Space is inhospitable for computing machines as well, no computing machine has outlived human beings in lifespan without ship of theseus amounts of maintenance. It's a simple fact of the universe: all systems must be designed with their direct environments in mind. Lots of our technology relies heavily on the magnetosphere for example, or on the fact that the atmosphere is not made of sulfuric acid.
On the topic of biotechnology, it seems to me we are closer to engineering biological systems than we are to AGI. Bonus points, biomass is a readily available resource with which to build them.
Either way though, my core point is, we assume non living systems are more resilient, and I don't believe that that is the case.
Sure, cosmic rays and micrometeoroids are a problem for everyone. But computers can deal with much wider temperature and pressure and gravity ranges, eat energy directly, are easy to backup/restore, and don't get bored.
Are we really closer to solving longevity (and psychology), or having reliable hibernation / cold sleep etc, than we are to AGI? Maybe both are equally fantastical, but the latter at least seems to have a practical path forward.
We could potentially bioengineer more space-adapted human descendants (or "brain in a vat" / human-computer hybrids etc) but that will be politically infeasible for a long time to come.
On the topic of biotechnology, it seems to me we are closer to engineering biological systems than we are to AGI. Bonus points, biomass is a readily available resource with which to build them.
Either way though, my core point is, we assume non living systems are more resilient, and I don't believe that that is the case.