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

Technology Saves the World

future.a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Technology Saves the World

#51

Post by mavhc »

bttrfl wrote: post #37
semiconduction wrote: post #14

Humanity has starved, struggled and regularly died in mass for millenia. Now the population is 100 times larger than it was a few centuries ago, and more and more people are living in a post-scarcity society. And yes, thanks to all the pioneers, entrepeneurs and geniuses that took an idea or insight into a mass market product. They are who truly deserve the credit.

What if all this is because we took a giant environmental credit that we won't be able to pay back? It's hard to argue that child mortality dropped, literacy increased and so on, but at the same time we are facing existential threats due to warming, lack of water, loss of biodiversity and so on. We are also enjoying a relatively peaceful period (despite what's happening in Syria and tens of other places) on a global…

We have been stealing from the future to pay for the present, as long as we keep stealing more and more from the future it'll be fine!

Or be forced to not cheat and invent ways to live within our means

Re: Technology Saves the World

#52

Post by mavhc »

mempko wrote: post #27
simonsarris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they got an enormous amount of VC money for years. They reached a $1 billion valuation in just two years after founding (2012), faster than Uber/Dropbox/Lyft etc did.

Ok, but ... https://seekingalpha.com/news/3609955-moderna-failed-to-disc... And Derrick Rossi's research was publicly funded which led to creation of Moderna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Rossi > Rossi based his developments on the results of Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman on mRNA. He succeeded in finding investors for his plans to transfer these findings into new medications and vaccinations by founding…

That's how it's set up to work, government does the early work because it's not profitable for a company, we all pay into that work so we have the new technology sooner.

See: the internet, railways, computers, everything.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#53

Post by the_gipsy »

jellicle wrote: post #45
klelatti wrote: post #17

> Permanently divorcing physical location from economic opportunity gives us a real shot at radically expanding the number of good jobs in the world while also dramatically improving quality of life for millions, or billions, of people. This doesn't seem consistent with what is happening in A16Z's own backyard. Either Marc knows something we don't or this is unwarranted hyperbole.

> > Permanently divorcing physical location from economic opportunity gives us a real shot at radically expanding the number of good jobs in the world while also dramatically improving quality of life for millions, or billions, of people. > This doesn't seem consistent with what is happening in A16Z's own backyard. Either Marc knows something we don't or this is unwarranted hyperbole. Well, let's run that through the…

Don’t conflate “cheaper” with “cheapest”.

Ideally, it would be the same talent, in cheaper regions now. Cut out the landlord middleman.

I know, the worker is getting less, the company is simply subsidising a cheaper home. But many workers, not all but significantly many, will prefer a better lifestyle outside of cities.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#54

Post by the_gipsy »

“Knowledge work simply kept going on” - or maybe it simply is irrelevant? We’re just shuffling papers, what really matters is on what car we spend our money on, or what chinese crap we buy off amazon.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#55

Post by bttrfl »

XorNot wrote: post #49
bttrfl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if all this is because we took a giant environmental credit that we won't be able to pay back? It's hard to argue that child mortality dropped, literacy increased and so on, but at the same time we are facing existential threats due to warming, lack of water, loss of biodiversity and so on. We are also enjoying a relatively peaceful period (despite what's happening in Syria and tens of other places) on a global…

No, let's absolutely praise it. Because the existential threats only exist because of political malfeasance. This has never been a technological problem: even the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change only really manifest because of - again - politics. Because governments won't spend to protect their own citizens, because of corruption and greed. Little has changed on that front in thousands of years.…

Technology is neither source of good nor evil. Just like a hammer ain't to blame or prise. It's about its application and how tech is developed and applied is decided based on "politics" if you want.

However, ever-evolving technology leads to globalisation and acceleration of processes. With shitty tech we can make lots of mistakes and pay small, local consequences. Shitty nails result in a shitty coffin. Shitty fridges result in an ozone hole. Our margin of error for doing the "politics" right is shrinking every day.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#56

Post by larsiusprime »

onion2k wrote: post #46
larsiusprime wrote: post #24

I love me some technology, don't get me wrong. But if the lab-leak hypothesis turns out to be correct than technology is undoubtedly the very thing that put the world in peril in the first place, as far as COVID-19 is concerned, before you even consider increased air travel and globalization encouraging/increasing the instant spread of modern pathogens.

if the lab-leak hypothesis turns out to be correct than technology is undoubtedly the very thing that put the world in peril in the first place Whatever lessons we might learn if it were to turn out that COVID is a human-made experiment are lessons we should be taking heed of even if it isn't.

Absolutely! Not to mention that we already have very strong evidence that dangerous pathogens have escaped from other labs in the past.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#57

Post by mempko »

andrewmutz wrote: post #41
mempko wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but ... https://seekingalpha.com/news/3609955-moderna-failed-to-disc... And Derrick Rossi's research was publicly funded which led to creation of Moderna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Rossi > Rossi based his developments on the results of Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman on mRNA. He succeeded in finding investors for his plans to transfer these findings into new medications and vaccinations by founding…

In the real world, both government grants and VC funding create great things. If your political views make you want to diminish the importance of either, then perhaps it's time to update those views.

I'm trying to create a more balanced view. Andreessen made a claim that is completely false.

> Moderna, a product of the American venture capital system -- Andreessen

Where is he talking about the importance of government grants?

Re: Technology Saves the World

#58

Post by mempko »

jaypeg25 wrote: post #44
mempko wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but ... https://seekingalpha.com/news/3609955-moderna-failed-to-disc... And Derrick Rossi's research was publicly funded which led to creation of Moderna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Rossi > Rossi based his developments on the results of Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman on mRNA. He succeeded in finding investors for his plans to transfer these findings into new medications and vaccinations by founding…

You're taking a pretty pessimistic view of the funding and R&D process. A good idea with initial funding by the government is useless if the VC funding doesn't bring the idea to the finish line. The government can't afford to (and shouldn't) fund every good idea to their finish line.

It's not pessimistic, just a fact of the R&D process. Public takes the risk, reward is privatized. Otherwise the VC model wouldn't work since most research doesn't fall within the horizon of a VC fund's lifetime.

Re: Technology Saves the World

#59

Post by Infinitesimus »

Swizec wrote: post #47
wangii wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

indeed. I feel it's a lot more difficult to agree with the `SV elites` (az, pg, etc.) recently, wondering if I'm too old or they live in their own rdf.

The world looks different from a throne. There was a great comment on reddit once that calculated a $50,000 car costs about the same to Jay-Z as a tank of gas does to a median person. That’s a huge difference in perspective. Someone like az, pg, etc probably sees higher daily variations in their stock portfolio than my annual salary. Imagine what life is like when $200k rounds down to “daily noise”? For me, after lot…

For anyone looking for the original comment about Jay-Z's wealth: https://reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2r8xoj/request_...

It probably costs even less now given how much his wealth has grown

Re: Technology Saves the World

#60

Post by hairytrog »

larsiusprime wrote: post #24

I love me some technology, don't get me wrong. But if the lab-leak hypothesis turns out to be correct than technology is undoubtedly the very thing that put the world in peril in the first place, as far as COVID-19 is concerned, before you even consider increased air travel and globalization encouraging/increasing the instant spread of modern pathogens.

Maybe this will play out like nuclear technologies. Incredible potential for good also means incredible potential for bad. For nuclear, the good was roughly limitless energy at very low environmental cost and low human labor. The bad was nuclear weapons material and nuclear accidents. After the accidents, the nuclear industry in advanced countries basically goes into sleep mode, maintaining existing assets, but unable to expand or grow. Perhaps the lab-leak will have the same result for biomed sciences. Accident leads to millions or tens of millions of deaths and industry must go into stasis. You might say the gain-of-function research is sufficiently differentiated from normal biomedical research that they don't get grouped together. But I doubt it. You can probably do gain-of-function in any old bio lab. The only thing stopping it is the good intentions of the users.

The effort to cause massive societal disruption and destruction is so much easier for bio based weapons than for nuclear. In nuclear, you need so many things to line up if you're building a weapon from obtaining the requisite materials, enrichment, weapon design and electronics, delivery vehicles; and so many things to go wrong if you are going to have a consequential nuclear accident. In contrast, bio weapons can be developed in a dinky lab, deployed, and then self-propagate worldwide.

Post reply on HN