4 ms·

This talk feels like it came from about a decade ago. That's when techno-idealism seems to have reach it's peak. It's out of touch to not talk about what has t

This talk feels like it came from about a decade ago. That's when techno-idealism seems to have reach it's peak. It's out of touch to not talk about what has transpired since then in this space. It turns out media/social/economic technology can shape our world a lot faster than can the technologies grounded real things. Arguably it has been for the negative recently. The question is whether we can somehow get a handle on these abstract organizational technologies to better organize our world and provide a better quantity and quality of life to the humans that inhabit it. It's not the real-world star-trek tech that will make or break humans. We don't need them to be happy though we'll get them anyway if the precondition to better organization is met. Counter-intuitively, the focus on 'real things' tech might be a way to provide optimism in a way that can help build the blocks of grappling the more impactful abstract organizational technologies that threaten us. Here could be the seedlings of ideological meaning and purpose, largely missing now, that could help guide us to more healthy applications of our abstract organizational technologies.

dsign 4y ago
> It turns out media/social/economic technology can shape our world a lot faster than can the technologies grounded real things. Arguably it has been for the negative recently. Yeah, it's not a technology issue anymore, or a problem of progress. It's a problem of we mauling each other with social media.
randcraw 4y ago
> Believe it or not, we may also soon be able to cure practically every disease, including cancer... Only someone totally oblivious to the limitations of doing science in the real world could claim this. I work for a big pharma whose major product is cancer therapy. Despite some progress, a cure for cancer remains unimaginable on any timeline. The author's problem isn't linear vs exponential thinking. It's with fantasy.
- transfire 4y ago
  Using the word “therapy” is spot on. Even if we could cure cancer, we won’t. Cures are not profitable. On going therapy is.
  - kulahan 4y ago
    This is the weirdest conspiracy theory I've ever seen. You could charge 10x the cost of therapy for a single pill that cures cancer and people would pay it, even with INSANE side effects. It's not even a question about how much more profitable a cure would be vs therapy. Plus, it's not one of those diseases like a bacterial or viral infections where you clear it out and it's gone. It could pop back up the next day if you're unlucky, so they don't actually lose any potential customers by curing some.
  - Gatsky 4y ago
    My car had a flat battery once. The repair service came by and the guy asked me what I do while he was replacing it. I said I worked in cancer research/healthcare. Without hesitation he said to me: "What do you think about the idea that there is already a cure for cancer, but it is being kept secret because there is more money to be made in treating it?" It occurred to me that it was much, much more likely that superior longlasting battery technology had been invented but was being kept secret because it was more profitable to keep selling batteries. But I didn't say that. There is absolutely zero chance that a 'cure for cancer' is sitting in the locked bottom drawer of a filing cabinet somewhere.
- Gatsky 4y ago
  Although I share your skepticism of this person's statements, I wouldn't describe a cure as 'unimaginable on any timeline'. One plausible approach to 'curing cancer' would involve detecting very small populations of malignant cells and eliminiating them before clinically significant disease develops. This would be a form of 'active prevention' or 'interception' as the nascent field likes to call it. It isn't in the same category as inventing time travel or making people immortal - the rough elements to achieve interception are already available in the form of cellular therapies, albeit still very crude. Maybe it won't work well enough, or be too expensive, but I think it is at least imaginable. On the other hand, curing everyone after they present with clinically evident cancer is likely to remain out of reach.

dsign 4y ago

> It turns out media/social/economic technology can shape our world a lot faster than can the technologies grounded real things. Arguably it has been for the negative recently. Yeah, it's not a technology issue anymore, or a problem of progress. It's a problem of we mauling each other with social media.

randcraw 4y ago

> Believe it or not, we may also soon be able to cure practically every disease, including cancer... Only someone totally oblivious to the limitations of doing science in the real world could claim this. I work for a big pharma whose major product is cancer therapy. Despite some progress, a cure for cancer remains unimaginable on any timeline. The author's problem isn't linear vs exponential thinking. It's with fantasy.

transfire 4y ago
Using the word “therapy” is spot on. Even if we could cure cancer, we won’t. Cures are not profitable. On going therapy is.
- kulahan 4y ago
  This is the weirdest conspiracy theory I've ever seen. You could charge 10x the cost of therapy for a single pill that cures cancer and people would pay it, even with INSANE side effects. It's not even a question about how much more profitable a cure would be vs therapy. Plus, it's not one of those diseases like a bacterial or viral infections where you clear it out and it's gone. It could pop back up the next day if you're unlucky, so they don't actually lose any potential customers by curing some.
- Gatsky 4y ago
  My car had a flat battery once. The repair service came by and the guy asked me what I do while he was replacing it. I said I worked in cancer research/healthcare. Without hesitation he said to me: "What do you think about the idea that there is already a cure for cancer, but it is being kept secret because there is more money to be made in treating it?" It occurred to me that it was much, much more likely that superior longlasting battery technology had been invented but was being kept secret because it was more profitable to keep selling batteries. But I didn't say that. There is absolutely zero chance that a 'cure for cancer' is sitting in the locked bottom drawer of a filing cabinet somewhere.
Gatsky 4y ago
Although I share your skepticism of this person's statements, I wouldn't describe a cure as 'unimaginable on any timeline'. One plausible approach to 'curing cancer' would involve detecting very small populations of malignant cells and eliminiating them before clinically significant disease develops. This would be a form of 'active prevention' or 'interception' as the nascent field likes to call it. It isn't in the same category as inventing time travel or making people immortal - the rough elements to achieve interception are already available in the form of cellular therapies, albeit still very crude. Maybe it won't work well enough, or be too expensive, but I think it is at least imaginable. On the other hand, curing everyone after they present with clinically evident cancer is likely to remain out of reach.