As Sean Parker said, the problem is essentially hackable... (the problem is in the process). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqovaiSfJI
PS: Peter Thiel funded SENS, but clearly it won't be enough...
61–70 of 545 posts
As Sean Parker said, the problem is essentially hackable... (the problem is in the process). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqovaiSfJI
PS: Peter Thiel funded SENS, but clearly it won't be enough...
Aubrey de Grey's SENS approach to creating and maintaining a state of negligible senescence in humans. Every advanced society faces an aging population. This population will put massive strains on healthcare expenses. It could also strain the economy as the elder population collects public sector pensions and slowly depletes its savings (i.e. retirement funds). The latter effect could be mitigated by automation. Para…
Derek Lowe (who knows drug development better than any of us) made a very interesting comment recently on the cancer research "moonshot" funding presented in the State of the Union speech:
""" Trying to cure cancer in this way would be like trying to go to the moon without really knowing how rocket engines actually work, without being quite sure if Newton’s laws of motion would hold up, and with some real uncertainty in the position of the moon. """
The disparity between what we know today, and what we would have to know to "cure" cancer, is quite unfathomable to us computer hackers.
1. Health Data Comparison Analysis: What can we actually use existing health data comparison for. How much data is needed for progress?
2. OpenSpaceMining: Research into how to mine space.
3. New OS solutions for new scenarios: Research into new types of operation systems solving new kinds of problems (ex. Fleet management for drones, automated ships, planes, trucks)
4. Technology and it's effect on our economy. What does technology actually do to our economy, how can we make it a part of the economic models instead of just treating it as an externality
It's ridiculous that we spend so much money and time dealing with legal issues - both in terms of creating new laws, and in terms of enforcing those laws. Because of the delineation between those who create laws and those who enforce them, we came up with a way of encoding law so as to avoid misinterpretation errors. What if we were to automate the enforcement by programming law into a computer rather than writing down the rules in a book? How would we go about accomplishing that? Would we always struggle because computers lack "empathy"? Is there a middle way that automates 90% of the cases while retaining some human control?
Social media is quickly becoming a powerful parapolitical means for distributing resources, but it's also broken. It's subject to balkanization, waves of outrage and other attention span-related problems, and authentication is hard.
Figuring out how to improve democratic resource management for even small (<10k pop) communities would be an interesting problem.
Then maybe human gut microbiota and their links to allergies, digestive problems, and mental health.
If you open newyork times or any news website, its clear that they are stuck in the 19th century. They are organized on the basis of time rather than on topics/people/metrics. What if we have a news website that's actually a dashboard? It can
- Highlight the current metrics of the world - crime/stocks/happiness/weather, etc., - Highlight the currently active topics and people - what's happening/what did people say, etc., - Journal the world in different axis - geographical, temporal, personal, emotional, national, topical, cultural, etc., And let people see the trends in each of these dimensions.
How does such a thing look like? How does journalism evolve in that kind of a world?
If everything goes, please research a viable way to open borders globally. Not only is there tremendous economic potential energy there, but national borders are sadly one of the few openly discriminating policies out there, a major source of inequality and injustice. I would love to see progress towards that end.
Frankly, and somewhat sadly I might add, I think even if you somehow proved - proved - to a nation's voting population that they would be better off economically (in aggregate) by opening their borders, the perceived cultural and political effects of such a policy would prevent it from ever passing into law through any democratic process. Culture and politics are intertwined in a feedback loop, and it will take many more generations to have grown up in the globalised, internet and cheap-air-travel connected world, where almost every person interacts with, makes friends with, works and does business with people all over the world, for this default to finally go away - only when it does can we ever hope for an open borders policy to even be a remote possibility politically.
With that said, I think aiming directly for an open borders policy might be missing the wood for the trees slightly. Might I instead suggest that we pile research resources and efforts into things like better remote working technology, practices and protocol that might eliminate many of the problems (certainly not all - and mostly economic - but many) that an open border policy should aim to solve in the first place?
In my view the world would be a much better place if we did simply have an open-borders policy throughout much of it, but we can get a very long way towards that goal by allowing people to work from anywhere, for anyone, in a completely effective manner. Not only will this actually solve some of the problems that you talk about a lot more quickly and easily, it should have the effect of flattening out the global distribution of wealth somewhat, such that open borders actually do become more palatable politically, simply because the figurative pressure on the borders of the wealthiest nations would be reduced significantly.
In other words, open borders is not something that can ever happen all at once as a result of a policy change. No matter how much research we do into those policies, they just won't succeed politically as a step change. Rather, it's a positive feedback loop of gradual cultural and political change that has to start somewhere. In many ways of course it's already begun, because of the internet, and I believe the next stage to chase is better, really effective, remote working. I think that's where research effort towards the solving the problems you talk about would be most effectively invested.
For example, why is it that many people doubt that humanity is responsible for global warming? Some work has been done on agnotology -- the study of the spread of doubt and ignorance -- already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology And then: how can we offset the forces propagating doubt and ignorance? One of the goals of adding annotations to news with tools like https://hypothes.is/ would be to fact-check misinformation.
Energy: The cost of energy is asymptotically approaching zero particularly in solar. While free energy in itself is great, more interesting questions are: what are the limits of what we can make with it? What are the social repercussions of free energy and its corollaries? To what extent can we subsidize yeast factories -- which we know can manufacture everything from methyl halids (gasoline) to LSD -- to create other substances necessary to society?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16989-yeast-and-bacte... https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/jun/21/scienti...
Geoengineering: Let's assume we can't stop the forces creating the CO2 that is warming the planet in time to avert catastrophic ecological collapse. What can we do to remove that CO2 from the atmosphere? Let's get serious about studying man-made carbon sinks via the iron fertilization of algae blooms: