Why is Biotech so Weak?

[Darth Raptor]

They can make and build it, so, what's the problem with growing more bacta?

Nothing, so long as you can hold Thyferra. But as we've seen, depending on a single planet for an entire galaxy's supply is problematic.

He would've gotten borged as soon as he got the chance? I can think of a couple reasons why not. He likes his body. Do you want to become a cyborg like Grievous?

Well yes, actually. But if you're right and he was attached to his body (as Vader undoubtedly was), why not a total organic restoration? The parsimonious answer is that they can't, and that the complete borging of Vader and Grievous was the best they could do.

If bacta contains one or more types of microorganisms, how exactly do you intend to "synthesize" it, Raptor? They can grow more of it, probably modify and engineer it for various species (they probably use a mixed compound that works on a full spectrum of common species already), and.. did I mention they can grow more of it? They can grow as much of it as they want.

No, they obviously can't. If they could, there would be bacta plants all over the galaxy. They process it from pre-existing Thyferran raw materials.

What exactly do you mean by "synthesize"? Building the clone army must count as synthsizing humans, unless by "synthesize" you mean making it from scratch without a template.
Are you referring to the fact that they can't manufacture bacta out of nothing? They can't build humans out of thin air either, without starting out from a template.

No, I'm referring the the fact that all of the galaxy's bacta is processed from naturally-occuring biotics on a single planet. It's abundantly clear that they don't know precisely how bacta works, only how to grow it.

[Sikon]

Do we know the real age limit of people in SW? Last time I checked, the only person who died of old age was...Yoda.

We see some of the same human characters in the prequels and later. They look like they aged as much as terrestrial humans in the thirty years between the events of TPM and ANH. "Eternal life" is not very much good without "eternal youth," so this suggests they lack effective life extension technology.

Why are they not living forever without the secret of Darth Plagueis and Light Side ascension and all that?

That is a good question. Even some animals today live up to hundreds of years (some types of urchins, rockfish, etc.), so 25000 years of advancement should have resulted in life extension allowing people to live at least centuries.

More than life extension is limited.

Star Wars technology should allow intelligence-augmented (IA) cyborgs with capabilities far beyond baseline humans, along with astronomically powerful artificial intelligence.

They can easily make droids with approximately human intelligence, equivalent to a brain with 10^11 neurons. Yet their intelligence happens to always be no more than that particular order of magnitude. A single order of magnitude less would make droids have around the intelligence of dogs. Two orders of magnitude less would be rat-level intelligence. With quadrillions of human-level droid brains being produced, developing one orders of magnitude more intelligent should be possible with a fraction of the total resources of a major galactic corporation or other entity. Yet nothing equivalent is ever developed. The situation seems a little like having no billion-dollar computer in today's world be even a single order of magnitude more capable than a common thousand-dollar computer. Much more powerful AI brains and extraordinarily capable IA "cyborgs" should be produced sooner or later, in much less than 25000 years.

An in-universe answer is not clear. Even if the Republic forbid the needed research & development, its effectiveness and control was not sufficiently universal.

[PainRack]

Nothing, so long as you can hold Thyferra. But as we've seen, depending on a single planet for an entire galaxy's supply is problematic.

Tales of the New Republic tells us that Thyferra is not the planet sole producer of bacta. While the license is held by the cartels, they have set up refineries elsewhere.

Well yes, actually. But if you're right and he was attached to his body (as Vader undoubtedly was), why not a total organic restoration? The parsimonious answer is that they can't, and that the complete borging of Vader and Grievous was the best they could do.

Functionality may count. If they were to regrow an entire arm, it could very well had cost months of therapy for him to relearn how to use it. For grevious, we learn that Grevious injuries were inflicted and exaggerated by Sidious and Dooku, so as to exploit him further.

No, I'm referring the the fact that all of the galaxy's bacta is processed from naturally-occuring biotics on a single planet. It's abundantly clear that they don't know precisely how bacta works, only how to grow it.

Its a lifeform........ Obviously you need the lifeform in the first place to grow more!

Or are you arguing about artificial replacements? Despite the horrible plot, The New Rebellion tells us of such devices, which were supplanted by bacta.

[PainRack]

That is a good question. Even some animals today live up to hundreds of years (some types of urchins, rockfish, etc.), so 25000 years of advancement should have resulted in life extension allowing people to live at least centuries.

Perhaps quality of life is affected when life is extended, as such, many ppl choose not to.

Drastic life altering surgery and nanotech is apparently not allowed, so, that removes one venue for life extension right there. We don't see events outside the galactic norm, so, we can't find an example where there is.

However, Han Solo active lifestyle in the NJO and his endurance does suggest a limited form of such capabilities. Luke and Leia are probably anamolies, but even Drayson and Rieekan was reasonably active in their old age. Granted, this could be the result of a healthy lifestyle, but that can hardly applies to Han.

Star Wars technology should allow intelligence-augmented (IA) cyborgs with capabilities far beyond baseline humans, along with astronomically powerful artificial intelligence.

We do see such capabilities. R2D2 hacking abilities, Lobot data search and recognition abilities as seen in the BFC,

They can easily make droids with approximately human intelligence, equivalent to a brain with 10^11 neurons. Yet their intelligence happens to always be no more than that particular order of magnitude.

Droids capable of calculating the odds of surviving an asteroid run or an attack on a star destroyer is not human level intelligence.

[Sikon]

That is a good question. Even some animals today live up to hundreds of years (some types of urchins, rockfish, etc.), so 25000 years of advancement should have resulted in life extension allowing people to live at least centuries.

Perhaps quality of life is affected when life is extended, as such, many ppl choose not to.

Good life extension technology would have to be "eternal youth" about as much as "eternal life." That is not only because anything else would be unpleasant but also because anything else wouldn't work for long.

Nobody simply dies from "old age" directly by itself. (For example, the many people who died from "old age" in 19th-century books actually either died from cancer or another cause). However, deterioration from aging not only reduces quality of life but also drastically increases the rate of diseases. For example, to use an example from the terrestrial world, on the order of 99% of cancer deaths occur to people over 50. Remaining life expectancy drops drastically once there is sufficient deterioration from aging.

Essentially you seem to be suggesting that they don't have good life extension technology, which does seem to be the case.

Drastic life altering surgery and nanotech is apparently not allowed, so, that removes one venue for life extension right there. We don't see events outside the galactic norm, so, we can't find an example where there is.

The easiest means of life extension might involve gene therapy and/or genetic engineering, possibly supplemented with cloning replacement organs, etc. Still, nanotech certainly is another possible route with great potential.

For the necessary techniques to be forbidden by the Republic is a good attempt at an in-universe explanation, but there are still issues. Seeing family members slowly die from preventable cause is plenty of motivation for many to commit illegal acts. The Republic had relatively weak control over its member worlds, nothing like the kind of absolute tyranny that would tend to be needed to prevent use of effective life extension technology if it existed anywhere in the galaxy.

However, Han Solo active lifestyle in the NJO and his endurance does suggest a limited form of such capabilities. Luke and Leia are probably anamolies, but even Drayson and Rieekan was reasonably active in their old age. Granted, this could be the result of a healthy lifestyle, but that can hardly applies to Han.

That would be plausible, if the technology is only very limited. As pointed out in my earlier post, the rates of character aging between the TPM-ROTS prequels and the ANH-ROTJ saga suggest their technology is not very effective at life extension.

Star Wars technology should allow intelligence-augmented (IA) cyborgs with capabilities far beyond baseline humans, along with astronomically powerful artificial intelligence.

We do see such capabilities. R2D2 hacking abilities, Lobot data search and recognition abilities as seen in the BFC.

They can easily make droids with approximately human intelligence, equivalent to a brain with 10^11 neurons. Yet their intelligence happens to always be no more than that particular order of magnitude.

Droids capable of calculating the odds of surviving an asteroid run or an attack on a star destroyer is not human level intelligence.

There are some cases of droids exceeding humans in specialized areas, analogous to how a terrestrial supercomputer or even a pocket calculator can sometimes do likewise. However, I am instead talking about vastly greater general intelligence compared to humans.

Extraordinary intelligence is not required to come up with an estimate of odds, particularly when the estimate is utterly wrong. Threepio estimating 3720 to 1 odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field actually demonstrates the opposite, though he may have been just trying to scare Han Solo as suggested in the discussion in this thread. The situation depends upon too many uncertain factors to make a meaningful judgement with 3 significant figures. Note the Millennium Falcon did survive, and the most likely explanation is not astronomical luck but rather that the numerical figure was nonsense.

Besides, more importantly, a truely hyperintelligent AI would be utterly different than just having powerful number-crunching abilities.

Imagine the difference between the greatest genius in human history and someone of much below-average intelligence. Then magnify it many times over. Imagine a hyperintelligent droid brain not equivalent to the 10^11 neuron human brain but rather to 10^13 neurons, 10^14 neurons, or more. There is a clear progression in mental capabilities comparing a goldfish with on the order of 10^7 neurons, a dog with around 10^10 neurons, and a human with around 10^11 neurons. I don't know exactly what hyperintelligent AI could accomplish, but such might often make a human genius look unintelligent. Vastly greater general intelligence would mean a hyperintelligent AI admiral might beat Grand Admiral Thrawn; hyperintelligent AI engineers might advance technology faster than human engineers; etc.

For example, hyperintelligent AI might manage to develop and deploy factories that rapidly self-replicated, limited only by the raw resources of a region of the galaxy.

[Noble Ire]

Sikon, I don't quite understand why you assume that computer technology can continue to advance indefinitely, even in a galaxy as old and as advanced as SW. It is entirely possible that there are certain caps in various fields of technology that are insurmountable, if only because of the fundamental laws of the universe; the relative technological stasis of technology in the GFFA indicates that they are either approaching this state, or are at least in a prolonged period of stagnancy that can't be broken without a truly singular scientific development. Perhaps the droid intelligences of the Empire and the Republic are where they are simply because it is not possible, for the time, at least, for them to be anymore powerful. After all, just because more formidable AIs exist in other fictional universes exist doesn't mean that they are always translatable to one such as the GFFA. True, the terrestrial advance of computer technology might indicate other wise, but that assumes two conditions, neither of which is guaranteed; that such explosive development will continue on indefinitely (and that we will be able to reach hypothesized computational levels at all), and that such raw computing power would be translatable into a sapient intelligence.

Likewise, it is possible that there is simply a cap to medical advancement; perhaps there are as-of-yet unforeseen difficulties with extending human life beyond a certain point that even the civilizations of the SW universe haven't been able to surmount.

[Sikon]

Sikon, I don't quite understand why you assume that computer technology can continue to advance indefinitely, even in a galaxy as old and as advanced as SW. It is entirely possible that there are certain caps in various fields of technology that are insurmountable, if only because of the fundamental laws of the universe; the relative technological stasis of technology in the GFFA indicates that they are either approaching this state, or are at least in a prolonged period of stagnancy that can't be broken without a truly singular scientific development. Perhaps the droid intelligences of the Empire and the Republic are where they are simply because it is not possible, for the time, at least, for them to be anymore powerful. After all, just because more formidable AIs exist in other fictional universes exist doesn't mean that they are always translatable to one such as the GFFA.

I don't expect technology to advance absolutely indefinitely. However, I do find it strange that quadrillions of sapient droid AIs equivalent to 10^11 neuron brains are produced without ever producing even a few equivalent to a 10^13 neuron brain or greater.

The same technological level which allows a human-equivalent droid brain of centimeters in dimension could be applied to making a droid brain meters in dimension. Having thousands of times the volume, such could be more capable.* No physical laws could possibly prohibit such. Indeed, even at sub-lightspeed, signals could go across such a giant droid brain in vastly less time than nerve signals across a human brain, so such a hyperintelligent droid brain could think fast enough. A giant droid brain one meter or larger in diameter wouldn't fit within the body of a regular droid. However, it could simply remote-control a smaller droid body as an avatar through telepresence.

The size of human brains is limited by factors including the head size of a baby to which the mother can give birth, among other obvious biological limitations. For example, a key part of hominid evolution is believed to have been the changes that allowed babies to be born with a large head (brain) size.

Yet the biological, evolutionary reasons which have kept human brains at 10^11 neurons are not at all applicable to artificial sapients, so there is no reason they have to coincidentally stop at exactly the same level.

* The easiest technique for developing hyperintelligent AI might not be a sudden jump by orders of magnitude in size but rather a more gradual increase. However, that would still lead to the same result within not too many years.

True, the terrestrial advance of computer technology might indicate other wise, but that assumes two conditions, neither of which is guaranteed; that such explosive development will continue on indefinitely (and that we will be able to reach hypothesized computational levels at all), and that such raw computing power would be translatable into a sapient intelligence.

The binary programmed computers of today are nothing like biological brains. I doubt such could be made sapient regardless of future performance increases without first making major design changes. The development of sapient intelligence is utterly based on learning. For example, the brain of a baby starts with at most around 1E9 bits of brain structure instructions in DNA (3E9 base pairs total), probably less, yet the human brain reaches perhaps the equivalent of 1E15 byes after exposure to the environment, learning, and the development of sapience. That is a factor of millions difference, dependent upon the ability to learn.

However, the GFFA already has figured out how to make sapient AIs (droids). Indeed, their droids develop personalities more as they learn, though that is reduced by the frequency of immorally giving them memory wipes.

The GFFA also already have technology which is the equivalent of more than enough biological neurons per unit volume. Much bigger, smarter droid brains could be made with that technology.

Likewise, it is possible that there is simply a cap to medical advancement; perhaps there are as-of-yet unforeseen difficulties with extending human life beyond a certain point that even the civilizations of the SW universe haven't been able to surmount.

We are in a situation analogous to a 19th-century scientist contemplating the possibility of future technology allowing heavier-than-air human flight ... while looking at birds.

It is known that greater lifespans are at least scientifically possible, even if not technologically possible so far. Extending lifespan might involve people only looking the same on the outside and not having the same original human DNA, organs, etc., but that is not really a problem. Much less than 25000 years of advancement should allow effective life extension. Admittedly, though, the only absolute proof will be when it is obtained.

As suggested in my earlier posts, the GFFA apparently lacks effective life extension technology. The best in-universe answer might be a lack of trying, as even in the real-world nobody spends any billions of dollars directly on life-extension research. Diseases primarily indirectly resulting from aging deterioration are massively researched (i.e. cancer), but one is more likely to hear "cure cancer" as a national research goal than "cure aging."

[Noble Ire]

I don't expect technology to advance absolutely indefinitely. However, I do find it strange that quadrillions of sapient droid AIs equivalent to 10^11 neuron brains are produced without ever producing even a few equivalent to a 10^13 neuron brain or greater.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but does an increase in neuron number always induce increased intelligence? I'm not particularly well-versed in that area of biology.

The same technological level which allows a human-equivalent droid brain of centimeters in dimension could be applied to making a droid brain meters in dimension. Having thousands of times the volume, such could be more capable.* No physical laws could possibly prohibit such. Indeed, even at sub-lightspeed, signals could go across such a giant droid brain in vastly less time than nerve signals across a human brain, so such a hyperintelligent droid brain could think fast enough. A giant droid brain one meter or larger in diameter wouldn't fit within the body of a regular droid. However, it could simply remote-control a smaller droid body as an avatar through telepresence.

Upon condulting a few guides, there are actually a few "droids" that do transcend lesser models, both in size and processing power. The BRT supercomputers of Obrao Sakai and the space station mind Master-Com (who did employ remote bodies, as you suggest) are massive and correspondantly. They are tasked with extremely high volume and capacity work loads (archive maintainence/planetary management and space station upkeep respectively), and their true abilities are undoubtedly beyond those of less purpose-built droids.

[Sikon]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but does an increase in neuron number always induce increased intelligence? I'm not particularly well-versed in that area of biology.

Certainly the topic is complicated. For example, humans are exceptional not only in brain mass but also in the proportion of the brain devoted to higher thinking, as opposed to motor/sensory functions. A large animal can have a relatively large brain without as much intelligence as the brain size alone would suggest if most of the brain mass is merely devoted to motor/sensory functions ("body management"). As another example, the slight variance in brain size between different humans is overwhelmed by other factors, including variances in learning during their upbringing (environment), so relative human intelligence certainly can not be accurately judged by head size.

However, huge differences in brain size and neuron number do lead to consistent results, when properly utilized, as happens in natural evolution. An order of magnitude difference allows much greater potential. For example, the smartest dog could clearly never be as smart as the smartest human; one can be sure that goldfish are far less capable than rats; etc. The chart here shows the progression.

Without proper design and learning, a large AI brain wouldn't even become sapient, but, with such, a large one could vastly exceed the intelligence of a small human-level sapient AI droid brain built with the same technology.

Upon condulting a few guides, there are actually a few "droids" that do transcend lesser models, both in size and processing power. The BRT supercomputers of Obrao Sakai and the space station mind Master-Com (who did employ remote bodies, as you suggest) are massive and correspondantly. They are tasked with extremely high volume and capacity work loads (archive maintainence/planetary management and space station upkeep respectively), and their true abilities are undoubtedly beyond those of less purpose-built droids.

That is interesting. I hadn't heard of such. However, they don't sound like they have sufficiently general-purpose intelligence, lacking true hyperintelligence.

To use an analogy:
The most powerful terrestrial supercomputer is petaflop-level. That could be estimated as raw computational power equivalent to at least around a rat's brain, possibly up to beyond a human brain, depending upon the estimate for how many flops are equivalent to simulating a given number of neurons. Yet the supercomputers basically just do computations. A terrestrial supercomputer has no ability to learn or otherwise function like an animal brain, and it is merely a high-performance binary computer running its programming.

A GFFA supercomputer may be totally different, as suggested by operation of droid bodies. However, compared to regular droids, those supercomputers sound like they have the equivalent of extra "computer capability" without the equivalent of vastly extra "brain capability" or far greater general intelligence. Extra number-crunching computational ability is not like the difference between a mouse and a chimpanzee.

A droid brain truely far beyond human intelligence could in the right environment learn to be a better general than a human genius, or a better engineer, or almost anything.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Given that the most one could possibly go is a Quantum Computer, the question that begets is how far can the Quantum Computer develop. Given that there are many possible implementations of the Quantum Computer, it is hard to guess what sort of possible performance one can get, although the Quantum Computer can reputedly handle algorithms that do not have "polynomial" time. That aside, computer raw power is fine, but the algorithm efficiency is an important thing to note.

On the issue of biotech, there should be some inherent limitation to genetic technology and what not. Perhaps, in the Star Wars universe, that limit was reached, and perhaps the cultural bias has a part to play as well.

[PainRack]

Good life extension technology would have to be "eternal youth" about as much as "eternal life." That is not only because anything else would be unpleasant but also because anything else wouldn't work for long.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the nanotech and cloning wank about how new organs and the like will infinitely extend life forever. Quality of life will certainly be improved with medicial advances but without more concrete examples, I'm not going to speculate to infinity.

Essentially you seem to be suggesting that they don't have good life extension technology, which does seem to be the case.

I'm saying that quality of life is seperate from life expectancy. Any examples of eternal youth suggests constant applications of such technology, starting from youth. Which means that just sheer cost itself will drive this out the price bracket of most people, unless nanotech lives up to its promise.

The easiest means of life extension might involve gene therapy and/or genetic engineering, possibly supplemented with cloning replacement organs, etc. Still, nanotech certainly is another possible route with great potential.

Until we get to the stage where gene therapy and genetic engineering can affect an adult and correct microscopic physical faults, I leave that to the arena of speculation. For example, you do know that gene therapy isn't going to correct the many physical wear and tear your bone structure suffers in the course of a lifetime, right? And to do that would be to tweak how your body regenerates itself, and even then......

To put it simply, while its easy to see how technology can extend our lives, its much more difficult to see how it can improve it as age goes by.

That would be plausible, if the technology is only very limited. As pointed out in my earlier post, the rates of character aging between the TPM-ROTS prequels and the ANH-ROTJ saga suggest their technology is not very effective at life extension.

I'm sorry, but Obiwan physical activity at his age is relatively rare, not to mention his health, especially when one factors in his environment. But he is a force assisted human, so obviously, its moot.

There are some cases of droids exceeding humans in specialized areas, analogous to how a terrestrial supercomputer or even a pocket calculator can sometimes do likewise. However, I am instead talking about vastly greater general intelligence compared to humans.

Define greater general intelligence.

Extraordinary intelligence is not required to come up with an estimate of odds, particularly when the estimate is utterly wrong. Threepio estimating 3720 to 1 odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field actually demonstrates the opposite, though he may have been just trying to scare Han Solo as suggested in the discussion in The situation depends upon too many uncertain factors to make a meaningful judgement with 3 significant figures. Note the Millennium Falcon did survive, and the most likely explanation is not astronomical luck but rather that the numerical figure was nonsense.

Of course, R2 also compiles odds for Luke survival in the cold. Furthermore, this ignores that R2 hacking abilities, Lobot search and pattern recognition abilities are above the norm.

Hell, C3PO has on various occasions learnt new languages and dialects.

For example, hyperintelligent AI might manage to develop and deploy factories that rapidly self-replicated, limited only by the raw resources of a region of the galaxy.

Your post is just a whole lot of "it should have". You got to set some parameters, otherwise, its going to be impossible to prove or disprove your point. As it is, with the advent of the Star Forge and World Devastators, your so call "should be able to " is already moot.

[PainRack]

A droid brain truely far beyond human intelligence could in the right environment learn to be a better general than a human genius, or a better engineer, or almost anything.

We assume that the great Droid rebellion etched in the New Essential Chronology, the fact that even thinking about escape would burn the logic circuits in C3PO does not prevent the development of intellligence.

The problem is, we HAVE seen such examples. C3PO can learn new language

[FTeik]

The majority of droids are regularily mind-whipped to prevent them from becoming truly sentient.

There was also some great Droid-revolution a few thousand years before the PT/OT, IIRC.

DFR explains, that technology/cultural preferances moved away from large, all-powerful super-computer to hundreds of thousands of smaller, specialized droids after the Katana-desaster.

Aside from that we have artificial intelligences. The "Will" as the commanding AI of the Dreadnought Palpatine's Eye is an example.

[Sikon]

Good life extension technology would have to be "eternal youth" about as much as "eternal life." That is not only because anything else would be unpleasant but also because anything else wouldn't work for long.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the nanotech and cloning wank about how new organs and the like will infinitely extend life forever. Quality of life will certainly be improved with medicial advances but without more concrete examples, I'm not going to speculate to infinity.

Extending life literally infinitely is not what I am arguing as obtainable, but see the discussion later in this post.

I'm saying that quality of life is seperate from life expectancy.

Consider a world in which almost everybody died by 30 years of age, having major aging deterioration start by age 20. Really imagine what it would be like to live with that life expectancy.

Some would call such a lesser quality of life than if the life expectancy was 80 years.

One can do the same comparison with a life expectancy of 80 years versus 200 years, if aging deterioration was decreased in the latter case ... and so on for other life expectancy figures.

Any examples of eternal youth suggests constant applications of such technology, starting from youth. Which means that just sheer cost itself will drive this out the price bracket of most people, unless nanotech lives up to its promise.

Until we get to the stage where gene therapy and genetic engineering can affect an adult and correct microscopic physical faults, I leave that to the arena of speculation. For example, you do know that gene therapy isn't going to correct the many physical wear and tear your bone structure suffers in the course of a lifetime, right? And to do that would be to tweak how your body regenerates itself, and even then......

To put it simply, while its easy to see how technology can extend our lives, its much more difficult to see how it can improve it as age goes by.

Costs do not necessarily have to be high. For example, if a droid facility could be made for the equivalent of $100000 and then amortized over 10 years of operation (90000 hours), its equivalent amortized capital cost might be on the order of a dollar a hour. Better yet, genetic engineering could cost nothing in marginal cost, as a person would pass the genes on to their descendants. Alternatively, have self-replicating technology like a cheap injection of nanobots.

When dealing with a challenging engineering problem, one technique is to break it down into smaller problems, solve each individually, then combine the solutions.

For example, consider possibilities for decreasing aging deterioration of skin. While growing new skin and having surgical replacement could work, there may be more elegant alternatives. One might be gradual cell replacement. Cells normally die and get replaced. Using microscopic robots or maybe even just equipment with many microscopic needles, replace a tiny fraction of the original cells with young, new, and improved cells. Perhaps creating a slight additional rate of apoptosis (regulated cell death), ensure that the old cells get gradually replaced over a period of months to years by the new ones that have more frequently divided. Another method could be gene therapy. Yet another possibility would involve no ongoing, active intervention at all: genetic engineering that would last for future generations. Study the cells of animals living for up to hundreds of years with a lesser rate of aging deterioration than humans (some turtles, rockfish, etc.).

Continuing the example, after first merely figuring out how to decrease senescence in skin, move on to other tissues one by one. Then combine the techniques at the end. Perhaps first experiment on some short-lived animals that age and die in several years, trying to modify them into longer-lived creatures.

The brain itself is perhaps the greatest challenge. Although possibilities range up to gradual nanotech neuron replacement, stimulating neurogenesis may have much potential, countering the many billions of neurons lost in senescence. Fortunately, the brain appears to be greatly redundant and adaptive, so gradual neuron replacement might not be analogous to replacing the hard drive in a regular computer, instead more analogous to replacing a single hard drive in a massive RAID array which would later copy information backed up elsewhere onto it.

In regard to bone, possibilities include manipulating cells (osteoblasts) to add more bone mass. Besides, consider the overall picture: In the end, the body aside from the brain mainly just fulfills the role of giving the brain two-way nerve communication (sensory input, motor signals output) and blood circulation supplying oxygen, glucose, etc. Admittedly, people don't want to end up with their brain in an artificial body, though the GFFA has the main technological advancements needed. Yet, if needed, subtle partial replacement of some bodily components like bones with nanotech or other means might be done without any noticeable change in appearance. However, as previously suggested, such may be unnecessary.

Certainly it is easier to look for problems than to find solutions. Imagine the difficulty for someone in the 19th century trying to figure out the precise details of how to obtain heavier-than-air human flight, even though it was clearly scientifically possible as illustrated by birds. A person a couple thousand years ago would have a still harder time. I am at a disadvantage here compared to what the best scientists out of quintillions of people could eventually figure out and accomplish with technology thousands of years more advanced. However, longer lifespans and a lesser rate of aging deterioration are scientifically possible, even illustrated by some creatures.

The fundamental reason different animals age at their respective rates has to do with past evolution. Humans would already live longer except for that natural selection didn't favor long life when survival even to age 40 usually didn't happen. Fitness at age 70 was disconnected from reproductive success.

As said in one of my earlier posts, there is no absolute proof that effective life extension is possible until it is obtained. However, a good impartial observer of this discussion would guess that it is possible.

I'm sorry, but Obiwan physical activity at his age is relatively rare, not to mention his health, especially when one factors in his environment. But he is a force assisted human, so obviously, its moot.

Yes, use of the Force makes a difference, like Yoda vs. Count Dooku in AOTC.

There are some cases of droids exceeding humans in specialized areas, analogous to how a terrestrial supercomputer or even a pocket calculator can sometimes do likewise. However, I am instead talking about vastly greater general intelligence compared to humans.

Define greater general intelligence.

Much greater general intelligence means superior effectiveness, understanding, and decision-making in most intellectual tasks and occupations. Consider the difference between a genius and a person far below average intelligence. Then greatly magnify that difference.

Consider what was happening with hominid evolution up to humans, then just don't treat baseline homo sapiens intelligence as the absolute maximum possible.

Extraordinary intelligence is not required to come up with an estimate of odds, particularly when the estimate is utterly wrong. Threepio estimating 3720 to 1 odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field actually demonstrates the opposite, though he may have been just trying to scare Han Solo as suggested in the discussion in The situation depends upon too many uncertain factors to make a meaningful judgement with 3 significant figures. Note the Millennium Falcon did survive, and the most likely explanation is not astronomical luck but rather that the numerical figure was nonsense.

Of course, R2 also compiles odds for Luke survival in the cold. Furthermore, this ignores that R2 hacking abilities, Lobot search and pattern recognition abilities are above the norm.

Hell, C3PO has on various occasions learnt new languages and dialects.

For the odds estimate being judged as superhuman intelligence, my response would be practically a repeat of my original quote. See the above mention of what much greater general intelligence would mean.

A droid brain truely far beyond human intelligence could in the right environment learn to be a better general than a human genius, or a better engineer, or almost anything.

We assume that the great Droid rebellion etched in the New Essential Chronology, the fact that even thinking about escape would burn the logic circuits in C3PO does not prevent the development of intellligence.

The problem is, we HAVE seen such examples. C3PO can learn new language

The enormous potential personal benefit from creating a hyperintelligent AI means that some corporations or other entities have motivation to do so. Such is like an unpredictable genie that many might fear to release, but sooner or later someone would do so.

C3PO does not show general intelligence far beyond human level. My earlier genius vs. moron analogy should not underestimate the difference possible, considering that only four orders of magnitude difference in brain mass is what separates humans and goldfish. As implied before during my discussion with Noble Ire, the biological, evolutionary reasons limiting human brains to the performance of a bit more than 1000 cubic centimeters of neural tissue are not applicable to artificial sapients.

For example, hyperintelligent AI might manage to develop and deploy factories that rapidly self-replicated, limited only by the raw resources of a region of the galaxy.

Your post is just a whole lot of "it should have". You got to set some parameters, otherwise, its going to be impossible to prove or disprove your point. As it is, with the advent of the Star Forge and World Devastators, your so call "should be able to " is already moot.

Let's see what would be the potential of what I mentioned, then compare to the Star Forge and World Devastators. Rapid self-replication limited only by raw resources would mean a factory replicating in months would double 30 times in a few years, giving a billion times the industrial output, and then continue so on, aside from resource limits...

The planets in the solar system mass on the order of 3E27 kg. Conservatively assume suitable resources averaging almost two orders of magnitude less per star system for the 200 to 400 billion star systems in a galaxy like the Milky Way or the GFFA. Just assume 10% is processed by the self-replicating factories. After all, we don't want them to consume too many planets, moons, etc. Even so, that gives an estimate for their industrial output of 1E36 kg.

This estimate of 1E36 kg from self-replicating industrial production is on the order of a million times less than the 1E42 kg to 1E43 kg mass of a 100,000+ light-year diameter galaxy. That is because only a small portion of the total non-gaseous material outside of stars is expected to be used. Although "rock" is composed primarily of oxygen, iron, aluminum, and other useful elements, the factories are only expected to utilize part of the total, despite being vastly beyond the kind of hypothetical self-replicating factory studied by NASA.

Galactic population is uncertain, but 1000 quadrillion (1 quintillion) would be a relatively high-end estimate: 1E18 people and aliens. The self-replicating technology thus allows a level of wealth corresponding to on the order of a quadrillion metric tons of industrial output per person.

Such would allow an astronomical number of structures, artificial worlds, etc. with a combined volume quadrillions of times that of the 3.8E17 cubic meter volume second Death Star. Whether or not a correspondingly astronomical number of hyperdrive-equipped warships could be built is uncertain; they may require uncommon materials in their engines, armor, etc. For example, whether or not Tibanna gas for turbolasers is comprised of ordinary elements is uncertain, and the relative performance of alternatives is also unknown. However, obviously commercial and residential wealth could be astronomical.

We can gain some idea of the wealth of the galactic population from glimpses of Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, etc. For example, we can see the size and nature of their residences. Nothing suggests wealth is even a millionth as much. Indeed, consider that a millionth of 1E36kg would still be industrial output on the order of a billion tons per person for the quintillion-person population.

Thus, the GFFA does not have wealth corresponding to deploying rapidly self-replicating factories limited only by raw resources. That is the observation behind my original disputed statement implying such technology would be of great value.

The Star Forge was a cool plot element in KOTOR, but what did it accomplish in comparison? It apparently produced some thousands of ships, using the Dark Side in some manner. It wasn't self-replicating. Still, it illustrates that GFFA technology can draw material from a star. That raises the possibility of the self-replicating factories I described instead having an eventual industrial output up to orders of magnitude more than the 1E36 kg used in the preceding discussion.

World Devastators had much potential, but their limited use by Palpatine didn't change the GFFA's overall level of industrial output. Besides, the ultimate goal of EU Palpatine was quite a bit different from raising per capita wealth...

--------------

The GFFA has some awesome technology and some great stories, but they don't represent the ultimate level possible in all endeavors after 25000 years of development.

People can fly higher than birds, lift more than gorillas, and travel faster than cheetahs. Maximum obtainable life expectancy being always less than that of some other animals is doubtful. Neither would AI technology probably jump all hurdles to producing quadrillions of homo-sapiens-level sapients but then suddenly coincidentally forever stop there.

Trying to explain GFFA limits from cultural trends is perhaps the best in-universe explanation possible, although lack of historical uniformity or universal Republic control makes such questionable.

[PainRack]

Consider a world in which almost everybody died by 30 years of age, having major aging deterioration start by age 20. Really imagine what it would be like to live with that life expectancy.

Some would call such a lesser quality of life than if the life expectancy was 80 years.

One can do the same comparison with a life expectancy of 80 years versus 200 years, if aging deterioration was decreased in the latter case ... and so on for other life expectancy figures.

My contention is that we don't have hard data for showing that you can improve the quality of life at the age of 100 plus cheaply.

What you're contending is that SW life expectancy is similar to humans today, because we see humans age at the same rate as today. Its entirely possible that life can be extended, and remain active and healthy, but still look old.

After all, sun damage and the like is not going to be cheap to reverse.

Certainly it is easier to look for problems than to find solutions. Imagine the difficulty for someone in the 19th century trying to figure out the precise details of how to obtain heavier-than-air human flight, even though it was clearly scientifically possible as illustrated by birds. A person a couple thousand years ago would have a still harder time. I am at a disadvantage here compared to what the best scientists out of quintillions of people could eventually figure out and accomplish with technology thousands of years more advanced. However, longer lifespans and a lesser rate of aging deterioration are scientifically possible, even illustrated by some creatures.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. What I'm arguing is your contention that these anti-aging technologies are going to be cheap and easily accessible to the general public and the contention that we can gauge the effectiveness of life expectancy based on how old they look.

Yes, use of the Force makes a difference, like Yoda vs. Count Dooku in AOTC.

We seen other examples. Han Solo is one. Even Boba Fett.
Lando Calrissan is still reasonably fit and active and Admiral Drayson, a "middle" aged man was depicted as a fit runner in BFC.

What we don't have is a statically significant figure.

Much greater general intelligence means superior effectiveness, understanding, and decision-making in most intellectual tasks and occupations. Consider the difference between a genius and a person far below average intelligence. Then greatly magnify that difference.

Consider what was happening with hominid evolution up to humans, then just don't treat baseline homo sapiens intelligence as the absolute maximum possible.

Except without some kind of operational parameters, its going to be IMPOSSIBLE to disprove your statement. Again, we shown examples of intelligence and data recognition above human norm, you're rejecting it because its not "good" enough.

The enormous potential personal benefit from creating a hyperintelligent AI means that some corporations or other entities have motivation to do so. Such is like an unpredictable genie that many might fear to release, but sooner or later someone would do so.

C3PO does not show general intelligence far beyond human level. My earlier genius vs. moron analogy should not underestimate the difference possible, considering that only four orders of magnitude difference in brain mass is what separates humans and goldfish. As implied before during my discussion with Noble Ire, the biological, evolutionary reasons limiting human brains to the performance of a bit more than 1000 cubic centimeters of neural tissue are not applicable to artificial sapients.

And unless you absolutely believe that deciphering a language and actually being able to converse in it, much less understand its nuances and cultural baggage is a simple process, C3PO has displayed very high intelligence.

We already know that droids can make music, droids can suggest tactics, droids can think and innovate on what to do and etc. All the major classic definitions of intelligence, whether you wish to use 7 or 12 have been seen one way or another.

What is going on now is you're simultaneously rejecting all such examples as being "human normal", without defining what would be defined as a super-genius.

Let's see what would be the potential of what I mentioned, then compare to the Star Forge and World Devastators. Rapid self-replication limited only by raw resources would mean a factory replicating in months would double 30 times in a few years, giving a billion times the industrial output, and then continue so on, aside from resource limits...

And such no limits analysis is already disproven in real life, otherwise, we be crawling in cockroaches and ants.

Power, logistics and just simply supply and demand economics are all limits that you ignored.

Not to mention such nanotechnology may very well not be superior to normal industry on a commercial scale.

We can gain some idea of the wealth of the galactic population from glimpses of Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, etc. For example, we can see the size and nature of their residences. Nothing suggests wealth is even a millionth as much. Indeed, consider that a millionth of 1E36kg would still be industrial output on the order of a billion tons per person for the quintillion-person population.

Thus, the GFFA does not have wealth corresponding to deploying rapidly self-replicating factories limited only by raw resources. That is the observation behind my original disputed statement implying such technology would be of great value.

And in a universe where a starship cost only 8 times more than a landspeeder, you're obviously neglecting how distorted SW economics are already, from droid labour.

[NecronLord]

And such no limits analysis is already disproven in real life, otherwise, we be crawling in cockroaches and ants.

Unlike world devastators, ants are not able to directly make dirt into new ants. They're limited by predation and availability of suitable food, which limits them a certain population density they can not exceed without starvation, based on available food, overgrazing, travel times to and from nests, and so forth. None of these really apply to World Devastator type constructors.

[Sikon]

My contention is that we don't have hard data for showing that you can improve the quality of life at the age of 100 plus cheaply.

What you're contending is that SW life expectancy is similar to humans today, because we see humans age at the same rate as today. Its entirely possible that life can be extended, and remain active and healthy, but still look old.

After all, sun damage and the like is not going to be cheap to reverse.

Certainly it is easier to look for problems than to find solutions. Imagine the difficulty for someone in the 19th century trying to figure out the precise details of how to obtain heavier-than-air human flight, even though it was clearly scientifically possible as illustrated by birds. A person a couple thousand years ago would have a still harder time. I am at a disadvantage here compared to what the best scientists out of quintillions of people could eventually figure out and accomplish with technology thousands of years more advanced. However, longer lifespans and a lesser rate of aging deterioration are scientifically possible, even illustrated by some creatures.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. What I'm arguing is your contention that these anti-aging technologies are going to be cheap and easily accessible to the general public and the contention that we can gauge the effectiveness of life expectancy based on how old they look.

Let's put it this way: Do we hear anything implying humans typically live for centuries? Not that I have ever seen.

Stories and websites suggesting the ages or years of birth of GFFA human characters give information corresponding to rather limited lifespans.

For example, if one goes to www.starwars.com/databank, and looks through their character databank, one certainly does not see a bunch of people who were born a century before the events of TPM and then active in the post-ROTJ era.

There are animals that age and die in several years. Should one assume that sun damage or anything else would make it absolutely impossible to genetically modify those animals to live longer if such was a major goal with advanced technology? I think not.

As I pointed out before, costs for human life extension would not necessarily be unaffordable. Genetic engineering has zero on-going costs after being done once, lasting for all future generations. The alternative or supplemental techniques using microscopic robots could cost little if they were self-replicating. Even the hypothetical cell replacement procedure on skin with microscopic needles of my previous post does not have any astronomical intrinsic cost, particularly not at the kind of economy of scale obtained by giving the same treatment like vaccinations to quadrillions of people. Cheap medical droid labor could also help as implied in the example in my last post.

We seen other examples. Han Solo is one. Even Boba Fett.
Lando Calrissan is still reasonably fit and active and Admiral Drayson, a "middle" aged man was depicted as a fit runner in BFC.

What we don't have is a statically significant figure.

See my above discussion of the lack of evidence for people typically living for centuries. I actually suspect Star Wars writers are a bit like Star Trek writers in terms of imagining future medical care helping 70-year-olds be more fit but not imagining typical lifespans of centuries.

Much greater general intelligence means superior effectiveness, understanding, and decision-making in most intellectual tasks and occupations. Consider the difference between a genius and a person far below average intelligence. Then greatly magnify that difference.

Consider what was happening with hominid evolution up to humans, then just don't treat baseline homo sapiens intelligence as the absolute maximum possible.

Except without some kind of operational parameters, its going to be IMPOSSIBLE to disprove your statement. Again, we shown examples of intelligence and data recognition above human norm, you're rejecting it because its not "good" enough.

Disprove my statement? It is correct.

Do the droids you mention show vastly "superior effectiveness, understanding, and decision-making in most intellectual tasks and occupations"? No.

Seriously, nobody watching Star Wars really concludes that droids are vastly beyond human-level intelligence and make the humans look like morons in comparison. You can observe that.

And unless you absolutely believe that deciphering a language and actually being able to converse in it, much less understand its nuances and cultural baggage is a simple process, C3PO has displayed very high intelligence.

We already know that droids can make music, droids can suggest tactics, droids can think and innovate on what to do and etc. All the major classic definitions of intelligence, whether you wish to use 7 or 12 have been seen one way or another.

What is going on now is you're simultaneously rejecting all such examples as being "human normal", without defining what would be defined as a super-genius.

Is the most popular music composed by a droid who is considered a musical genius? Do droid generals typically vastly outsmart human generals? Do droid engineers innovate and design vastly better than human engineers?

Nothing suggests droids have orders of magnitude greater effective general brainpower than humans. As implied before, two or three orders of magnitude difference in neuron number is the difference between a rat and a human, so hyperintelligent AI would at a minimum be able to appear a super-genius.

And such no limits analysis is already disproven in real life, otherwise, we be crawling in cockroaches and ants.

Power, logistics and just simply supply and demand economics are all limits that you ignored.

Not to mention such nanotechnology may very well not be superior to normal industry on a commercial scale.

There is life everywhere on earth's surface where there is the appropriate combination of nutrients or energy sources and a habitable environment. The reason earth's billions of tons of plant life are limited in total area and volume is since plants depend on a combination of sunlight, air (CO2), rainfall, soil minerals, and an appropriate temperature range. Insects depend on plants for food.

Those same limits do not apply to self-replicating factories. Instead of becoming essentially a thin film over much of a planet's surface like biological life, they could in space consume the fragmented pieces of a disintegrated moon or planet. Fusion power could work. There is practically almost unlimited fuel in the atmosphere of gas giants, more than enough energy to process the desired fraction of material in a star system. If the factories didn't use fusion power, that would probably be due to using some of the astronomically powerful reactors available with GFFA technology.

EDIT: NecronLord's post makes a good argument, also relevant here.

In short, unlike biological life, self-replicating factories could consume rock, utilize nuclear power or the equivalent, and have the vastness of space be their suitable habitat.

Self-replicating factories do not necessarily mean any nanotech. Potentially there could be some nanotech use, but self-replicating nanorobots are merely a subset of self-replicating technologies possible. Though much more primitive and limited than what would be imagined in this case, the NASA self-replicating factory study linked to in my previous post is an illustration.

We can gain some idea of the wealth of the galactic population from glimpses of Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant, etc. For example, we can see the size and nature of their residences. Nothing suggests wealth is even a millionth as much. Indeed, consider that a millionth of 1E36kg would still be industrial output on the order of a billion tons per person for the quintillion-person population.

Thus, the GFFA does not have wealth corresponding to deploying rapidly self-replicating factories limited only by raw resources. That is the observation behind my original disputed statement implying such technology would be of great value.

And in a universe where a starship cost only 8 times more than a landspeeder, you're obviously neglecting how distorted SW economics are already, from droid labour.

That doesn't disprove my observation that they do not have a quadrillion quintillion tons of industrial output or remotely close. Wealth may be unevenly distributed, but some limits are still apparent.

People living in the huts and buildings we saw does not correspond to an average of a quadrillion tons of economic output per person or even a millionth as much.

[Sikon]

EDIT: I see some estimates of GFFA lifespans in the new thread here are relevant to this thread and my previous post.

[PainRack]

Let's put it this way: Do we hear anything implying humans typically live for centuries? Not that I have ever seen.

The evidence we do have however, suggest that living to the age of 100 isn't considered a rarity. Jedi Master Eriadu for example lasted until the ROTJ period, despite being old in AOTC.

For example, if one goes to url=http://www.starwars.com/databank]www.starwars.com/databank[/url], and looks through their character databank, one certainly does not see a bunch of people who were born a century before the events of TPM and then active in the post-ROTJ era.

Paelleon is the exception that may prove the norm. Furthermore, Mon Mothma survived until just before the NJO period, even after being inflicted with a deadly disease.

There are animals that age and die in several years. Should one assume that sun damage or anything else would make it absolutely impossible to genetically modify those animals to live longer if such was a major goal with advanced technology? I think not.

You mistake me. I'm saying that your attempt to date life expectancy, by judging how old a person look is misleading.

Anti-aging treatments, and by this, I mean the stuff that makes you look YOUNG all suggests stuff that will require money and constant application.

Disprove my statement? It is correct.

Do the droids you mention show vastly "superior effectiveness, understanding, and decision-making in most intellectual tasks and occupations"? No.

Again, the very FACT that C3PO is able to learn and speak a new language is EXCEPTIONAL intelligence. You're mistaking INTELLIGENCE for EQ and simply saying" they're not smart because they're not smart".

Seriously, nobody watching Star Wars really concludes that droids are vastly beyond human-level intelligence and make the humans look like morons in comparison. You can observe that.

Intelligence is defined in many dimensions, not just emotional stability and decision making capability.

For a droid which must have its sentience tampered enough that the mere idea of escape is illogical enough to burn out its brain, there obviously have to be side effects. And one of them would be rational self interests, which affects decision making.

Yet, we note that R2D2 has on many occasions displayed rational thought and decision making abilities, ranging from the ROTS to BFC.

Is the most popular music composed by a droid who is considered a musical genius? Do droid generals typically vastly outsmart human generals? Do droid engineers innovate and design vastly better than human engineers?

Nothing suggests droids have orders of magnitude greater effective general brainpower than humans. As implied before, two or three orders of magnitude difference in neuron number is the difference between a rat and a human, so hyperintelligent AI would at a minimum be able to appear a super-genius.

Except your argument is absurd. One either goes by the rate of innovation or the number of innovations, its impossible to say something is better than another in this field. How will you claim that a human general, who pulls the same outflanking maneveur as a droid displays inferior tactics? What would be more pertinant would be HOW LONG it takes the droid to decide on that tactic. Blue Max ability to outsmart Xim droids by commandering them IS intelligence, because he figured it out faster than the humans. Mechis III droid modifications, IG 88 and his compatriots adaptions to computer software display GREATER intelligence, not because their innovations are better, but because they're FASTER.

Those same limits do not apply to self-replicating factories.

Access to power doesn't limit self-replicationg factories? You sire, must be joking. Even a train of raw resources will require more and more dedicated infrastructure to it, thus serving to LIMIT industrial production.

If the factories didn't use fusion power, that would probably be due to using some of the astronomically powerful reactors available with GFFA technology.

ACCESS to such power, the power conduits and the source is a limiting factor.

Self-replicating factories do not necessarily mean any nanotech. Potentially there could be some nanotech use, but self-replicating nanorobots are merely a subset of self-replicating technologies possible. Though much more primitive and limited than what would be imagined in this case, the NASA self-replicating factory study linked to in my previous post is an illustration.

Very well. I shall assume that your self-replicationg factories uses droid labour, foundries, moulds and the like. In that case, how the fuck is it different from CIS droid manufacture and the like???!!!!???

You're arguing that DESPITE evidence to the contary, self-replicating factories don't exist because they don't create massive wealth, distributed amongst the masses. This despite the fact that the massive leap in production in the US has NOT equated to a equitable distribution of wealth appears to have escaped you. In fact, most US workers purchasing power are weaker than in the past, despite the presence of such wealth in the hands of the elite.

The very fact that a mere Queen of Naboo can comandeer an entire tower on Coruscant appears to have escaped you on the scale of wealth and its distortion on the economy.

People living in the huts and buildings we saw does not correspond to an average of a quadrillion tons of economic output per person or even a millionth as much.

That's equivalent to arguing that because we see the existence of US small farms, the US is not a fabulously rich nation with high industrial output.

Furthermore, 3, repeat, 3 people is able to maintain a farm that not only condense moisture for sale on an industrial basis, but grow CROPS for sale AND their own use.

3 ppl to cover what must be a large area and a huge workload.......... Possible because of droid labour and its distortion on the economy and wealth. Hiring a farmhand is more expensive than buying a droid and its maintenance, this despite the fact that a droid is approximately 1/100 the cost of a starship.

[Sikon]

The evidence we do have however, suggest that living to the age of 100 isn't considered a rarity. Jedi Master Eriadu for example lasted until the ROTJ period, despite being old in AOTC.

Paelleon is the exception that may prove the norm. Furthermore, Mon Mothma survived until just before the NJO period, even after being nflicted with a deadly disease.

You mistake me. I'm saying that your attempt to date life expectancy, by judging how old a person look is misleading.

Checking the databank I mentioned, Pellaeon is implied as having 5 decades of experience by shortly after ROTJ. Perhaps he was 70 to 80 years old then. He was around during the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, suggesting he lived at least another 2 or 3 decades.

None of this suggests typical lifespans of centuries. Checking the thread I linked to, 120 to 130 years seems to be the typical maximum for non-Jedi. Their medical care most likely makes a GFFA 120-year-old better off than a terrestrial 120-year-old of today, as well as increasing the number reaching that age. However, they do not have much life extension, not typically centuries or anything like that. Apparently human Jedi can live a bit longer than other humans, but Force users don't count anyway, certainly not affecting the average.

Anti-aging treatments, and by this, I mean the stuff that makes you look YOUNG all suggests stuff that will require money and constant application.

Aside from "constant application" not being needed with all techniques, the cost could be small, as implied in my earlier discussion of genetic engineering, self-replicating microscopic robots, etc.

Again, the very FACT that C3PO is able to learn and speak a new language is EXCEPTIONAL intelligence. You're mistaking INTELLIGENCE for EQ and simply saying" they're not smart because they're not smart".

Seriously, nobody watching Star Wars really concludes that droids are vastly beyond human-level intelligence and make the humans look like morons in comparison. You can observe that.

Intelligence is defined in many dimensions, not just emotional stability and decision making capability.

For a droid which must have its sentience tampered enough that the mere idea of escape is illogical enough to burn out its brain, there obviously have to be side effects. And one of them would be rational self interests, which affects decision making.

Yet, we note that R2D2 has on many occasions displayed rational thought and decision making abilities, ranging from the ROTS to BFC.

Is the most popular music composed by a droid who is considered a musical genius? Do droid generals typically vastly outsmart human generals? Do droid engineers innovate and design vastly better than human engineers?

Nothing suggests droids have orders of magnitude greater effective general brainpower than humans. As implied before, two or three orders of magnitude difference in neuron number is the difference between a rat and a human, so hyperintelligent AI would at a minimum be able to appear a super-genius.

Except your argument is absurd. One either goes by the rate of innovation or the number of innovations, its impossible to say something is better than another in this field. How will you claim that a human general, who pulls the same outflanking maneveur as a droid displays inferior tactics? What would be more pertinant would be HOW LONG it takes the droid to decide on that tactic. Blue Max ability to outsmart Xim droids by commandering them IS intelligence, because he figured it out faster than the humans. Mechis III droid modifications, IG 88 and his compatriots adaptions to computer software display GREATER intelligence, not because their innovations are better, but because they're FASTER.

This is getting repetitive. So a droid learned a language, showed human-level decision-making, or was faster at some software work. None of that changes what I keep pointing out. Droids do not display orders of magnitude greater effective general brainpower like the difference between a human and a rat. Almost anybody watching the movies or reading stories can see droids do not look like super-geniuses relative to morons when compared to humans.

The reason earth's billions of tons of plant life are limited in total area and volume is since plants depend on a combination of sunlight, air (CO2), rainfall, soil minerals, and an appropriate temperature range. Insects depend on plants for food. Those same limits do not apply to self-replicating factories.

Access to power doesn't limit self-replicationg factories? You sire, must be joking. Even a train of raw resources will require more and more dedicated infrastructure to it, thus serving to LIMIT industrial production.

If the factories didn't use fusion power, that would probably be due to using some of the astronomically powerful reactors available with GFFA technology.

ACCESS to such power, the power conduits and the source is a limiting factor.

There is no "power conduit" problem for the amount of power density needed for a self-replicating factory to replicate its mass in some number of months. As I indirectly implied, a self-replicating factory can collect a moderate amount of fuel from the hydrogen-rich atmosphere of a gas giant, then operate for up to years, moving to a fragment of a moon or planet and consuming it. Though GFFA technology also means other options, nuclear power provides up to tens of millions of times the energy density of chemical fuel. For example, each metric ton of fusion fuel releases up to 300 quadrillion joules.

Self-replicating factories do not necessarily mean any nanotech. Potentially there could be some nanotech use, but self-replicating nanorobots are merely a subset of self-replicating technologies possible. Though much more primitive and limited than what would be imagined in this case, the NASA self-replicating factory study linked to in my previous post is an illustration.

Very well. I shall assume that your self-replicationg factories uses droid labour, foundries, moulds and the like. In that case, how the fuck is it different from CIS droid manufacture and the like???!!!!???

You're arguing that DESPITE evidence to the contary, self-replicating factories don't exist because they don't create massive wealth, distributed amongst the masses. This despite the fact that the massive leap in production in the US has NOT equated to a equitable distribution of wealth appears to have escaped you. In fact, most US workers purchasing power are weaker than in the past, despite the presence of such wealth in the hands of the elite.

The very fact that a mere Queen of Naboo can comandeer an entire tower on Coruscant appears to have escaped you on the scale of wealth and its distortion on the economy.

That's equivalent to arguing that because we see the existence of US small farms, the US is not a fabulously rich nation with high industrial output.

Furthermore, 3, repeat, 3 people is able to maintain a farm that not only condense moisture for sale on an industrial basis, but grow CROPS for sale AND their own use.

3 ppl to cover what must be a large area and a huge workload.......... Possible because of droid labour and its distortion on the economy and wealth. Hiring a farmhand is more expensive than buying a droid and its maintenance, this despite the fact that a droid is approximately 1/100 the cost of a starship.

Again, this is getting repetitive. A quadrillion quintillion tons of industrial output, a quadrillion tons per capita on average, would be more noticeable. Generally wealth disparity does not mean most people having far less than a millionth of the average per capita wealth...

In such a scenario, any rich entity being merely so generous as to offer people even a millionth of the wealth could gain relative power, political and otherwise. You think a planetary queen being able to afford to stay in a giant skyscraper indicates economic output on the order of 1E36 kg? A huge number of space constructions with a combined volume up to quadrillions of times the volume of the Death Star 2 would be more like it, considering my calculations for the potential from self-replicating factories. To put that in perspective, that would be like the ability to have not some millions of populated planets but literally up to billions of times greater number of huge artificial worlds. Imagine up to quadrillions of artificial worlds each hundreds to thousands of kilometers in diameter.

I don't know if that would actually be how 1E36 kg of industrial output would be used. No doubt it would be used for more than one purpose. However, there is certainly no evidence the GFFA has remotely close to 1E36 kg of industrial output.

[Tychu]

personally i hate bioships and such.
The fact that a ship has to eat something is beyond stupidity. The fact that it has emotions is reason enough to find a more suitable and durable ship that will listen to your commands
The thing that killed FarScape for me was the season in which Moyer was pregnant. how stupid is that. Then when the rest of the series revolved around Moyer not wanting to do something or going out on a limb to save its child was even stupider.
Im glad Star Wars tech is metal and not organic

as for Biotech (medical). How advanced do you really want to get. They can clone pretty much no problem. They can fuse artificial metal limbs and hands to the bodies already organic nervous system (Luke feels pain when he is shot on his artifical hand in ROTJ).

YOu know what i just noticed. on the 2004 DVD ROTJ and the current ROTJ novel cover Lukes right hand is not in the black glove. Thats the artificial hand