61–70 of 241 posts
This sounds more like an AskReddit post than AskHN... but I'd say printable organs, smaller and smaller computer chips, commercialization of space flight, possible warp drive tech(may get us there in 100+ years, lol not expecting anything soon).. anti-aging (expected to double or triple life expectancy by 2050.) etc...
> AskReddit post than AskHN What's the difference, apart from the quality of answers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would first want to see people accept GMO crops. Then I'll be willing to think of people going to the doctor to change their eye color.
The problem with GMO is that it's basically a vendor lock-in scheme for agribusiness giants. It's not a good engineering solution to the real food problems we face. Of course, the DONT EAT THE SCIENCE OR IT WILL GIVE YOU THE CANCER political nonsense is wrong. That doesn't let GMO off the hook, though. The problem it attempts to solve, on the surface, is increasing the productivity of monocropping. But productivity i…
Foods have been modified to stay fresher and be more nutritious. But you don't see them in stores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely the first (profitable) applications will be: changing eye color, hair color, losing fat, changing height, changing skin tone. Billions in each market.
More likely, the first profitable applications will not have anything to do with editing the human genome, as bad been the case for every other technique useful for genetic engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with GMO is that it's basically a vendor lock-in scheme for agribusiness giants. It's not a good engineering solution to the real food problems we face. Of course, the DONT EAT THE SCIENCE OR IT WILL GIVE YOU THE CANCER political nonsense is wrong. That doesn't let GMO off the hook, though. The problem it attempts to solve, on the surface, is increasing the productivity of monocropping. But productivity i…
Racing to the bottom on price isn't good for you because you have access to lots of food at prices you can easily afford. For a great many people, more and cheaper food means they can actually afford to get enough to eat. Foods have been modified to stay fresher and be more nutritious. But you don't see them in stores.
That said, the cost improvements in food aren't such a big impact on real hunger. When people are too broke to eat, making food half as expensive really doesn't have that much impact. And much of the savings-per-calorie relative to fresh food get factored into profits.
Food deserts are a huge problem in this country - places where there is no access to fresh food. They don't happen because junk food is cheap, but rather because it's stable. Fresh food can be just as cheap, if you can keep it flowing.
CRISPR for gene editing: "Since 2013, the CRISPR/Cas system has been used for gene editing (adding, disrupting or changing the sequence of specific genes) and gene regulation in species throughout the tree of life. By delivering the Cas9 protein and appropriate guide RNAs into a cell, the organism's genome can be cut at any desired location." (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR ) Edit: Hear a recent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the first I've come across gene drives and gene drive escape. It's every bad movie about genetic engineering come to life, and just as scary.
It's not so bad if you know some evolutionary biology. Most of these things have huge fitness costs (e.g. genes that render a mosquito sterile have a fitness of zero), so the possibility of escape is less than the chance of the sun turning into a pumpkin.
I'd say that in terms of what we are able to do next, Graphene wins by a long way. Graphene is remarkable stuff, literally. I'd say in terms of impact on philosophy, religion and way of life, the large number of planets we're discovering.
I fear the graphene will fall by the wayside due to legal and social pressure. News sources have already pointed out that it is significantly more dangerous, if inhaled, than asbestos; another material this is insanely useful for a number of applications but is effectively blackballed as a engineer-able material. Another example is nuclear energy. Clean, abundant, and extremely safe. The fear of radiation exposer has…
The "fear of radiation" is perhaps the least important problem (with bigger ones including cost, centralization, waste disposal and environmental issues), yet the only problem some proponents of the technology wants to discuss, perhaps with the implication that if we treat everyone else as stupid they will go away. Perhaps after so many years it is time to reevaluate that strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely, the first profitable applications will not have anything to do with editing the human genome, as bad been the case for every other technique useful for genetic engineering.
Its simple to do; there are billions sitting on the table. Somebody will do it, somewhere.
CRISPR for gene editing: "Since 2013, the CRISPR/Cas system has been used for gene editing (adding, disrupting or changing the sequence of specific genes) and gene regulation in species throughout the tree of life. By delivering the Cas9 protein and appropriate guide RNAs into a cell, the organism's genome can be cut at any desired location." (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR ) Edit: Hear a recent…
Truly extraordinary stuff. But does anyone else lie awake at night wondering why we can do amazing stuff like this yet can't provide everyone clean drinking water or enough protein to eat?