OK, sorry, just one more because it's so incredibly stupid:

"The amount of new technical information is doubling every two years..."

First off, I think that's unlikely, but even if it's true all it implies is that the amount of information available is growing faster each year. It certainly doesn't imply that:

"[thus] half of what [a student] learns in their first year will be outdated by their third year"

The original fact says nothing about new information replacing old information or about the relationship between new information and the total body of outstanding information. It's also mind-blowingly out of sync with reality. The biology I learned in my first year (and which you might learn in your first year of studying any new biotech program) hasn't changed 50% since the 1960s, let alone in two years. While new information might be being piled on faster and faster, it's being piled onto a tremendous mountain of existing material - and in most ways the new information represents just a polishing of what's already there.

I suppose it doesn't matter.. if the video gives you some sense of wonder or something that's great - but I really hate this kind of rah-rah pseudo-fact crap (and this exact kind of crap is all over in high schools right now, that I see anyway). It fosters an "everything is incredible/incomprehensible" sort of worldview that I see in a lot of very, very stupid people.

He probably never cared about biotech advancement until he realized he was going to die because of our general lackadaisical funding. Same as everybody.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.

I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.

I think that most of the costs for research are done in government labs and then the successes are just flat-out given to the drug companies.
Pharma is screwing America rotten.


You're partially right. The foundational science behind the drugs is often done at the university level, but the expense I quoted is that which is spent by pharm or biotech companies. Money spent before that level isn't really estimable. It does irk basic scientists that they don't always benefit monetarily from research that leads to these drugs, but without the company itself, the drug wouldn't be made... Try getting a 500 million dollar grant in an academic lab... Venture capitalists are far more willing to make enormous investments in risky drug development endeavors.

I should say however that some drugs DO come out of academia. In those cases, the scientists involved get the patent (along with the university); they get some cash out of that at least.

Haha. Life is so unfair. Biotech will fix it, but that's probably several decades down the road, at which point everyone will act surprised.

Perhaps Mr. Black could use his amazing little I-Phone to look up the current state of biotech research. I have a feeling he would be greatly surprised.


For example, Australian Scientists have developed a much more targeted cancer treatment that spares living tissue, uses fewer drugs (cheaper), and disarms cancer's ability to defend against anti-cancer drugs. So far the ~100% success rate in animals is somewhat promising, and they are planing human tests later in 2009.

These scientists have the potential to bring benefits to millions of people, and all they can do is wring their hands at future athletic biotech abuses... who cares. Professional athletics is already a story about genetic freaks.

^ I suppose much of this debate hinges on one's opinion of what will be possible at any given point in the future, so lets ignore the timeline for a moment.

There will come a time in the future when technology is able to accomplish any task that people do not want to do themselves. They will be safe and highly intelligent, with the ability to adapt to their environment and the tasks at hand. People will still be able to contribute to knowledge and understanding, but they won't be required for the mundane day-to-day operations of the world. I have a hard time seeing capitalism being functional (or needed) in such an environment.

Of course we don't suddenly jump from present-day into complete automation. The part I'm interested in is the transitional period, especially in the context of economics. I do agree that tech is currently creating a lot of jobs, but that will not always be the case... eventually the trend will reverse, and I don't think our current economic models can handle that. We will have to adapt.


I think the biggest question is "how fast will this happen". Some predict 200 or more years, but an increasing number believe it will happen in less than 100. Taking into account the current and near-term advances in biotech, we might just live to see it. If it really does take 200+ years then we will have plenty of time to react to changes in a positive way, but if it happens in less than 100 then we may be in for a bumpy ride at times. I don't think it will destroy the world, but I do think we'll see more frequent ups and downs in the world economy, including rises in unemployment (especially in the long term).

I second The Singularity is Near. Great book, though it isn't for people who don't like technical discussions.


On that note, I also recommend Transcend, Nine Steps to Living Well Forever. It is written by the same guy (Ray Kurzeil), along with his doctor Terry Grossman M.D. The main point of the book is to detail our most recent understanding of human health and the causes of most major health problems. Basically, it's about how to be healthy.

Of course, it is in the context of Kurzweil's predictions, so the overarching idea is that those who choose to be health now will live long enough to take advantage of upcoming developments in biotech and beyon, which will further increase health and lifespan. Eventually technology will be able to prevent age-related disease and death, so there is a good posibility that a healthy lifestyle today will get people to that point.

It's a much easier read than Singularity, so I recommend it to everyone who is interested in preventing avoidable health problems.


I'm also thinking of picking up a copy of The Neuro Revolution: How Brain Science Is Changing Our World. I've read lots of good things about this book, so I might check it out when I'm done with my current readings.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I couldn't agree more with this guy. He even talked about the evils of Greenpeace trying to stop Africa from using biotech. But that's only half of it, they are also against artificial fertilizer and pesticides. Probably responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans.
We need more rational environmentalists!


I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.

Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

TED's own YouTube embed are highly superior in speed and quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxwiVFgghE
*promote

I couldn't agree more with this guy. He even talked about the evils of Greenpeace trying to stop Africa from using biotech. But that's only half of it, they are also against artificial fertilizer and pesticides. Probably responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans.
We need more rational environmentalists!

>> ^yourhydra:
this is exactly why I am a futurist and I stand behind Kurtzweil and Michio Kaku 99% of the time, things that seem impossible are really not, and are simply just too incredible to comprehend for most people.



At least Kurzweil bases his predictions on scientific modeling. Most other people just predict what "feels" reasonable.

His predictions on what will be technologically possible at future dates are very good, but I don't put as much stock into his predictions of what will be "popular". It will be neat to see how much social resistance there is once things really start taking off (ie- once biotech matures to the point where we can really start improving intellectual functioning consistently).

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing how his movie turns out later this year.

http://singularity.com/themovie/

Starting up a biotech company to develop the promises of your research is one of the ways to potentially strike it rich in the biosciences. It's not simple though... getting a product through the FDA can take decades and massive investment capital, and most biotech start ups fail.

The company that holds the patent for the natural tanning drug Melanotan, e.g., has been advancing at a glacial pace, routinely missing self-imposed deadlines, even though their product is easily worth billions.

Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus

As with medicine, the first rule of law making should be first, do no harm. The "stimulus" bill fails this test spectacularly. Among so many other reasons to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington to oppose the stimulus, the Top 10 are:

1. The Stimulus Will Not Work

Our history is replete with examples of "stimulus" spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity--Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, "Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries." The New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Obama's stimulus package won't end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR's similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of "stimulus" spending falls for the " broken window fallacy"--the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won't see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us--the only place it can get money.

2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan's economy

Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world.

After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.

3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects

While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America's infrastructure--mainly the roads and bridges--only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like:
* $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
* $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
* $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
* $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children's Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes
* $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons
* $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts

These programs are just the 2008 version of the " midnight basketball" program that derailed Bill Clinton's attempt to ram through a "stimulus" bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began.

4. The Government Can't Afford the Stimulus

President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama's stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP.

Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn't start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets.

5. We Can't afford the Stimulus

How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend:
* $2,230 on apparel and services
* $3,595 on health care
* $4,322 on food at home
* $11,657 on shelter

6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries

If this bill were a country, it'd be the 15th largest country in world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States.

7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn't Work, Ask the USSR

If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn't. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth.

As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, "The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth."

8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?

It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn't work, and neither will an additional $825 billion.

9. This Money Doesn't Grow on Trees

And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing--that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul - probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American - robbing Paul to pay Paul.

10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea

No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal.

And this only scratches the surface, there are so many more reasons to oppose the stimulus.

To me I think both groups play a key role in human development. If you can see liberals as the guys who wants to advance as fast as possible towards a goal and you see the conservatives as trying to undersand where we are better. Then you can understand how important each group is.

Look at one of the key subjects of our time. Such cloning, liberals are more likely to say go ahead while conservatives are more likely to say don't do it. Now I think cloning there is not much risk but think about biotech in general. Sometimes I think we should be more conservative in key subjects such those and more liberal in subjects such green energy.

Such you do not want to have more power than your ability to control it.

Are you implying that anything is ethical if it benefits humankind in some way (see below)?

Embryos, cancers, and any number of processes operate on set paths. The modern world is built on the assumption that paths can be changed. Also, these embryos aren't growing into humans; they're already frozen and soon to be discarded as medical waste.

Are you implying that anything is ethical if it benefits humankind in some way (see below)?

The limits around benefiting humankind are that you can't violate individuals' rights in order to do so. No one seems to be having their rights violated here.

I want the best for everybody; my prediction that I hope can be avoided is that 30 or 50 years from now opponents of biotech are going to find themselves on the wrong side of history. The US and even Canada and Europe could conceivably ban some valuable biotech advances, but China certainly won't.

We can't stay in the 20th century forever.