Well I have seen advances on soft robotics and robotics in general and many of these breakthroughts include biomimetism or bionics which is a subarea of robotics that attempt to create machines that emulate biological functions using inorganic and nonbiological materials.

Of course some biological functions seems unnecessary for a robot albeit it is possible ( they would help a robot to pass as a living breathing person despite depending on how artifitial their skin look it would give them away) like breathing, digestion(their energy could come from power cells though eating food is fun and have eotional aspects), even a circulatory system is possible but seems superflous because robots could have a wiring/ advanced cable and computing system that could emulate an endocryne system using computer instructions/codes or energy pulses of different frequencies and potencies that could serve as artifitial hormones and help them to achieve emotions and sex drive. However I don't thik it is impossible for robots someday emulate living organisms chemically in the sense that they would have a technology that would allow them to produce chemicals in the same way that our cells do. Organisms can repair themselves and robots could have a nanobots system that would repair them at molecular lewvels and the robots themselves could be made of self healing/maintaining materials. I have read a news about that.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ VTC because the help center states, "To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question." This is asking for pure speculation. Worse, it's intrinsically uneducated speculation. Had someone in the 1500s asked whether or not today's factory automation was possible they would have been burned as a witch or laughed to scorn. "Never" is a very strong word for scientists. It's usually wrong. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 8, 2022 at 18:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You need to define what you mean by robotics to avoid answers like one of those below, otherwise all you're going to get is opinions based on violently differing opinions of what the word robotics means in the context of this question, with differing opinions of what constitutes a biological function and differing opinions of at what point the requirement of replication is adequately fulfilled .. so .. opinions, based on opinions, based on other opinions, with additional opinions thrown in .. is probably impossible to clarify this question so answers won't be pure opinion so I am going to VTC. $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    Aug 8, 2022 at 19:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Agree with both comments and I also agree this question can be improved. What if you put singular "function" instead of plural "functions" in the title, to make it less open ended? At least there could be a best answer.. and I agree with Pelinore, please, take some time to think over your robotics and tech level, so we know what "robots" we are talking about. $\endgroup$
    – Goodies
    Aug 8, 2022 at 20:09

2 Answers 2


There is nothing that can't be done by sufficiently advanced robotics, because humans are robots. The only difference is that humans were designed by trial and error, not by intelligent designers.

If you ask what might be different between advanced robots and humans: lots of stuff on the inside, and some on the outside. Even if humanity has the ability to make perfect artificial humans, we won't want to - humans are inefficient compared to what we could make! None of this inside-out eyeball business. If you want a Voight-Kampff test for robots, just poke one and see whether it leaks blood or hydraulic fluid. No sane robot designer would make one with blood. Although hydraulic fluid designers might copy a few useful features from blood (like the ability to clot small leaks!), it's not going to be the same.



Your limitations are only defined by your level of technology. If your only restriction is to what is physically possible, then anything biology can achieve, robots can achieve, because they operate under the same laws of physics. Cellular processes? Artificial cells. Cognitive functions? Artificial brains.

The real issue here is that our definition of "robot" is blurry, because we haven't yet reached the point where artificial life can mimic advanced biological processes. But in a world where that point has come and gone, "robot" would be a near-meaningless term. If a robot is made of biological compounds, is it artificial or biological? If a robot makes another robot out of human cells, is that a robot or a human?


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .