6 ms·

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans

by Mezzie 5y ago

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech. Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working with' human impulses and neurology instead of 'what can the tech accomplish'? That'd be my guess.

thejackgoode 5y ago
Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises
- Mezzie 5y ago
  I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the same way we saw a boom in devs in the 90s so the talent base will expand a LOT. The expectation windows are set by investors, and I think biology has a good shot at being able to get resources/funding without having to rely too heavily on VCs or investors (think government and academic funding). Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements. I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). The main problem I think IS that we're too short sighted currently, and we'll have to correct that, so I do think long-term projects will become easier in the early 2030s.
  - thejackgoode 5y ago
    I think you have a point, I am betting on human-to-human occupations, especially psychology, gender roles being shrunk might bring some new ideas and shake the field up.
  - crabmusket 5y ago
    > Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements Why is "big pharma" not this?
    - Mezzie 5y ago
      This is a fascinating question, because my first thought was 'maybe they would be' but as I thought about it more, I don't think so for two main reasons: 1.) Geopolitics. I don't imagine this biological cultural flowering to come from the First or Developed Worlds. If I had to guess, I'd say India or Africa, because they have a ton of manufacturing going on (and therefore a bunch of practical knowledge) AND governments that both a.) don't give a shit about copyright or property law outside of their borders and b.) are incentivized to make sure it stays that way. For example, Moderna could try to bury an Indian biotech company, but how? Literally. So what if they're infringing on one of your patents in making their 'turn your eyes purple' serum? They don't care. And for buying, yes, they could, but the regulatory differences between acting in the developed versus developing world are huge, so it would be purchasing a company solely to keep the product off the market/so it isn't approved in the developed world before their own version. Okay, so they buy the company... and all the foreigners quit and start a new one. Or they don't, but they tell their friends so their friends who didn't sign an NDA do it and then hire them for something 'unrelated'. 2.) Vertical integration or lack thereof. You know how FB is particularly insidious in the Third World? How it pushes WA, for example? Good luck developing anything tech wise without being bought out or discovered when all of your communication tools are made by the people who have an interest in burying you. The tech companies have done a very good job at integrating themselves into logistics at a base level on a global scale. Pharma, on the other hand, doesn't have this advantage. If Google or Apple ARE recording all my phone calls, they aren't giving that data to Moderna. They'd rather keep it and later try to poach the medical-data business from Moderna or fund some SaaS company.
pedalpete 5y ago
This is starting to happen now, and we're working on it related to neurology and improving sleep at https://soundmind.co https://soundmind.co Cyborg always has the feeling of a severely augmented and strange human. I'm surprised by the number of people who have no interest in Neuralink, and say they wouldn't go near it. As we're seeing the mental health benefits of sometimes turning off our digital devices and focusing on ourselves, I think this will drive the future of us not being always connected, but being connected when we want to. I think what you're pointing to is correct, Augmented Humanity, rather than Augmented Reality.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  > I think what you're pointing to is correct, Augmented Humanity, rather than Augmented Reality. This is a much better way to put it. Also I love some good sleep, so thanks for the link!
- swader999 5y ago
  Who owns the OS, rootkit exploits and ransomeware attacks will get a little more scrutiny and consequential.
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    I know just enough about that shit to not want to go ANYWHERE near Neuralink or the 'Metaverse'. Which is sad because I love the idea so much. Plus I remember the Web before advertising, I don't even want to think of what they'd do with NL or the Metaverse. I can see them doing things like trigging shots of adrenaline so I feel appropriately angry viewing 'Red/Blue Team Bad' video stories.

by Mezzie 5y ago

thejackgoode 5y ago

Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises

Mezzie 5y ago
I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the same way we saw a boom in devs in the 90s so the talent base will expand a LOT. The expectation windows are set by investors, and I think biology has a good shot at being able to get resources/funding without having to rely too heavily on VCs or investors (think government and academic funding). Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements. I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). The main problem I think IS that we're too short sighted currently, and we'll have to correct that, so I do think long-term projects will become easier in the early 2030s.
- thejackgoode 5y ago
  I think you have a point, I am betting on human-to-human occupations, especially psychology, gender roles being shrunk might bring some new ideas and shake the field up.
- crabmusket 5y ago
  > Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements Why is "big pharma" not this?
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    This is a fascinating question, because my first thought was 'maybe they would be' but as I thought about it more, I don't think so for two main reasons: 1.) Geopolitics. I don't imagine this biological cultural flowering to come from the First or Developed Worlds. If I had to guess, I'd say India or Africa, because they have a ton of manufacturing going on (and therefore a bunch of practical knowledge) AND governments that both a.) don't give a shit about copyright or property law outside of their borders and b.) are incentivized to make sure it stays that way. For example, Moderna could try to bury an Indian biotech company, but how? Literally. So what if they're infringing on one of your patents in making their 'turn your eyes purple' serum? They don't care. And for buying, yes, they could, but the regulatory differences between acting in the developed versus developing world are huge, so it would be purchasing a company solely to keep the product off the market/so it isn't approved in the developed world before their own version. Okay, so they buy the company... and all the foreigners quit and start a new one. Or they don't, but they tell their friends so their friends who didn't sign an NDA do it and then hire them for something 'unrelated'. 2.) Vertical integration or lack thereof. You know how FB is particularly insidious in the Third World? How it pushes WA, for example? Good luck developing anything tech wise without being bought out or discovered when all of your communication tools are made by the people who have an interest in burying you. The tech companies have done a very good job at integrating themselves into logistics at a base level on a global scale. Pharma, on the other hand, doesn't have this advantage. If Google or Apple ARE recording all my phone calls, they aren't giving that data to Moderna. They'd rather keep it and later try to poach the medical-data business from Moderna or fund some SaaS company.

pedalpete 5y ago

This is starting to happen now, and we're working on it related to neurology and improving sleep at https://soundmind.co https://soundmind.co Cyborg always has the feeling of a severely augmented and strange human. I'm surprised by the number of people who have no interest in Neuralink, and say they wouldn't go near it. As we're seeing the mental health benefits of sometimes turning off our digital devices and focusing on ourselves, I think this will drive the future of us not being always connected, but being connected when we want to. I think what you're pointing to is correct, Augmented Humanity, rather than Augmented Reality.

Mezzie 5y ago
> I think what you're pointing to is correct, Augmented Humanity, rather than Augmented Reality. This is a much better way to put it. Also I love some good sleep, so thanks for the link!
swader999 5y ago
Who owns the OS, rootkit exploits and ransomeware attacks will get a little more scrutiny and consequential.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  I know just enough about that shit to not want to go ANYWHERE near Neuralink or the 'Metaverse'. Which is sad because I love the idea so much. Plus I remember the Web before advertising, I don't even want to think of what they'd do with NL or the Metaverse. I can see them doing things like trigging shots of adrenaline so I feel appropriately angry viewing 'Red/Blue Team Bad' video stories.