And if you are a prisoner of the illusion of immutability and invincibility of aging - please read at least the popular scientific literature on this topic. I recommend Aubrey de Grey.
Yeah.... a brief look at his work indicates I lack the necessary post doctorate degree to comment on his theories. Having said that, I'm also not finding any practical experiments that prove his theories and without empirical data he has nothing. I've also found a report published by 28 leaders in the biomedical field indicating his approaches will have no practical effects, and this report was agreed with by his own foundation.
Reality is harsh, try again when either Aubrey de Grey has managed to keep a may fly alive for more than a day, a lab rat alive for a decade, or when you can hand pick an expert on biological immortality that has managed to actually halt or even slow the process of aging. Until then, biological mortality is still the most realistic approach.
Are you trying to say that the biological path may be better if you divide society into 4-5 specialized species, but i'm not sure. Because +1 leader level is worse than immortality with non-replaceable +5 leader level, achieving comparable to synthetic indicators of adaptability achievable price more serious efforts, including the construction of specialized buildings on each planet, and the use of expensive trait on the adaptability instead useful for production. The only indisputable advantage of the biological path is population growth rate.
You are incorrect for the following 2 reasons. Leaders also die from random events, so nobody lives forever, as your natural lifespan increases, the likelihood that a random event catches you increases. You reach a point where your biological leader is only slight more likely to die of old age than a synthetic. In such a scenario you need to hire a replacement leader. The Erudite hires him at level 2 or level 3 depending on government civics. The Synthetic hires him at level 1 or level 2.
Leaders have special abilities that make them more or less desirable as the game progresses. Your increased chance to find an anomaly may be great at the beginning but at some point you need your scientist to survey faster or learn faster. Your naval commander being sturdy may have been great at first, but now you really need to hit and run and you'd like a jester. Your agrarian governor was fine ruling over a planet of livestock when you conquered them, but now you really need that leadership spot to run a sector and agrarian is suddenly a wasted talent. Industrial specialization may be great at first, but at some point you're going to want materials or voidcraft. You get the idea.
While you're looking to handpick your leader from a pool based on the perfect talent, be happy to know that a erudite recruit has 1 level over the synth, and is almost as likely to die in a horrific lab fire.
achieving comparable to synthetic indicators of adaptability achievable price more serious efforts, including the construction of specialized buildings on each planet, and the use of expensive trait on the adaptability instead useful for production. The only indisputable advantage of the biological path is population growth rate.
Actually, had you paid attention you'd see you only need specialty buildings on tomb worlds if you haven't unlocked the technology that increases their habitability and completely off climate planets. But you don't settle a tomb until you have the tech that makes it viable and you don't settle an off climate planet, you put your significantly reduced cost for gene modifying to work and make your people climate compatible. And you'd see I flat out said you shouldn't bother with the habitability trait, it's an unnecessary waste of trait points and effort.
But they also have an indisputable advantage in terms of mineral production. Unless you think 30% is somehow disputably smaller than 20%
So to recap your rebuttal. In leadership and research it's a wash, the biological ascension gets a bit more versatility and a faster progression of new leaders to rank 5, but synthetics get leaders who stay at rank five on average longer. In habitability there is a slight edge to synthetics as they do not need to jump through the same hoops to plant their flags on new worlds. In mineral production the bonus goes to Organics as their proles get a 30% bonus, where as synthetics get only 20%. In population growth the advantage goes to organics. In energy development it's advantage synthetics, the 2 farmers per 20 population that Synths save on not eating can go into energy production and they easily become somewhere between 20 and 24 energy. Subtract the 20 that are eaten by synths and that's either break even or a 4 energy profit for every 20 population.
Now tell me, between leader levels, planet colonization availability, mineral production, population growth, and late game energy production, which has the greatest impact on the game? Here, I'll ask again but bold the answer.
Now tell me, between leader levels, planet colonization availability,
mineral production,
population growth, and late game energy production, which has the greatest impact on the game? That's right, mineral production and population growth. You see, mineral production in the early stages of the game fuels all FOUR of the X's in this 4X title and population growth creates the production units that builds on that expansion.
You go on to repeat the name of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, the other MIpT, adjunct professor Aubrey de Grey, as if knowing about a scientist with unproven theories makes you an expert on life extension. A bit of a heads up there, all it proves is that you've read popular fiction written 10 years ago, or more likely watched a Ted Talk 6 months ago.