-handedly PWNXORZ anything not organic.  This discussion isn't meant to prove how organics trump tech, it's an attemp to DISPROVE how Tech always trumps organic.

Alkabeth:  I think deathfun put it best:

This is fiction. When we talk fiction, we use fiction to support fiction.

Going back a bit:  Comparing "bullet bugs" to bullets is completely valid.  If he were comparing bullet bug delivery systems to guns, it would be equally valid.  This example is the projectile vs. an organic analogue, not a soldier vs. an organic analogue.

[General Battuta]

The bullet bug is a viable alternative to the bullet that can do a ton of things the bullet can't: namely, propagate itself, adapt, and even xenoform an ecosystem for the weapon designers. You'd have to build a machine from scratch to do that. The capability to do that doesn't exist today, not remotely. We're surrounded by self-replicating biomachines doing incredibly complex things, but I don't see any mating manhacks in my backyard.

ERm...what? Frankly, designing an self-replicating, controllable organizam from ground-up with the abilities you describe is not happening. Anywhere. We don't even have the theoretical knowledge to "build" even a primitive version.

And frankly, mutations anyonyone? The last thing one would need would be a bullet-bug wiht a mutation that's dangerous to the creator (like loss of control) that ends up propagating.

We're surrounded by these organisms. Our hypothetical Biotic Aliens don't need to build anything.

The mutation issue was already addressed - first off, it adds spice to the concept as something fun, and second, I'm clearly granting our Biotech Aliens some degree of biological science awesomeness.

Silly objection.

That's, uh, exactly the point. Please reread above posts.

Uh, yeah, I read your posts now try reading mine.

Bioweapons are less viable than bullets because life is unpredictable and once used these bugs WILL at some point do something contrary to the user's wishes while bullets on the other hand will always just be bullets.

See above. Not really a big problem, particularly if you are a species that loves to eat bullet bugs and considers them a natural habitat.

Honestly most of the objections just seem to be a consequence of failures of imagination. This whole thread is a what if, not a how likely: plausible, grounded, but nonetheless fantastic illustrations of a point. Some degree of imagination is necessary to account for the fact that nature is utterly unpredictable.