7 ms·

It's unfortunate that biotech funding also depends on the same low rate environment that tech does, because while the tech industry has mostly been spinning its

It's unfortunate that biotech funding also depends on the same low rate environment that tech does, because while the tech industry has mostly been spinning its wheels on nonsense after the iPhone (like crypto), there's real innovation in biotech.

mattigames 3y ago
The us military wastes 2.01 trillion dollars a year, any alignment between ending human suffering and capitalism is merely incidental.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > us military wastes 2.01 trillion dollars a year Do you think gene therapies are developed while the scientists are dealing with food insecurity and competing warlords?
  - mikepurvis 3y ago
    Is that what $2T a year is buying? Looking at the wars over the last twenty years, it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict This is difficult to answer. What can be shown is the post-WWII era has been unusually peaceful within the scope of the modern era of nation states. We’re coming up against the century of no great power conflicts of the Metternich Era.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The fact is that US military spending is not to prop up the military. A lot of it is basically just a make work program for civilians. Military leaders have warned for years that one of our biggest threats is our deficit and borrowing money. Every time that the military tries to close unneeded bases and get rid of weapons that aren’t needed, they are thwarted by Congress who doesn’t want to lose jobs in their district. There is a reason that military weapon makers spread out manufacturing throughout the US.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Not living in a war-torn country like Ukraine where schools and scientists are being hit by missiles? You might make a compelling argument that us defense spending hasn't helped conflict abroad, but the last military conflict of note on us soil was Pearl Harbor in World War II. A reasonable person might conclude that us defense spending has been very effective at preventing military conflicts on us soil. And maybe the case that us defense spending even increases the number of global conflicts if it reduces the chance of conflict at home. The question isn't if the US defense spending increases or decreases total conflict, but for whom it increases or decreases conflict
      - johncessna 3y ago
        The US is creating that war-torn country so that it can test it's capabilities and weaken Russia at the same time. Your point still stands though, but I don't think in the way you meant it.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think it's a valid point and the meaning is clear. If you want me to spell it out, it would be to the advantage of the US military security if every combat capable Ukrainian and Russian were dead. Ukrainian life isn't a threat as much as trivial cost. Given this priority, it should be no surprise that US military policy results in great death and destruction abroad but not at home.
        rfrey 3y ago
        Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you think Russia is a US puppet helping the US weaken Russia, I think you should check your prejudices.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Supermancho 3y ago
        > Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you think Russia is a US puppet helping the US weaken Russia, I think you should check your prejudices. The US had been supporting Ukraine before that, both by proxy and explicitly (https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/). The Russian invasion was incidental to, not a trigger to instigating, the US support of Ukraine. The over-arching behavior, of weakening Russian influence in a region, has been consistent.
    - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
      The worldwide US military presence has a suppressive effect on wars; I'm confident south-east Asia would have been in multiple wars since WW2 if it wasn't for US presence, and Russia would've tried to take back its former soviet countries if it wasn't for NATO which is mostly the US's $2T army. And I don't think the US has had to deploy its full capacity for a long time, not even Iraq / Afghanistan. That's more of a logistics issue though, they could've multiplied their forces and materials but it wouldn't be any more beneficial.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  The entire US military budget is approximately $800B. The first clause of your sentence is factually incorrect; the second is a non sequitur.
  - johncessna 3y ago
    Not sure why you're being down voted, here's the data: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function Here's what the whitehouse thinks it is, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget... (page 63)
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      I made a typo which I’ve corrected ($800M —-> $800B).
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    $800B
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      Correct, $800B, not $800M. Thank you for catching the typo. I edited the original post.
  - mattigames 3y ago
    1) That's the amount google returns when asking "What is the US military budged?", forgive me if I wrongly trusted it. 2) Non sequitur? You really believe that spending on war technology (War as in kill-humans-we-dont-like-department) is in no clear way in opposition to spending on health technology? (health as in lets-make-everything-possible-to-make-humans-not-die-department)
- NeuroCoder 3y ago
  The first Neuro lab I worked in was funded by the department of defense. Focus was the effects of traumatic brain injury and mechanisms that cause it. It wasnt 2.1 trillion in funding so I can't account for a lot of that I guess
- majormajor 3y ago
  US government military spending is all driven by central planning...
  - sacnoradhq 3y ago
    It's driven by the MIC to buy expensive shit they don't need and doesn't work like the F-35.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      I hardly think lobbying is unique to capitalism. The USSR was famous for political games to win favor with those who allocated things, just like the US military contractor system. Politics are a human issue, not a capitalism one. Saying US military spending reflects poorly on capitalism is just about the dumbest possible anti-capitalist argument. There is so much more low-hanging fruit. Start with non-centrally-managed monopolies and work your way around various nasty corporate practices from there.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> unfortunate that biotech funding also depends on the same low rate environment that tech does Maybe this is me peak Chesterton’s fencing it, but there appears to be merit to the peristalsis of exuberant optimism followed by pruning discipline. Absent the first, we wouldn’t have the science. Absent the second, the pressure to push a product diminishes.
pfisch 3y ago
Yeah ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are just a bunch of nonsense...
- mjfl 3y ago
  overly defensive. kind of proves the point.
elromulous 3y ago
Partially disagree. a lot of bio is jam packed with people pre maturely hyping mouse model success. In that way (the hype machine), it's not that different from tech.
BenFranklin100 3y ago
As someone who works in the life sciences, I will come to the defense of my colleagues working in tech. A fair amount of life science progress is driven by innovations borne in tech. For instance, deep learning, and specifically GANS, is helping transform image analysis. Also the tech industry is making it possible to process the vast amounts of data produced in the life sciences. Hats off to you guys, great work, seriously. I will say that some aspects of tech (I.e social media driven partisanship, surveillance capitalism, click-back attention stealing advertisement and ‘engagement’) is a (large) net negative, but hopefully over time we will better learn how to manage these negatives.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  I mean, older tech now, but CAT and CT scans wouldn't have been possible without the huge amounts of processing power and analysis algorithms that the tech industry came up with. One high resolution CT scan generates 350GB of raw data: https://xraylab.esci.umn.edu/frequently-asked-questions#Data https://xraylab.esci.umn.edu/frequently-asked-questions#Data
  - jiggunjer 3y ago
    CAT=CT

mattigames 3y ago

The us military wastes 2.01 trillion dollars a year, any alignment between ending human suffering and capitalism is merely incidental.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> us military wastes 2.01 trillion dollars a year Do you think gene therapies are developed while the scientists are dealing with food insecurity and competing warlords?
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  Is that what $2T a year is buying? Looking at the wars over the last twenty years, it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict This is difficult to answer. What can be shown is the post-WWII era has been unusually peaceful within the scope of the modern era of nation states. We’re coming up against the century of no great power conflicts of the Metternich Era.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      The fact is that US military spending is not to prop up the military. A lot of it is basically just a make work program for civilians. Military leaders have warned for years that one of our biggest threats is our deficit and borrowing money. Every time that the military tries to close unneeded bases and get rid of weapons that aren’t needed, they are thwarted by Congress who doesn’t want to lose jobs in their district. There is a reason that military weapon makers spread out manufacturing throughout the US.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Not living in a war-torn country like Ukraine where schools and scientists are being hit by missiles? You might make a compelling argument that us defense spending hasn't helped conflict abroad, but the last military conflict of note on us soil was Pearl Harbor in World War II. A reasonable person might conclude that us defense spending has been very effective at preventing military conflicts on us soil. And maybe the case that us defense spending even increases the number of global conflicts if it reduces the chance of conflict at home. The question isn't if the US defense spending increases or decreases total conflict, but for whom it increases or decreases conflict
    - johncessna 3y ago
      The US is creating that war-torn country so that it can test it's capabilities and weaken Russia at the same time. Your point still stands though, but I don't think in the way you meant it.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think it's a valid point and the meaning is clear. If you want me to spell it out, it would be to the advantage of the US military security if every combat capable Ukrainian and Russian were dead. Ukrainian life isn't a threat as much as trivial cost. Given this priority, it should be no surprise that US military policy results in great death and destruction abroad but not at home.
      - rfrey 3y ago
        Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you think Russia is a US puppet helping the US weaken Russia, I think you should check your prejudices.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Supermancho 3y ago
        > Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you think Russia is a US puppet helping the US weaken Russia, I think you should check your prejudices. The US had been supporting Ukraine before that, both by proxy and explicitly (https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/). The Russian invasion was incidental to, not a trigger to instigating, the US support of Ukraine. The over-arching behavior, of weakening Russian influence in a region, has been consistent.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    The worldwide US military presence has a suppressive effect on wars; I'm confident south-east Asia would have been in multiple wars since WW2 if it wasn't for US presence, and Russia would've tried to take back its former soviet countries if it wasn't for NATO which is mostly the US's $2T army. And I don't think the US has had to deploy its full capacity for a long time, not even Iraq / Afghanistan. That's more of a logistics issue though, they could've multiplied their forces and materials but it wouldn't be any more beneficial.
BenFranklin100 3y ago
The entire US military budget is approximately $800B. The first clause of your sentence is factually incorrect; the second is a non sequitur.
- johncessna 3y ago
  Not sure why you're being down voted, here's the data: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function Here's what the whitehouse thinks it is, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget... (page 63)
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    I made a typo which I’ve corrected ($800M —-> $800B).
- twoodfin 3y ago
  $800B
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    Correct, $800B, not $800M. Thank you for catching the typo. I edited the original post.
- mattigames 3y ago
  1) That's the amount google returns when asking "What is the US military budged?", forgive me if I wrongly trusted it. 2) Non sequitur? You really believe that spending on war technology (War as in kill-humans-we-dont-like-department) is in no clear way in opposition to spending on health technology? (health as in lets-make-everything-possible-to-make-humans-not-die-department)
NeuroCoder 3y ago
The first Neuro lab I worked in was funded by the department of defense. Focus was the effects of traumatic brain injury and mechanisms that cause it. It wasnt 2.1 trillion in funding so I can't account for a lot of that I guess
majormajor 3y ago
US government military spending is all driven by central planning...
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  It's driven by the MIC to buy expensive shit they don't need and doesn't work like the F-35.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    I hardly think lobbying is unique to capitalism. The USSR was famous for political games to win favor with those who allocated things, just like the US military contractor system. Politics are a human issue, not a capitalism one. Saying US military spending reflects poorly on capitalism is just about the dumbest possible anti-capitalist argument. There is so much more low-hanging fruit. Start with non-centrally-managed monopolies and work your way around various nasty corporate practices from there.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> unfortunate that biotech funding also depends on the same low rate environment that tech does Maybe this is me peak Chesterton’s fencing it, but there appears to be merit to the peristalsis of exuberant optimism followed by pruning discipline. Absent the first, we wouldn’t have the science. Absent the second, the pressure to push a product diminishes.

pfisch 3y ago

Yeah ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are just a bunch of nonsense...

mjfl 3y ago
overly defensive. kind of proves the point.

elromulous 3y ago

Partially disagree. a lot of bio is jam packed with people pre maturely hyping mouse model success. In that way (the hype machine), it's not that different from tech.

BenFranklin100 3y ago

As someone who works in the life sciences, I will come to the defense of my colleagues working in tech. A fair amount of life science progress is driven by innovations borne in tech. For instance, deep learning, and specifically GANS, is helping transform image analysis. Also the tech industry is making it possible to process the vast amounts of data produced in the life sciences. Hats off to you guys, great work, seriously. I will say that some aspects of tech (I.e social media driven partisanship, surveillance capitalism, click-back attention stealing advertisement and ‘engagement’) is a (large) net negative, but hopefully over time we will better learn how to manage these negatives.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I mean, older tech now, but CAT and CT scans wouldn't have been possible without the huge amounts of processing power and analysis algorithms that the tech industry came up with. One high resolution CT scan generates 350GB of raw data: https://xraylab.esci.umn.edu/frequently-asked-questions#Data https://xraylab.esci.umn.edu/frequently-asked-questions#Data
- jiggunjer 3y ago
  CAT=CT