Ask HN: What should we fund at YC Research?

The evolution selects for death idea is a hypothesis, but I don't' think it's very strong.

Evolution works at the level of genes. Genes that cause more copies of themselves to spread will spread. Even to the detriment of the group or the species.

An organism that lives longer will have time to have more offspring, and those offspring will carry it's longer living genes. An organism that lives shorter will have fewer offspring, and so fewer organisms will carry it's genes. Very rapidly these genes would be selected for or against.

A simple alternative explanation is just that evolution doesn't care. 90% of organisms will die of other causes long before they reach old age. Evolution will end up devoting almost all of it's resources on improving survival rates there, and none on fighting aging.

>This still sucks and if we could figure out how the brain actually worked to prevent it that would be cool, but we'd start getting into identity issues (what makes you you? how does consciousness actually work?).

Identity Isn't In Specific Atoms: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pm/identity_isnt_in_specific_atoms/

There's no reason to care about "potential trillions of descendants" who don't exist, nor is there any reason to maximize the amount of humans in the universe, etc.

The "existential risk" talk tends to assume, to start with, that some wonderful, incredibly happy and nice "intergalactic civilization" of future transhumans or posthumans will exist, unless existential risks "destroy" it "in embryo" in our near-term future. Given the incredible prior improbability of intergalactic utopias, there's basically no reason to take the thought-experiment at its word or to value a particularly improbable imagined far-future over the actually-existing present and very likely near-futures.

There are two medical conditions in dire need for an intelligent solution rather than the barbaric approaches in use today. In both of these cases we have friends and family who have had direct contact with current broken non-solutions. I'll split this into two posts so each can get it's own comment thread. Here's the other post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11002244

Strabismus/Amblyopia (lazy eye):

The current non-solution is to section eye muscles to re-align the eyes. Yes, they pop your eyeballs out of their sockets and cut (shorten) eye muscles to pull the eyes past the point of alignment in the other direction. In other words, they over-correct a little in hopes that the eyes will end-up aligned (or close enough).

This is, for lack of a better term, barbaric stone-age bullshit. And, yes, this is being practiced at places like UCLA on a daily basis. Desperate parents take their young children there and subject them to this kind of butchery.

Why is this the case? Because young children are not treatable. If you've ever dealt with a 2 to 5 year old you know it is just about impossible to get them to run through eye exercises (or any strict routine) for one minute, much less an hour.

So, "researchers" latch onto desperate parents and offer a surgical procedure most sign-up for, with the requisite exchange of a shitload of money for the work.

Children are silent victims in this scam. The surgery is a failure more often than not. The few cases that might provide results are probably corner cases. In other words, the "doctors" get lucky. In yet other cases some cosmetic results are had, yet depth perception is never created or restored. In other words, the eyes might look more aligned yet the kid never sees in 3D.

I met several adults with Strabismus. On person had seven surgeries when she was a kid. Her parents kept taking her to the butcher because, of course, they would see temporary alignment after every sectioning and kept thinking it would eventually "take".

This is disgusting to me. Children are being victimized on a daily basis and desperate parents are being swindled.

As an engineer I see this as a control system problem. The solution, surely, isn't butchery, it has to be in understanding the control system issues and seeing if there's away to re-train or correct it.

I actually tried to have this conversation with the lead researcher at UCLA about ten years ago when someone close to us was considering having their kid butchered. To say that the researcher was a smug condescending asshole doesn't quite describe the god syndrome I experienced in that room. Of course, doctors don't know the first thing about control systems. What the hell did I expect? Right?

I actually took at shot at trying to understand the problem. I read a book titled "Models of Oculomotor Control" [1] and anything else I could get my hands on. I then developed a crude biofeedback device and we tried it on her, then four year old, kid. This is when I understood just how difficult the job of having a young kid go through therapy could be. It was very hard to get him to focus on anything. And this is precisely why butchery wins out when it gives desperate parents hope.

I thought the technology had merit. I thought I saw brief glimpses of the brain saying "hey, wait a minute, what if I do this...". Yet, this effort could not be continued as his Mom was desperate to fix it and opted to go for surgery.

The kid had over-alignment due to muscle sectioning for a couple of months and the eyes diverged to their prior state within a few more months. Now, over ten years later, you wouldn't know this kid was ever tortured through such a surgical procedure. His strabismus is no different than it was prior to surgery.

It would be good to see real research on this front that focuses on oculomotor control, biofeedback, control system training and ways to encourage the development of depth perception in young kids afflicted by this condition. It isn't an easy problem, because the patient falls under the "herding cats" category.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Models-Oculomotor-Control-George-Hung/...

I suspect you're going to get hammered here but this is an incredibly important point. Aging and death forces the passing of the torch from the old generation to the new, and I think this is a crucial part of progress. A tragedy on par with death would be the rise of some oligarchical class of immortal technocrats, wielding power and influence for centuries on end.

"Full" auto-pilot. Soon, battery tech will allow us to fly light aircraft on all electric. If people could go to a mini-airport only for short takeoff and landing aircraft (STOL), and get in a 4-seater that will fly to their destination (no human pilot required), that would be pretty close to the vision of flying cars we've all been promised.