DNA can't compete with the machines (amazon post)

Electrical motors are about 1,000 times more efficient per energy and capital expense than muscle. Computers are about 10 million times more efficient per energy and capital expense than brains, if the task to be performed can be programmed. The goal of evolution seems to be to utilize available energy and matter sources to create copies of the machine(s) that do the "utilization". This is based on the physics "principle of minimum total potential energy" (see wiki) and I do not know why evolution theorists have not identified this as the "meaning of life" ....i.e. simply following physics. DNA-based machines have been the dominant form of "excess energy extraction" for most of Earth's history, but clearly something new is a-foot. Since 10% of all humans that have ever lived are alive today, statistics indicates we should not be shocked if we are in the midst of humanity's biggest and final days. I'm referring to the "anthropic principle" and "Doomsday Argument". Silicon solar cells are about 100 times more efficient than plants at capturing sunlight energy, and a world covered with their blackness would increase global warming which increases wind speeds for even more energy-capture from wind turbines. DNA is water-based and operating at ambient temperatures and pressures, but our economic system now has access to much higher temperatures and pressures to smelt silicon and other metals, create super-strong carbon-carbon bonds like nanotubes (which are functionally superior in every replicator-needed way when compared to the C-H bonds of organics), and many other things. DNA needs to move ions to create electrical impulses while metals can carry the influence with electrons which weigh thousands of times less. This is the basis of DNA's inability to compete our machines when it comes to capturing photons for energy, utilize that energy to move matter, and to think quickly in how to do it all in the most efficient way. If we want to improve humanity's fate during this transition, I recommend a world-wide economy that we can all agree on that issues more money only to societies that increase "happiness per median person" and to starve societies out of the economic system via currency restriction (cessation of loans and an increase in taxes like duties) that try to devalue their own population (and thereby everyone else if their is free trade) by over-stressed work conditions caused by an EXCESS of machine-intelligent workers who are blind to the negative consequences of their pain and thoughtless competition AGAINST the rest of humanity, in pursuit of cheaper "things" that make everyone's life more costly (the free market under basic rule of law, especially with free trade, optimizes marketplace transactions but only at the expense of the entire system even if most tragedy of the commons are taken into account). I am not advocating a restriction on education or work, but they should be done only for fun and in pursuit of fun. We've had 1,000 times more technology and 30 times more energy per person than we did 100 years ago, and yet we have had maybe only a 10x factor improvement in quality of life. If we were COOPERATING and a little more intelligent, we should have control of these machines and utopia should already be here. But no, blind evolution is the heaviest hand at work here, going under the names of democracy and free markets. Even the most technologically-advanced countries like the miraculous South Korea do not indicate the future is looking good: South Korea has the highest young-adult suicide and alcohol consumption in the world. This is the fate of the world thanks to free trade and blind competition that seeks only to raise GDP. A "real" and "productive" GDP per median person is the goal we should seek while using a fixed-quantity (crypto) currency, although "happiness" would be a lot better than GDP because our material wealth per median person is already high and happiness seems so distant to so many.