Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#51

Post by zzzzzzzza »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #43
zzzzzzzza wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

neither income nor consumption should be taxed, instead, consider taxing that which we do not produce via the work of our own hands, such as land value (which ultimately comes from nature/the productivity of the surrounding community).

Consumption should very much be taxed considering it is the simplest way to claw back all the environmental externalities in an ever polluted world with no one willing to take responsibility.

if you really want to do that levy a carbon tax or a packaging tax or something more direct

a consumption tax would also penalize transactions that might decrease environmental impact e.g. solar panels, or of tools used in the construction of a composting toilet, those being easy, obvious examples.

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#52

Post by paulcole »

TomMarius wrote: post #50
paulcole wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shredding a piece of paper is a physical process and that’s a tough one to reverse without a lot of scotch tape and a lot of patience. And in the end it’s still not the same piece of paper you started with.

I never said it is easy. Even you do not believe it's entirely impossible, right? Let's wait 100 years and see. I'm fairly positive I'll be still alive and so might you.

Yes, I believe it is entirely impossible. If I am somehow wrong and it is possible it’s only going to accelerate society’s descent into a true sci-if style dystopia.

I hope to god I am not alive in 100 years. The earth is going to be absolute shit by then.

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#53

Post by [deleted] »

paulcole wrote: post #52
TomMarius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it is easy. Even you do not believe it's entirely impossible, right? Let's wait 100 years and see. I'm fairly positive I'll be still alive and so might you.

Yes, I believe it is entirely impossible. If I am somehow wrong and it is possible it’s only going to accelerate society’s descent into a true sci-if style dystopia. I hope to god I am not alive in 100 years. The earth is going to be absolute shit by then.

[deleted]

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#54

Post by TomMarius »

paulcole wrote: post #52
TomMarius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it is easy. Even you do not believe it's entirely impossible, right? Let's wait 100 years and see. I'm fairly positive I'll be still alive and so might you.

Yes, I believe it is entirely impossible. If I am somehow wrong and it is possible it’s only going to accelerate society’s descent into a true sci-if style dystopia. I hope to god I am not alive in 100 years. The earth is going to be absolute shit by then.

Hmm. Why do you think so? Wouldn't such stance among you and your peers actually perform as a self-fulfilling prophecy and why not do something about it?

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#55

Post by varelse »

archey1 wrote: post #32
r00fus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any stronger taxation scheme to make the rich pay their share is probably fine. I personally prefer a small financial transaction tax.

In the United States: The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes. The top 1% was 1.4 million returns in 2016. The top 50% is 140.9 million returns. How much is "fair"? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...

So I agree if a 1 percenter is paying 37.3% on their income, they are paying enough.

But that's not how it works for the top of that tier once you're living primarily off complicated capital gains and financial instruments, and it's disingenuous IMO to lump this all together.

Even my conservative (mostly) tax-hating friends are not happy seeing occasional individuals pay 5% or less, which they do, through a variety of tax loopholes and shelters. And because of this, the richest Americans, the top 0.001%, on average, pay at a lower rate than the rest of the 1%.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2018/03/01/0-...

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#56

Post by paulcole »

TomMarius wrote: post #54
paulcole wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I believe it is entirely impossible. If I am somehow wrong and it is possible it’s only going to accelerate society’s descent into a true sci-if style dystopia. I hope to god I am not alive in 100 years. The earth is going to be absolute shit by then.

Hmm. Why do you think so? Wouldn't such stance among you and your peers actually perform as a self-fulfilling prophecy and why not do something about it?

There’s no need to do anything about anything. I mean just look at the world. It’s obvious that there’s no reversing global warming. We just like our modern lives too much to make any significant sacrifices. There are also too many people as it is so we’re just going to keep ratcheting that number up by helping people live longer with this miracle anti-aging treatment?

I have 0 interest in living longer than is “natural.” Honestly I don’t even want to live that long! I mean what’s the point, live longer to just barely keep getting by and keep working as long as possible?

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#57

Post by TomMarius »

paulcole wrote: post #56
TomMarius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Why do you think so? Wouldn't such stance among you and your peers actually perform as a self-fulfilling prophecy and why not do something about it?

There’s no need to do anything about anything. I mean just look at the world. It’s obvious that there’s no reversing global warming. We just like our modern lives too much to make any significant sacrifices. There are also too many people as it is so we’re just going to keep ratcheting that number up by helping people live longer with this miracle anti-aging treatment? I have 0 interest in living longer than is “natu…

What is the point? How many people have you talked today? Everyone outside has an interesting story to share. The world is a fascinating place that should never cease to amaze you.

Honestly, IMHO your stance borders with depression, please get that checked.

For example, we could continue development of nuclear technology and solar arrays. Both of these technologies are guaranteed to be a success (the principle is proven) and offer solutions to most of our energy-related problems. We need to push harder! And I'm sure we can do it. Cultured meat and vertical farming is going to help solving our environmental crisis and will free significant space for new and old population.

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#58

Post by ajmarcic »

toasterlovin wrote: post #40
mrmonkeyman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason people see aging as an illness, some unfortunate byproduct of natural processes. It is not. It is tuned to pefection. You are _made_ to die, it is builtin, it is a feature. Notice how from 0 to 20 you don't "age", you just get stronger and better. How? Some species are considered young in their 40s. You consume enough nutrients and energy to constantly fix yourself. You won't. Why? You need to die for…

We have not evolved to die. Rather we have not had enough selection pressure to evolve ways to make us live longer. Big difference.

Elders' need for care may have burdened the success of their living descendants. In this sense we may have evolved to die.

A counterargument is that past generations lived too rarely to the point of natural death ("Intrinsic senescence") to experience selective pressure. I feel the burden of proof is in showing this.

An interesting discussion is whether or how an encoded trait that's negatively selected for is different than one that was never factored into the equation.

Re: The Maker of Gore-Tex Is Experimenting With an Artificial Cornea

#59

Post by r00fus »

archey1 wrote: post #32
r00fus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any stronger taxation scheme to make the rich pay their share is probably fine. I personally prefer a small financial transaction tax.

In the United States: The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes. The top 1% was 1.4 million returns in 2016. The top 50% is 140.9 million returns. How much is "fair"? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...

I said I prefer a financial transaction tax. That is not an income tax, but something that taxes (at a reasonable rate) the churn in our stock markets. It greatly dissuades front-running and HFT.

It hits the corporates and rich where they actually care (passive gains), while not increasing the tax load of anyone's income (active renumeration).

Post reply on HN