71–80 of 344 posts
The commitment is very big, my comment is very small. Whatever exists needs to be challenged continuously to keep existing. Any naive attempt to suppress all adversity forever will backfire.
Then there will be species conflicts. Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people because they'll be too different genetically.
I wish Zuckerberg and Chan the best in this.
But as much as I'm rolling my eyes at their blanket statement, the spirit of "yes we can!" does way more for science and progress than naysay of critics.
Archive.org link because JWZ dislikes HN- https://web.archive.org/web/20160818144913/https://www.jwz.o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It almost certainly won't happen, but you could have said the same thing about starting a social network that includes over a billion daily users.
That's like comparing the discovery of a new fundamental force, with the discovery that mythical dragons have been living in secret among us as our lawyers. It's true that both are unlikely, but one is ridiculous and the other merely very very challenging.
Not sure why there is a lot of negativity here. It doesn't seem that ridiculous of a goal. I think by 2100 we will have extremely powerful AI that will make fighting diseases extremely easy compared to methods available today. To be honest, it seems like an achievable goal. I wish Zuckerberg and Chan the best in this.
Right. Just like the jetpacks and lunar colonies we have easy access to now, as promised in the 1960s.
The commitment is very big, my comment is very small. Whatever exists needs to be challenged continuously to keep existing. Any naive attempt to suppress all adversity forever will backfire.
Ok, so you would rather Zuck not spend his money trying to cure diseases?
I guess I was briefly taking the donator's unicorn propaganda literally. Sorry.