Ask HN: What are the greatest discoveries in the last few years?

Post by sobbybutter » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:37 PM UTC

Protostome wrote: post #77

beat wrote: post #59

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…

We're GMOing crops long before the DNA revolution. Plants were selectively bred for certain qualities since the dawn of agriculture. None of fruits or vegetables we eat in the present (even without GMO) could be found naturally few hundred years ago. We were genetically modifying them without really knowing the mechanism. There some ecological as well as regulatory challenges. That doesn't mean GMO isn't a solid appr…

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #84

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point of this technique is, its dead simple. Identify a gene and cut it out. Or add one.

It is (compared to other available techniques, at least) dead simple to cut out or add genes, yes. Practical human therapies that rely on gene editing involve more than just gene editing (and to be viable, profitable commercial applications, they require a whole lot of regulatory steps -- trials, approvals, etc. -- once all the pieces of the process are put together.)

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #106

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #19

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.

I highly doubt cosmetic uses will be the first. The FDA approves drugs based on risk vs. safety. Having the wrong eye color is pretty low risk in terms of health. Gene editing will be used in fatal or severely disabling diseases with no other options. Even if there are severe side effects, the FDA will likely approve them.

Post by fizx » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #116

natrius wrote: post #108

Blockchains. Distributed consensus is incredibly powerful. It will allow us to rebuild our society around individuals instead of corporations and governments that formed because economic transaction costs were so high that economies of scale (and sometimes the use of force) were required to coordinate our society. All economic activity will be blockchain-mediated. It will make us wealthier and freer.

The "low costs" of bitcoin are a myth. Bitcoin transactions are extremely expensive, both financially and ecologically, it's just that those costs are currently subsidized by block rewards to miners instead of paid by consumers/end-users. If bitcoin were ever to be widely adopted, the high fees would have to be passed on to users: http://www.coindesk.com/new-study-low-bitcoin-transaction-fe... At some level, this bas…

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #110

ZenoArrow wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are hybrid seeds designed to be one use only like terminator seeds? How is the vendor lock-in structured?

Yes, many hybrid seeds are one use only. Farmers cannot save and resow the seed. They need to buy the seed each year. The seeds might not be sterile, but even then the seed would produce unreliable plants. http://www.granny-miller.com/the-difference-between-hybrid-n...