Why is life so much more resilient than machines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DDTG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Machines
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the resilience of living organisms compared to machines, examining the reasons behind the differences in durability and functionality after sustaining damage. It touches on evolutionary biology, engineering design principles, and the inherent properties of biological systems versus mechanical systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while living organisms can survive significant damage, machines often fail with minimal harm, questioning the reasons behind this disparity.
  • One participant argues that the comparison is not universally applicable, suggesting that life operates with disorganized redundancy, whereas machines are designed for efficiency with minimal resources.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of redundancy in machine design, highlighting its importance in reliability, particularly in safety-critical systems.
  • It is proposed that the evolutionary history of life has led to resilience as a necessary trait, while machines, which are not self-replicating, prioritize salability and cost-effectiveness over durability.
  • A participant mentions that living organisms possess self-repair capabilities through cellular regeneration, a feature absent in most machines.
  • One participant provides an anecdote about the durability of older telephone models, suggesting that some machines can be designed to withstand significant damage.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the resilience of machines versus living organisms, with no consensus reached on the extent of their comparability or the implications of their design principles.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the definitions of resilience and damage, as well as the conditions under which machines and living organisms operate. There are unresolved questions regarding the effectiveness of redundancy in machines and the implications of evolutionary design on resilience.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying biology, engineering, evolutionary theory, and design principles in technology.

DDTG
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
This might sound like a stupid question... Was installing something in my computer last night, gpu was stuck so I pulled with too much force, it just suffered a small chip on the PCB and is now dead. Made me think, humans/animals can lose limbs, organs, even half their brains, and still live mostly normal lives, yet machines stop working at the slightest damage. Why is the case? Is it because the brutal history of evolution assured current life to be highly resilient while machines are specifically made to not endure damage? People living fairly normal lives with most of their brain missing, while computers stop working if you just break one transistor inside the cpu, I find it hard to understand.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
DDTG Global said:
Made me think, humans/animals can lose limbs, organs, even half their brains, and still live mostly normal lives, yet machines stop working at the slightest damage.
I don't think that's universally true.

 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, pinball1970, gmax137 and 2 others
DDTG Global said:
why is life so much more resilient than machines?
It's not exactly true, since your examples are not really comparable. But in general, 'life' usually works with a lot of disorganized redundancy while 'machines' are systematically thinned down to get only the desired result with the minimal resources.

But if you want to see a comparable life-like 'machinery', then you can think about the cab-drivers of a big city, for example.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 256bits
DDTG Global said:
yet machines stop working at the slightest damage.
Is the internet a machine?
One part of it can 'go down', yet that doesn't bring the whole system down.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
DDTG Global said:
it just suffered a small chip on the PCB and is now dead.
There is a whole area of machine design / technology that deals with Reliability and Redundancy. When I worked for Bell Labs on communication systems, Reliability was a paramount design requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance, such as in the case of GNSS receivers, or multi-threaded computer processing.

In many safety-critical systems, such as fly-by-wire and hydraulic systems in aircraft, some parts of the control system may be triplicated,[1] which is formally termed triple modular redundancy (TMR). An error in one component may then be out-voted by the other two. In a triply redundant system, the system has three sub components, all three of which must fail before the system fails. Since each one rarely fails, and the sub components are expected to fail independently, the probability of all three failing is calculated to be extraordinarily small; often outweighed by other risk factors, such as human error. Redundancy may also be known by the terms "majority voting systems"[2] or "voting logic".[3]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc
DDTG Global said:
Why is the case? Is it because the brutal history of evolution assured current life to be highly resilient
I think this is the answer. Machines are rarely self-replicating (at least on their own). So resilience is not a necessary trait. Instead, salability is. So human purchasing decisions determine the design, and you end up with fragile products built to a price point.
 
berkeman said:
There is a whole area of machine design / technology that deals with Reliability and Redundancy. When I worked for Bell Labs on communication systems, Reliability was a paramount design requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)
You are right about Bell Labs. Back in the 1950s my father wanted a new model phone but he was told they wouldn't change phones unless it was broken. He said thank you and hung up and started throwing the phone onto a concrete floor. It took about ten tries at maximum impact for it to finally quit functioning. I would definitely say it was quite resistant to damage.
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Living things are comprised of cells which (mostly) have some self-repair ability, and if they are not repairable, replacement cells can be grown by reproduction. Machines such as cars don't have this innate ability.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buzz Bloom

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K